|
Music tastes and wider tastes (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
The only correlation that exists between music and other appetites is that experience shall always indicate a sense of exposure and breadth to someone's tastes. |
I disagree, though. As an example: imagine someone who starts out listening to fairly straightforward dance music, but through one of the many common paths falls in love with IDM. Through extended exposure they become acclimatised, accustomed and perhaps even expectant of music that is unpredictable and unconventional, music that breaks the rules. What's to stop them transferring these tastes into other areas? They will probably become more tolerant and even fond of experimental narratives or visual art. It could well shape their tastes in other genres, because their attitude towards broad and universal characteristics such as conventionality and experimentalism has developed in one particular sphere.
It's when you attach this kind of thinking to the many other permutations of culture, personal experience and exposure, social background and so on that you can find common binding characteristics in a person's taste without that taste being something pre-defined by contextual or genetic conditions. It doesn't have to end with their artistic tastes either. Their methods of thinking at work, at school or at home can all play their part. |
|
|
| Leniu |
I see only one major division between all sorts of music:
1. One where rhytm predominates.(Hiphop,Africana,House,etc.)
2. One where melody predominates.(Classical,Rock,Trance,etc.)
It appears to me that some people have the "skill" to appreciate melodic music whereas others don't. After exposing a person to only about 10 songs and having them judge them, I can tell pretty accurately how "deaf" they are to melody.
Generally, people who appreciate melody also appreciate rhytm, although there are some exceptions. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Really?! That's quite a talent! Tell us more. |
|
|
| Leniu |
| I can tell you dont posses the intelligence neccesary to hear the difference between the sound of your 4th chin hitting ur manboobs from mozart's don giovanni. Am I gifted, ? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Well you're special, that's almost gifted. |
|
|
| Lews |
| Keep this civil, eh. This thread has some good thoughts and ideas in it, let's not ruin it now. |
|
|
| couch-potato |
| quote: | Originally posted by stevö
i forgot where i read about this, but, from what i understand there are patterns (especially in nature) that, for whatever reason, are just more appealing to the eye, ear, or mouth. for example, visually, things that have "balance" are just pleasing to the eye. we dont know why, they just do! its just one of those funny mysterious things about the universe. |
It's a survival mechanism. Our brains developing the ability to read symmetry, & thus be able to tell when a friend or predator is looking at us, helped us evolved into what we are today. Faces are the best example - all it takes it two dots & a lower dot and we can easily imagine it talking to us.
Humans are natural pattern-recognizing machines, try observing two events or ideas & not form a logical link between the two into sense or nonsense - it's hardwired into us.
I think this underlying appreciation for symmetry works for sounds as well, specifically music, since it's just organized sound :p |
|
|
| stevö |
| quote: | Originally posted by couch-potato
I think this underlying appreciation for symmetry works for sounds as well, specifically music, since it's just organized sound :p |
oh definitely. not even music but just sound by itself. notes, or frequencies, go well together when they are in harmony. theres a math formula to scales, forgot what it is but it has something to do with Pi and also something to do with a third of a third of a third and a formula that represents much of what you see in nature.
this totally bypasses taste, because everyone likes notes that are in harmony, regardless of race or upbringing.
i think the problem is when dance music producers try to get too clever and reinvent the wheel and make unbalanced music with annoying frequencies. Or they try to create the allure of the music being esoteric, or "underground". Music made by elitists for elitists. the more specific the agenda the more likely the music will fall on deaf ears.
it was always my understanding how this whole repetitive dance music phenomenon started was because it was intended to make music to please the most people as possible, bypassing race, language, upbringing, etc. so they made music with a simple beat that anyone could dance to, took out all the words so anyone of any language could understand, and because it was for a party they made it primarily positive sounding. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
| mmm peperoni |
|
|
| Darkarbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Leniu
I see only one major division between all sorts of music:
1. One where rhytm predominates.(Hiphop,Africana,House,etc.)
2. One where melody predominates.(Classical,Rock,Trance,etc.) |
Depends on what kind of house. Electro house isn't about the ryhthmn as far as I know.
and there's plenty of rock that is about rythmn. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I can't, for instance, imagine someone who has generally highbrow tastes, reads Proust, watches Bergman movies, likes abstract visual art and then listens to happy hardcore |
Hello there  |
|
|
| vinnie97 |
| I've always been the introverted outcast type...and from a young age sought out music that was off-the-beaten path, starting with that "easy listening" genre (think elevator music...not sure what I heard in it at the time, lol) and following through with experimental jazz, hip hop, electronic and alt-rock in the early 90s in the formative years. I suppose it follows that I can appreciate artsy fartsy movies to an extent and tend to detest total bottom-barrel vacuous Hollywood fodder...at the same time, I don't mind occasionally noncerebral entertainment as long as it is not asinine on every level, and I can appreciate the occasional well-crafted pop tune. Call it a bit of both worlds. Last book read was Huxley's Brave New World, so file that under the former (pretentious). ;) |
|
|
|
|
