how do you define bad musical taste?

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.

What interest me is to try to strip all considerations of social capital away from the notion of "taste" and try to see if anything remains. By "considerations of social capital" I mean claims like Alex in NYC's that good taste = not being a populist sheeple, a means of standing out from the masses as a good educated person should. Does anything remain of the notion of taste when you remove those considerations? I know this is an old well-worked question but it seems to me the heart of the matter.

It's the only interesting part of the question, sure. Personally I think taste only exists within a specific social context tho.

I agree with you not least because I think everything exists within a specific social context (death of the Enlightenment and all that).

Well, firstly I don't know that you can strip away the notion of Cultural Capital away from notions of taste. Even when you remove the accompanying culture that assigns cool/uncool to certain strands of music, you still are dealing with individual notions of what is appealing in Music which vary so much from person to person (as evidenced by a thread where both Geir and Alex NYC have weighed in with similar opinions for opposite reasoning)

I think a more useful dichotomy is discerning/non-discerning - not to put value judgements on either. But there are two ways of coming at music - the first is that you have an idea of What It Is You Like, and to ruthlessly pursue that as your individual Taste. The other is to absorb all music on an equal basis, and weight it as to weather it is a ... quintessential example of the kind of music that it is.

Whether, not weather. Ha ha.

Bless the weather! (Actually, One World right now.)

Re. the discerning/non-discerning dichotomy: there are different types of discernment, though. For instance, Alex in NYC's stance seems discerning to me. Its discernment, though, is based on optimizing his social capital: to maximize his social distance from others who are less discerning.

In our individual judgments regarding taste, do we tap into anything more than the subjective, anything that's not reducible to a desire to stake our own cultural territory?

Well, I take it that you've seen the research on musical taste-clusters, right? That computer analysis of music reveals cross-genre preferences within disparate groups of people. (Argh, wish I could remember who did the study, it was very interesting.)

No, but it sounds very interesting indeed! As long as they don't venture into neuroscience or evolutionary psychology.

Ha ha, no. It was within the context of trying to analyse which songs will be "hits" - it was a long article in a magazine, though unfortunately I can no longer remember which. Might have been the Guardian Weekend, in which case it would still be sitting in a pile in my loo. (Or the OMM in which case it won't.)

I mean, obviously record companies and songwriters would be bery happy if there some way to mathematically analyse what songs will be most appealing on non-subjective criteria. (Complexity of melody, rhythm, BPM, harmonic structure, that sort of thing) But instead of boiling down to the perfect popsong, it found songs gathered in clusters, whereby if a person liked one of them, they were highly likely to like the other music within the cluster, regardless of whether it was Motorhead or Brahms.

I think I saw something like that about the time 'Crazy' by Gnarls Barkly came out - it fell into about every cluster imaginable, so the record company knew they had the ideal hit on their hands.

is it this you're talking about?

Ah, thank you! That's the one.

Another piece on the same process, different company apparently, has gnarls barkly factoid:
http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_10_16_a_formula.html

Thread has moved on, but I guess listening to the rock show on the radio aged 12-13 was my first attempt to like music that my peers hadn't heard of and/or thought was weird. Sort of a proto-indieism but I hadn't worked out that indie brought the real smug superiority or where to find it. Got there by aged 14.

If Pitchfork had existed when I was a kid, maybe I could've reached indie dorkdom a couple of years early by bypassing entirely the stage of convincing myself that I'd like Megadeth but not daring to spend the money on their albums. But then, kid doesn't need to spend money buying CDs any more (nor did I once I discovered the local library had music, but still, time, effort, blank tape money, lending fees).

Strange to think of me aged 13 with like 5 CDs, each saved up for and treasured and listened to over and over again, and him aged 13 with a list of fifty bands he's downloaded that week, presumably listened to about once, and decided are part of the list which encapsulates his identity. But that's a familiar impulse too - age 14-15 I wrote lots of band names and put free-with-magazine band stickers on my school science folder to, like, impress people with my musical authority, or something, and maybe a third of them I'm fairly sure I'd never heard at all.

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 listened to what was then called "classic rock" of the 1960s and 1970s until I was about 16, when as an explicit act of identity formation I decided to programatically make my music taste "more cool" -- this involved buying two R.E.M. cassettes (Document and Murmur) and playing them every night until they were my favorite records. From there, the Cure, Jesus and Mary Chain, Julian Cope, etc. but didn't really go full-on "indie" (or "alternative" as it was then called) until first year of college (1989) when my roommates gave me cassettes of Doolittle and London 0, Hull 4 for my birthday.

It was definitely different pre-internet; I guess you could have subscribed to music magazines, but barring that, for a kid in the suburbs you heard about bands from your friends or on alternative radio (I don't think I knew there was such a thing as college radio then) and it was a bit random what you heard and what you didn't hear. I bought my first Julian Cope record because I read a good review of it in the Washington Post.

Oh yeah, and as a representative of the past, let me just say that the Alanis Morrissette record was certainly branded as indie when it came out and tons of huge Mountain Goats fans really liked it, and still do, me included.

And that Hall and Oates was indeed a pretty straight-ahead, not-cool thing to like when I was a kid. A lot like Huey Lewis. But does a readoption of Huey Lewis by contemporary tastemakers seem out of the question to you? Not to me.

You're right that it was hard to find. I think I was the first kid at school to get anywhere beyond chart music, and that needed a total leap into the dark - the Chart Show's Indie Chart with its lovely psychedelic carousel was about the only gateway I can remember. The first few NMEs I got were like discovering the Americas - Indie No.1s! Stiff Records! The Greatest Drummers Of All Time! - there was so much undreamt-of stuff to care about that I managed to miss Nirvana breaking about six months later because I was poking about in Sarah Records or some other blind alley instead.

For all that I criticise the greyness of indie as an aesthetic, I guess it really did feel like a world of discovery at the time. It was really weird to get to university three or four years later and find that, the odd metalhead or goth apart, people there had never even attempted a similar journey and were mostly content with stuff like Mike & The Mechanics.

first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title was, "someone who doesn't like black sabbath."

I'd say if you enjoy the musical stylings of Nickleback then you are beyond hope.

I don't think it's so much the things you like but why you like them and how you express this liking
e.g.
National Review's Top 50 Conservative Rock Songs

though certain acts lend themselves to and encourage being appreciated in an ugly way (ha! nickleback!)

do you people pay attention??