Common opinions--what's at work?

I'm glad you "got" my comment. We've identified these people - refer post #32.

In simple terms people operate on 2 levels.
The first is more immediate, inuative,reactive - such as answering quick questions under pressure - the first thing that springs to mind (think Homer Simpson)
The second is reflective, measured more thoughtful

How, when & where which one of these levels comes into play depends on the person. Some people are more spontaneous whilst others more reflective.

An example.
You go to the record shop with the intent on purchasing an album that you have decided you need/want/got to have. This is a choice driven by your reflective, thoughtful side.

You get to the shop but the record is not available. You want to buy something else but nothing springs to mind. Suddenly you see an album that was given a glowing review by that doyen of critics Robert Christgau. This is it. This is what you buy. An impulse purchase driven by social influence.

BTW the truly reflective person would put the original album on order & return home without an impulse purchase. This sort of person is very rare, especially on this forum.

 

Living in NYC, Christgau's Village Voice Consumer Guide was one of my most dependable musical nudges... even if I couldn't understand what he was saying half the time.

 

You are presumably arguing against the idea, but it seems to me that your comments would just as easily support the idea that there is indeed no real arbiter of "poor taste".

You like movie X, and you explain your reasons why you like it. Someone else doesn't like it, and points out what he or she thinks are the serious weaknesses it has, and says that what you think are important strengths really don't count for much. In other words, you're looking for very different things from your movies.

Do you really think that there's some genuinely objective position from which anyone can say what people really should want in their movies, and if they don't want those things, but are looking for other things entirely, they're simply wrong? When you think about it carefully, the idea is pretty ridiculous -- and it's no less ridiculous in music. You'll note that emphatically stating with complete confidence and certainty that someone who is looking for entirely different things in a movie must be a "certified nitwit with non-existent 'taste' in cinema" is not an argument -- it's nothing more than asserting that your preferences are better than his. What you have to show is that he's wrong to have the preferences that he has, and that he should have yours instead. Good luck with that.

 

As far as many Americans are concerned, Dark Side of the Moon is the greatest debut album of all-time (man!). The general public doesn't know Plastic Ono Band because it didn't have a hit single.

"That song is old." "You were just singing along to the last song and it's just as old as this one." "But I like that song." Which translated to she knows that song. The songs that she knows are good, the songs that she doesn't know are old.

Of course, there's social influence. Some of it's regional. I don't expect folks outside of Michigan to like Iggy or Smokey like I do. I don't expect them to even know who Mick Collins is.

I thought that I knew something about reggae until I start working with this Jamaican guy. Now I know at least 10 times more about reggae than I did before. But I also know that I'm just scratching the surface.

Some it's generational. Almost every one of my favorite bands and solo acts peaked during the 60s and 70s. Does that make me a cliché? No music can be as great as the music from MY time.

 

They can justify it anyway that they want. But IMO anyone who'd give Ronin a one-star review is not only wrong, they're igrunt.

 

Excellent comment

I know enough about reggae to know it's not for me

It seems that I have been in my teenage years (MY time) for a long time now. They also seemed to have started before I was born. My music starts post war & is still ongoing.
Finding what I like hasn't always been easy and then....along came this interweb thingy.

Not all the new music I discover is actually new. I have gone back to discover older things that I overlooked due to social influences either negative or non existant.

 

People can like what they like and spend their money where they choose. I'd say that being open-minded and somewhat informed is a prerequisite for having "valid" taste. Siskal and Ebert often disagreed with each other; articulating one's dislike is not the same as passing ignorant judgement [classical music sucks!].

I can enjoy good films in a variety of genres; drama, action, comedy, character study, westerns, war movies, science fiction, romance, coming of age... I mean, Chris Farley movies were a guilty pleasure, but if there were enough belly laughs and the plot was reasonably clever. I've heartily-recommended The Kings of Summer to friends and family. Do I think someone has poor taste because they thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was overlong and tedious. No. I recently watched Valhalla Rising starring Mads Mikkelsen. I enjoyed its dark meditation, but I'd be pretty careful about recommending it.

I can't remember the last time that I read a novel. If I'm with a group of people who are discussing literature, I listen and take notes... maybe I can participate by posing an interesting question. But even from my illiterate perspective, if someone were to opine that Truman Capote's In Cold Blood was a crappy book, I'd note their lack of critical thinking and taste. My mother didn't enjoy violent films populated with nasty characters, but she wouldn't dismiss them as crappy.

We live in a world where all personal opinions are supposed to be equally valid. Is there Global Warming? Let's take a poll and find out! I don't subscribe to that mindset.

 

You're in Perth? Americans don't know Cold Chisel and Powderfinger. Billy Thorpe is barely a one-hit wonder here. I wouldn't know their music without the internet.

 

Since you ran a record store, you probably have heard enough to know that it's not for you.

But my step-daughter always expressed a "hated" of reggae. Then she heard some records that were recorded prior to 1995 and she fell in love with Dub. I suspect that what she hated were the jocks 'n stoners in college who listened to Bob Marley all the time.

 

It was a second hand record store & I had a customer who bought every reggae album that I could get hold of. Whenever I got something in I gave him a call & he would come in within a few days to collect & pay. He used to onsell duplicates to his friends.

I first heard reggae in the early 70's. I didn't like it from the get go & my opinion remains unchanged. No social influences at play here.

 

Yes I am in Perth. Have you been here ?
I'm a big fan of Cold Chisel. I'm not sure that I have heard Powderfinger (I never listen to the radio) & I find Billy Thorpe to be an unpleasant listen

 

We’re into the area of the old quote about everyone being entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Of course, this is a bit glib because we can’t even agree the demarcation beteween them.

 

Are you trying to tell me it's not.

 

No, but I've been to Brisbane a few times.

My point is that they're big stars down under, but hardly any British or American rock fans have heard of them.

 

One aspect of the OP's question that intrigues me is how I respond to individual voices. I think that Nick Cave is a cool and massively creative guy, but I can't find a way to enjoy his voice; it's a combination of his tone and theatrical phrasing. Scott Walker affects me the same way. I like a lot of dark, moody music, but American Music Club? No Sale. After years of trying, I finally figured out why Love Forever Changes doesn't send me to the moon; it's Arthur Lee's clipped vocal phrasing.

I don't know if such visceral reactions are in one's DNA, but it almost feels like it.

 

Sometimes that works out nicely... I got to see YOU AM I several times at the Mercury Lounge.

 

No. I'm saying that I recognize "overlong and tedious" as being a valid reaction to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Grateful Dead concerts could be overlong and tedious too, if you weren't a fan and "in the right mood." Personally, I enjoyed both.

 

I've watched 2001: A Space Odyssey twice which is more than I've listened to The Grateful Dead. I guess I've never been in the right mood when I have heard them.
Social influnces however - nobody I know likes them enough to try & talk me into listening to them. Overlong and tedious is not a positive nudge.

 

It used to be like that with AC/DC. Eventually you yanks & poms caught on.

 

I do like a few artists with voices that are described as acquired tastes. Nick Cave (& Tom Waits) is not among them. I also have issues with very high pitched voices like Geddy Lee & Burke Shelley.

 

I think the op asks a really good question. Personally, I think it’s a combination of nature and nurture ;however, I have no idea whether they are equal or if one has more influence then the other. Then again, maybe I’m completely wrong.

 

For sure they would know that "Midnight Lightning" was inferior Hendrix (unless they hadn't heard any of the previous studio albums).

 

I think that many people are sheep. If they read numourous good reviews of an album or band, there may be some that will jump aboard that positivity train. Maybe social pressure (their friends like it so they ought to) or they wish to appear trendy by latching on to a certain act? Many want to be in the herd rather than outside it in the cold. Same if an album gets a pasting. It’s easier to slag it along with with the rest than make an unpopular stand.
I honestly think that the system is wrong. Music reporters shouldn’t get products before they go on sale. They should only be allowed to have an opinion on something two or three weeks after the paying public have made up their own minds. Can’t see that ever happening though.

 

You are assuming that people read reviews to find out whether an album/band is good or bad. I would never take a reviewers opinion as gospel (they all have their agendas and prejudices like the rest of us) but still find reviews useful, if only to find out that the album/band even exists.

You make a good point about reading reviews after listening. Often, I read online reviews of albums I've already heard to get another perspective or more information, just as I am interested to hear the views on this forum.

 

It appears to me that people who pick their music based on the perfect critic ratings and mass acceptance of the albums are unflappable about how good their tastes are. They can wax poetic about how the music they like cannot be considered anything but perfect based on info you can find anywhere. I've also found these same people to be the most pigeon holed in their music listening because they pan anything that's not considered on par with their already perfect listening: like their listening ear is tuned to brilliance that no other can be. You really don't learn much about music from these people nor do they actually appear to listen to music as opposed to talk about music.

It's people who have passionate opinions about different or lessor known artists and recordings (often skimmed over by critics or too off the radar for the masses to notice) that you learn what music appreciation is actually about. These appear to be actual music listeners rather than talkers.