how do you define bad musical taste?

But I think there are more fundamental values and expectations that are far harder to construct/deconstruct, some of which are inherent in the acoustic/technical material of music, others of which are closely tied either to our biology or to our social nature, and still others of which are an inherent consequence of music's perpetual (and compulsory!) dialogue with the past and present -- in other words, the conception of music as a communicative and historical medium, with a more-or-less specific intended listener who has acquired the signs and signifiers of that particular genre through familiarity with prior representative works.

This poses the question: what assumptions, or traits, are shared by value-hierarchies that "take root"? (In other words, is there a fundamental, unbridgeable difference between the value-hierarchy of hip-hop and that of country music, or do they share any fundamental values common to both, and perhaps to all Western music, or even all music?) From what principles, characteristics, or technical elements do they draw their common origins? What generalizations about different forms of music can be made in a language that will apply to all -- can one come up with a Grand Unified Theory, as it were, of the organizing principles of music, whose implications will give one the tools to understand and critically evaluate Ravi Shankar, Palestrina, Benny Goodman, Merzbow and Snoop Dogg in a way that doesn't require total compartmentalization or Ned's radical subjectivism? Is there a musical equivalent of linguistics -- or is that what I'm after?

(I like that thought, by the way, in that linguistics is capable of making critical observations of languages as a whole -- one aspect of which is pointing out that there are some thoughts you just can't fully express in certain languages, or concepts for which there are no synonyms -- and yet is also nonjudgmental: it doesn't say "language X is bad", although it does specify the grammar and vocabulary necessary to speak and understand language X.)

This is hopelessly muddled, and I'm not sure that I agree with everything I've written, but I've run out of free time to finesse it. I'll just add that some work in this area has been done -- for instance, in trying to understand the incidence and characteristics of tension-and-release patterns in different forms of music, or in exploring the role of expectation in listener satisfaction.

I find this an interesting comparison because, after all, if one hears a language one cannot interpret, one hears the sound without any real sense of the meaning. Perhaps this question should be turned around...

So ... you can have all of these tools to break it down into codifiable bits ... but whether those bits are "good" or "bad" is vexed and subjective?

That said.... I think there are two kinds of bad taste. Ordinary bad taste is the taste that comes from being lazy and not really caring about music. The people who buy "NOW!" compilations, Nelly, and whatever else is popular. Also people who hate genres -- saying, uncategorically, that you hate country or rap only proves you know nothing about music.

But that's far less annoying than bad taste number two, which is moulding your record collection to fit whatever is trendy. They might have obscure or interesting albums, but it's all obscure stuff Pitchfork likes.

In either case, I guess the defining note of bad taste is that it reflects a failure to experiment, to seek things out, to cross genre lines, to be uncool if it makes you happy.

So one has to be unpredictable to have good taste? I dunno, it'd make the person more interesting but not necessarily have good taste. How do I define bad taste? Probably differing from my *own standard* (so if a person likes fe Limp Bizkit/Shania Twain and Celine Dion, I'd say s/he has bad taste until s/he offers me insight into why s/he likes said music). Actually I prefer people to have *bad* (different from mine) taste because I can have a different outlook on the music after hearing why s/he likes the music.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090918170035AA00ZaH

is it very typical for an extremely indie taste in music to kick in at around 13 like this kid? seems slightly young but i'm out of the loop

i mean for those who go indie, when does it usually start?

Artists that I listen to(which I consider weird) that your list is missing: CocoRosie, Devendra Banhart, Animal collective, Wolf Parade, Battles, Pink Floyd, Tom Waits, Captain Beefheart, Karen Dalton, Vashti Bunyan, Metallic Falcons, Josephine Foster, Iron and Wine, Jenny Lewis, Fleet foxes, Melt Banana.

i'd say about 14 for indification

i was 12/13

It seems to come about the same time as adolescence, because it's very much an identity establishing maneuver - that whole idea that one's personality can be defined by long LISTS of stuff. So your mileage may vary according to what age one reaches adolescence at.

What's a more interesting question to me, is - at what point does it stop?

Because I can definitely remember, when in my late teens, when asked to define myself, I would respond with lists - usually of bands, but also books, films, etc. Continued through my 20s definitely, but I don't remember at what point it ended, though by my late 30s, it certainly has. (Though if asked to define myself, I don't list my taste, but simply that "I'm a music obsessive.")

I mean, to a certain extent, this is the result of creating "profiles" for oneself (originally on the penpal circuit, before there was an internet, though the internet has certainly calcified it) but is there a point that one's profile stops being "stuff I like" and becomes "stuff I am" ?

indie taste kicked in at about 12/13 with me - I probably didn't have quite as long a list of bands as that kid, but then I didn't have the internet, only the radio & the nme & select & &c.

I think the connection with adolescence & identity-establishing is very well stated.

(i suspect my list at 12 would have contained a number of bands i hadn't heard but knew i would count as part of "my taste")

It pains me to see high school kids categorically dis r + b as if it's "cool". I can say that because I felt that way when I was in junior high / high school. It's even worse when 30- or 40-year olds do it.

Maybe if most rn'b weren't so abjectly stupid, they wouldn't feel compelled to dis it.

To my mind, bad taste is defined by settling for any old thing that's making the rounds (as opposed to seeking out something a little off the tired, hackneyed menu).

let's get less rnb and more goth up in dis area

Some xposts: second half of being 14 for me. I'd made attempts a little earlier than this, but when I were young it was harder to find that stuff. Which was most of its appeal, needless to say. I grew out of it pretty early - probably from 18 onwards when it seemed like everyone else was becoming indie (again a major factor).

It might be as accurate to say that I just ran out of indie - I'd always had a residual reaction to other types of music and it was feeling more and more obvious that a lot of the stuff I should've been into, even by my genuine favourite bands, just wasn't very good. Then I moved abroad when I turned 20, which was the decisive break as I physically couldn't get the NME any more and was marooned with my tape collection, which thankfully had had enough time to significantly evolve before I went, plus whatever new stuff was popular enough to reach me there.

I've cringed ever since at contemporaries professing their indiedom, which still happens occasionally today - although to be honest I'm not sure that cringing is very different from the mentality that made me indie in the first place all those years ago - they both seem a bit snobbish. Certainly I displayed similar behaviour in developing interest in other things - classic films, politics, um, genuinely struggling to remember any other interests I've ever had - up until I was about 28, which is probably when I'd be comfortable saying I finally, indisputably became an adult (also makes me sceptical about lowering the franchise to 16, because what the hell do teenagers know about anything?!).

These days I'm all about enjoying the everyday, which is nice after that journey, but even so it has an element of celebrating what noone else does. I doubt I'll ever break out of that mentality now - it seems clear that it's a big part of what I am.

I like your last point, Ismael, since I'm right there with you -- though it takes different forms: when it comes to music, I can't really celebrate what nobody else does since, well, I'm here and that covers a hell of a lot of ground. But that's the quandary of the net -- if you just want to cultivate a private pleasure, how do you do that? (And, arguably, should you?) The best answer, maybe the only one, is nonparticipation in the discourse. This applies for me more with books, I feel -- I read a hell of a lot but I rarely get into deep discussions about what I do read.

Indie germinated at 13. I even had a latent period between 10 and 13 after being introduced to stuff like MBV, Yo La Tengo, Bardo Pond, Aphex Twin, Jeff Mills, wherein I declined into listening to the worst music of my life, skate videos resuscitated me.

Perhaps the more interesting question is what this was like 15 years ago, when you had to spend a lot of time and money amassing a collection of cd's before you could profess things. I'm born in 88 so I'm kind of on the edge.

What was 'the worst music of your life'?

For me I guess an indie taste (v loose term) kicked in at maybe 13 and was a slow builder in that direction for another few years - fwiw I didn't really have a music taste before that, didn't buy music or listen to the radio or watch TOTP - then just decided it might be a decent use of my time and started listening to evening Radio 1 after school most days and joined the lol Britannia lol Music club lol

people who don't surprise me have bad taste. If you ever construct a sentence along the lines of "I listen to everything from (x) to (y)" you can't be surprising, by the way.

Not sure if (x) and (y) are supposed to be artists or genres, but given the context, I assume Tom meant genres. So liking a wide variety of music genres means you have bad taste? Can't agree. I do think unpredictability is good, but you can be unpredictable and still like a wide variety of genres. I suppose I might agree with his point in the case of someone who liked everything, but I don't think he meant to limit his comment to such an extreme situation.

xxpost: middle school, which is to say mostly bad, overplayed tv/radio stuff.

Books are a really interesting point to raise, Ned - I read a lot too and am always dead keen to make recommendations, but as for the content there is very little I could or would want to share with other people. It had always puzzled me that I Love Books never seems to get into things in depth, and am only now realising that perhaps everyone here feels the same.

Jonathan Franzen said something about there being two types of readers - those who love it because they've got the habit; and those who've got to read because they need to spend time in an imaginary world, and that second type rings very true for me. I also suspect that ILX is filling that very same need (and why I've been progressively acquiring reader's block over the last year or two).

I really resent attempts to turn literature into fashion, or worse part of another trend. I've ranted elsewhere recently against Sebastian Faulks for pedestalling the clique that runs British literature. For me it's the opposite of what books are about.

Books are a really interesting point to raise, Ned - I read a lot too and am always dead keen to make recommendations, but as for the content there is very little I could or would want to share with other people.

Book clubs can help but there's the obvious social difference in terms of how music v. reading is consumed -- you can share a song with someone just like that as you both listen but it's little hard to be sitting leaning over someone's shoulder as you both read along the book you've recommended to the other...

x-posts

Kind of doubt his equivalent indie neophytes from ten years ago would have the likes of Hall&Oates, Madonna and MJ on their lists&I think I know which will give first out of his love for them and his anti r&b/top 40 sentiments.

i was a bit ashamed to start listening to indie, since the punks i knew were always bashing it. i was always dreadfully self-aware and weary of easy classification. i would have rather been ignored than make a list like the one above. i don't know if i've totally grown out of that-i can't think of anything i'm ashamed to listen to-but now that i listen mostly to music that nobody i know finds cool, i'm still feelingly aware of what people think. when i started really becoming a music nerd i envisioned it would end up with me owning a bunch of rare vinyl and knowing a lot about jazz and underground hip hop or something, but so far it's only gone in the other direction, falling in love with modern rn'b and southern rap and synth pop. but that's great; as i grew out of caring about what people thought of my tastes, i started getting more interested in the notion of music listening as narrative, as a personal and free thing.

x-post, ogmor how old are you? I knew plenty of people who "discovered" the "cool" music while still liking Madonna and if you fail to perceive Michael Jackson's enormous influence on dance, you just don't have ears. Or are we not listening to idiotic gay-ass dance music either? Sorry, I can't stand this "I'm so bright, I listen to (hippie) indie." Was a time when prep school twerps with "progressive" parents wouldn't be caught dead listening to "indie", when it was, like, hardcore and stuff. A lot of the music he names is really just lo-fi hippie music....

sorry not making myself clear; I think the anti-top 40 attitude has lingered around even though indie kids are now enthusiastic enough about hall&oates et al to put them on their favourite lists, which I don't think was really the case 10 years ago, but then he has orange juice&linkin park up there too so maybe he's a one off.

sorry not making myself clear; I think the anti-top 40 attitude has lingered around even though indie kids are now enthusiastic enough about hall&oates et al to put them on their favourite lists, which I don't think was really the case 10 years ago

Were these people even alive when Hall & Oates were in the Top 40?

are you suggesting hall&oates are closer to trad indie kid tastes than top 40 on the basis they're old?

I'm just thinking about how teenage musical tastes (esp. those that are somewhat oppositional to the "mainstream") are tied to identity issues, and that, as the aesthetics of what is popular have changed, the "indie" aesthetic has perhaps changed with it, in terms of what teenagers that identify with that aesthetic say sucks.

my teenage cousin is a big fan of the mountain goats AND alanis morisette fyi.

(she rules.)

pretty sure based on the pinefox's first post on this thread that i would define bad taste as the taste being most similar to the pinefox's.

Yeah the more inclusive range of indie tastes is what I thought was interesting. When I was a teenager the ppl who liked hall&oates were not the same ppl who liked orange juice®ina spektor. But this kid likes linkin park too so maybe he's a one-off.

it's just weird seeing someone under the age of 50 professing unironic fondness for Hall & Oates.

no way are you serious

i am serious - did these guys get recuperated from dad & mom rock status at some point recently that I missed?

yes.

i mean, i personally am not really down with h&o, but a bunch of people in the under 50 set are iirc

Pretty much everyone I know is at least fond and they're on GTA and ryan schreiber loves them so I don't think I'm alone.

see this is part of what I was talking about in terms of oppositional aesthetics changing over time ...I associate Hall and Oates with the bland and/or brainless top 40 that I grew up with and developed teenage musical tastes in opposition to. See also: Huey Lewis & the News

Kind of tempted to respond that "No, you don't have a bad taste in music, but your mates do. You are a bit of an early-bloomer in getting decent musical taste, but another 2-3 years and your mates will all be into the same stuff".

Just realised I never answered the question - it was probably around my 15th birthday or so.

Thing is, time has a way of smoothing over "cool" vs. "uncool". I mean, I can only think about when I was in my teens and discovering the music of 20 years previous. (Obv I was a teenager in the 80s, and thus discovering 60s music) And there wasn't much discernment - would consume Nancy Sinatra with the same enthusiasm as the Electric Prunes. And yet, in the 60s, those two things were polar opposites of cool and uncool.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the 80s have distinct ideas of what was cool vs. uncool - Hall and Oates definitely being in the latter, when the cool kids would have been listening to Echo and the Bunnymen or TalkingHeads or whatever. But without that frame of reference, it's not a question of irony or whathaveyou, it's just finding this cache of music From The Past and not assigning labels to it.

Exactly, cool is always context specific and "timeless cool" is an oxymoron.

Same applies to good and bad taste, really.