Taste?

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 09:47 PM

So, just a little philosophical exercise here:

Few people disagree that when it comes to most things, there are different levels of taste, from the "low" to the "refined."

Think about food. Sometimes McDonald's hits the spot in a pinch, but few people would argue that it beats filet mignon. Both provide nourishment, but arguably at different levels of quality (and nutrition). There's nothing wrong with loving fast food (in moderation), even liking it more than filet mignon, but clearly there is a difference in how refined one's palate is. If you watch cooking competitions on TV, chefs will often be criticized for their taste level - i.e. cooking a hamburger for a high-end event.

It certainly applies to art as well. Cartoonish or more "popular" art work can be fun, but no one is going to say that a Precious Moments figurine has more value or cultural significance than a classical painting. There is a difference between liking art because it's "pretty" and appreciating technique, message, and the abstract ideas behind modern art.

Fashion is another area where this applies. Certainly jeans and a tshirt has it's place, but no one is going to say it's more elegant than a cocktail dress or tuxedo. A sweat suit may be great for jogging, but it's not considered "professional" enough for a formal job interview. There are more and more shows aimed at bringing those with "low" fashion taste up to a higher level of sophistication, such as What Not To Wear and Tim Gunn's Guide to Fashion.

So, if we can accept varying taste levels in these realms - none being necessarily "superior" or "inferior" but just different - then why is it so hard for people to stomach when it applies to music?

I have classical training in voice and have sung in highly competitive choirs. Clearly in national competition, the judges have criteria for evaluating quality of performance. No one debates whether or not it is fair to judge song selection, vocal tone, etc.

Much like cooking, art, and fashion, music is something you can study and get an advanced degree in. Clearly there are different levels of music knowledge based on experience and education. Just as one gets better at cooking the more they do it, one knows more about music the more they listen to and learn about it.

Just as I wouldn't judge someone's character because they only ate McDonalds, considered Walt Disney their favorite artist, and wore a fanny pack and spandex shorts every day, I don't automatically judge character based on music taste. But if that person claimed that McDonalds was a four star restaurant, Mickey Mouse was high art, and that fanny packs and spandex were the height of fashion and sophistication - then I might question their taste level and maybe self awareness.

Of course there is subjectivism involved in all aesthetic evaluation, but I think it only goes so far before you bump up against some objective criteria.

I'm not here to dictate what music is good or bad, I'm just wondering why so many people take immediate offense when that question is even posed. So what does everyone think?

Graveyard.Crow · 09-24-2007, 10:25 PM

I agree. Completely...

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graveyard.Crow

I agree. Completely...

Wait...what? Haven't you been ranting nonstop about how people shouldn't be judged by what they listen to and how they evaluate/label it?

raggedyanne · 09-24-2007, 10:35 PM

Because music is what describes a person inside. You can have a fanny pack wearing MickyD's eating disneyland-goer who has a secret appreciation for Wagner. That love for Wagner is what defines them more than their outward appearance, which acts only as their shield. A person builds up a facade that allows them to fit in with a specific group while their true taste in music can define them as something completely different. When people open up enough to share their music, they don't take kindly to critisizm. Sorry if I didn't correctly address your inquiry.

Graveyard.Crow · 09-24-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

Wait...what? Haven't you been ranting nonstop about how people shouldn't be judged by what they listen to and how they evaluate/label it?

Please stop will you?

raggedyanne · 09-24-2007, 10:37 PM

Can we get back to the original discussion. Go flame somewhere else; all of you.

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

A person builds up a facade that allows them to fit in with a specific group while their true taste in music can define them as something completely different. When people open up enough to share their music, they don't take kindly to critisizm. Sorry if I didn't correctly address your inquiry.

So, if a person with a Ph.D. in Engineering truly related to the 'music' of Paris Hilton, that would define them more than their intellect?

Personally I think it's incredibly one-dimensional to exclusively define oneself by one's music taste, but perhaps that is the problem - if it's all you have, of course you're going to be defensive about it.

Graveyard.Crow · 09-24-2007, 10:40 PM

This IS discussion. Not everything has to be peaceful. Sometimes people disagree, it's not the end of the world and shouldn't be feared.

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graveyard.Crow

Please stop will you?

Seriously, though - what I just posted is the opposite of what you seem to have been saying lately, and I'm genuinely confused about whether I've just been misinterpreting you or if you've reversed positions or what.

Draconysius · 09-24-2007, 11:02 PM

I know what you're saying. In my opinion, these associations, as for this music is more genuine and intelligent than that music, are fine as long as you separate music and people. A good friend of mine loves Evanescence, a band which I look down on for being fake, but my friend is a very genuine, free, intelligent person. And likewise, Fleetwood Mac are quite a poppy act, but I love the shit out of them and look at me. xD You don't choose what you like. You can deny it, but ya can't choose.

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Draconysius

You don't choose what you like. You can deny it, but ya can't choose.

Well, I like Wendy's chicken nuggets...a lot. But I don't claim they're high end. On the same token, I think 45 Grave is awesome, but on a level that is all B-Movie campiness, as opposed to the musicianship of, say, Dead Can Dance. I call a spade a spade, and so I really don't get it when obviously campy/silly music is extolled as brilliant and deep and people get mad/defensive when someone disagrees with their assessment. I don't get mad when people call Wendy's nuggets fast food, you know?

viscus · 09-24-2007, 11:08 PM

Should the man enjoying a 12 year old single-malt scotch sneer at the man who walks up next to him and orders a Michelob? No, but he probably shouldn't try to strike up a conversation about taste in alcohol either, as the two men probably wouldn't be able to relate to each other very much on that topic.

As for music, perhaps people tend to think of their taste in it as a much greater characteristic of who they are as a person than say, a penchant for cheap beer, and any negative quality judgment on their favorite music is an indictment of them personally.

LadyLucretia · 09-24-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by viscus

As for music, perhaps people tend to think of their taste in it as a much greater characteristic of who they are as a person than say, a penchant for cheap beer, and any negative quality judgment on their favorite music is an indictment of them personally.

I think you nailed it. I don't define myself by any one thing - be it my job, my taste in wine, my education, or my music tastes, so I guess that's part of why I don't relate to this sort of approach.

Draconysius · 09-24-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

Well, I like Wendy's chicken nuggets...a lot. But I don't claim they're high end. On the same token, I think 45 Grave is awesome, but on a level that is all B-Movie campiness, as opposed to the musicianship of, say, Dead Can Dance. I call a spade a spade, and so I really don't get it when obviously campy/silly music is extolled as brilliant and deep and people get mad/defensive when someone disagrees with their assessment. I don't get mad when people call Wendy's nuggets fast food, you know?

I know; I wasn't arguing that. What most people fail to do though is look past stereotypes. Humans need symbols and imagery, and I guess stereotypes are easy, quick ways to judge people, feel all-knowing.

Cicero · 09-25-2007, 12:32 AM

I'm in complete agreement. I do look at music in the way I look at taste in fashion and art.

There are definitely taste levels when it comes to music, there's no denying that.

45 Grave and Dead Can Dance are great examples. I know when I listen to 45 Grave I'm not enjoying brilliant musicianship, just as I know when reading my roommate's gossip magazines I'm not exactly enriching my mind as I might by reading New Scientist. When listening to Dead Can Dance on the other hand, you can't help but feel awed by the brilliance of it.

Which leads me to my next point... is my roommate stupid or inferior for subscribing to gossip magazines? Fuck no, she's academically brilliant and one of the best people I could have chosen to live with. I might also add she also listens to Britney Spears, which in my own opinion would be the equivalent of a deep-fried Mars bar. You as a person are not defined only by your tastes.

Enjoying 'bad' music is like eating TimTams (for non-Australians: little pieces of chocolate coated, chemically-flavoured heaven). It doesn't make you inferior in any way, it's just not what you'd serve at a dinner party.

dark_dragon_of_ice · 09-25-2007, 01:14 AM

But I love TimTams !!!

badteccy · 09-25-2007, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

Wait...what? Haven't you been ranting nonstop about how people shouldn't be judged by what they listen to and how they evaluate/label it?

OH DAMN! She's gonna need some ice for that burn!

Haunted House · 09-25-2007, 09:08 AM

Two words.

Din Glorious.

One of the greatest mutant made monstrocities I've ever listened to, whereas to many, they sound like utter rubbish. I'm not saying that they're "high end" music. Very far from it, actually.

I guess this is just my little example of how I understand the situation.

LadyLucretia · 09-25-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haunted House

Two words.

Din Glorious.

One of the greatest mutant made monstrocities I've ever listened to, whereas to many, they sound like utter rubbish. I'm not saying that they're "high end" music. Very far from it, actually.

I guess this is just my little example of how I understand the situation.

Ha! It's so funny that you bring them up. I am friends with most of the members of that band. They are a lot of funny and always good for The 3AM Adventure (TM).

Underwater Ophelia · 09-25-2007, 09:52 AM

I think there's a major flaw here...who the hell can define what's "high end?" Certainly not you, and certainly not me, unless it's for the self. Seriously, if I consider a Big Mac to be "in good taste," how can you prove it's not? You can't. Taste is taste.

I think the problem here isn't that people are "mistaking" what's good and what's not, it's that there are too many assholes that think that whatever they consider "high end" must be. People like that need to seriously get over themselves, and realize that there are many varying cultures, tastes, styles, etc.

Uncle Smoov · 09-25-2007, 10:51 AM

Everybody's right and great! You, me, even Stupid up there! Of course, you're all forgetting who calls the shots for refined taste and low taste. You should all be sick to your stomachs for describing McDonald's as unrefined. What pig's drool will be next? That Danielle Steel's corpus of literature doesn't resonate with the human soul (at least the ones worth their ectoplasm) infinitely more than the cheap letters that spurt from that pornographer Shakespeare's clearly phallic quill? Bottom line, music is either supposed to be listened to or it's supposed to be ridiculed. If you're not smart enough to know which is which, maybe I should withdraw your music privileges.

Sincerely hoping you're all thinking about what you've done,
Docta Smoov, M.D.

LadyLucretia · 09-25-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I think there's a major flaw here...who the hell can define what's "high end?" Certainly not you, and certainly not me, unless it's for the self. Seriously, if I consider a Big Mac to be "in good taste," how can you prove it's not? You can't. Taste is taste.

What about people whose job is to define the high end (like Dr. Smoov, heh)? While a panel of classically trained chefs and nutritionists can't *prove* the "taste level of McDonalds is low, they can make pretty factual statements about its quality. Same goes for fashion designers - maybe they can't prove what styles are high end, but they can speak for fabric quality and garment construction.

Maybe no one is qualified to judge taste level, but aren't we entitled to comment on quality? Shouldn't opinions be based at least somewhat on objective criteria? I.E. if a singer for a band is tone deaf, that is a fact. They are not a good singer. But if someone says "well they sound ok to me because I'm 95% deaf, and anyway that's my personal taste you should respect it," it doesn't change the fact that the singing is bad. Should the opinion of the nearly deaf person hold as much weight as the opinion of a hearing person with a music degree?

d.Nox · 09-25-2007, 01:16 PM

I think most of us agree on some sort of "spectrum of taste," but (especially for those of us who fall outside the mainstream) that raises a question about the relevance of the "spectrum."

Is Bauhaus (for example) high-end or low end? They're certainly higher than Britney Spears, and probably lower than Beethoven. But most people would still prefer to avoid them altogether.

In most fields where taste is an issue, connoisseurs try to reference "objective" criteria. For instance, in music, being on key is rather important. But what of industrial bands, where dissonance is sought after? Should they be ranked with singers who just can't hit the notes?

There's plenty of evidence, if you choose to research it, that "taste" is the result of societal inequity--that is, what the upper classes like is in good taste; what smacks of the plebian is crass.

So, then, are standards of taste simply cultural constructs, and elitist ones at that, or is there an underlying pattern that transcends culture?

Underwater Ophelia · 09-25-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

What about people whose job is to define the high end (like Dr. Smoov, heh)? While a panel of classically trained chefs and nutritionists can't *prove* the "taste level of McDonalds is low, they can make pretty factual statements about its quality. Same goes for fashion designers - maybe they can't prove what styles are high end, but they can speak for fabric quality and garment construction.

Maybe no one is qualified to judge taste level, but aren't we entitled to comment on quality? Shouldn't opinions be based at least somewhat on objective criteria? I.E. if a singer for a band is tone deaf, that is a fact. They are not a good singer. But if someone says "well they sound ok to me because I'm 95% deaf, and anyway that's my personal taste you should respect it," it doesn't change the fact that the singing is bad. Should the opinion of the nearly deaf person hold as much weight as the opinion of a hearing person with a music degree?

Being deaf is an extreme case, and not really relevant. I'm talking about if I walk down to the market in skin tight pink cheetah print pants and an oversized sweater, no one's telling me it's in bad taste. There isn't anything wrong with me that causes me to like it, it's just that I'd like it.

LadyLucretia · 09-25-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Being deaf is an extreme case, and not really relevant. I'm talking about if I walk down to the market in skin tight pink cheetah print pants and an oversized sweater, no one's telling me it's in bad taste. There isn't anything wrong with me that causes me to like it, it's just that I'd like it.

Yes, but if you went to a formal ball in that outfit and insisted it was evening wear, would you be upset if people disagreed with you because they felt it was inappropriate?