Common opinions--what's at work?

I agree that people can be herd like (sheep), but for a person to say they like an album that they don't to go along with the group I would find intellectually dishonest. Surely that is a rarity.

I feel one of the purest ways to find music was/is the radio (but radio pretty much sucks these days). You hear it, you like it, you buy it. Who cared what the DJ said, either you like it or you don't. And I personally have never started liking something I didn't like just because it got heavy airplay. It just became an irritant.

 

This completely misses the point. That people want different things from their art, and that they can appreciate different kinds of art at different times, is obvious; what you have to show is that there are certain things that they should want, and if they don't, and want different things entirely, they are wrong, are are making a mistake.

For example, someone might think that In Cold Blood is tedious trash because their tastes are too refined and demanding: to someone whose idea of acceptable, worthwhile literature is Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Cervantes, Milton, etc., etc., compared to that, Capote might look like shallow, boring, pointless verbiage. It's not that they lack critical thinking and taste -- you do for thinking even for a moment that it would be worth the time it would take for them to read it. What you would have to do is show that such a person is simply wrong or mistaken for thinking that such a book is a boring waste of time, and far beneath them.

Similarly with music: someone who has extremely refined and demanding tastes in music might very well view all rock, pop, and dance music as simplistic, repetitive, boring, vulgar, unimaginative, stupid, etc., etc., and given what they're looking for in their music, and what standards they have for their music, and what they require for their music to be even minimally interesting to them, they might very well be right. It's pointless to try to convince them that they should care about such popular music forms; why should they if they don't?

Incidentally, issues like global warming, for example, are empirical questions which can be objectively settled by rational people using observations and logic, and have nothing whatsoever to do with taste questions, which are entirely based on people's preferences.

Sometimes you can try to persuade someone that they should like what you like, and care about what you care about, but the only effective way of doing that is to point to other things that they already like, and try to convince them that their preferences are inconsistent. For example, there is a well-known Lenny Bruce routine about how he imagines trying to persuade a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan that he doesn't really care about race as much as he thinks he does. That has to do with morality, but with taste questions, the procedure would be pretty much the same.

 

I actually do have a lot of time for certain DJs. I grew up in the John Peel era. If he had intelligent, positive, things to say about an act, I'd be tempted to give them listen. But the John Peel's of this world are few and far between.

I get uncomfortable when reading any of the music mags' reviews. I don't know what their agenda is. A far better system would be 'There's a new album by Snot and the Bastards out on the 20th. We'll be reviewing it next issue'. Gives fans of the act, or even casual listeners, a chance to hear it before the (possible) poison pens come out. Now, in the real world, that could never happen. There are freebies, guest passes, inter magazine-band goodwill agendas etc to consider. But I don't trust the opinions of anyone who gets something free. They can't be objective. Giving a 'bad' review might stop the freebies coming. Whereas if you've laid out thirty quid on an album, you're more likely to be honest about what you're listening to.

You may have guessed that I doubt the integrity of the music press.

 

Using the radio to find music is in itself social infuence. You are being steered towards a limited range of music which someone else has selected for you to listen to. Yes you choose whether you like it or not but you are hearing a filtered selection of what is available. What about the vaste range of music that has been excluded. How can this be pure ?

 

It's as pure as you can get in everyday life where people have jobs, family, friends, things other than just music. Sure the radio brought a limited filtered amount of music, but most people don't have the time (or money) or the means to go through all music to find out what they like and don't like. It was a convenience most likely based on what was selling at the time (Billboard based usually). I use the word pure loosely as there are very few things truly pure in this world.

 

It could just very well be that there is such a thing as popularly held opinions.

 

I would like to read that theory. HOTH is my favorite Zeppelin album. But when I do the math, PG is better because it has more good songs. Kind of like how the white album is better than Revolver.

 

Lots of people just repeat what they heard or read. For instance, "Nickleback sucks!" and other opinions of that ilk.

Before forming an opinion on a band/artist, I like to explore first. That exploration can last anywhere from a few minutes to days depending on how jarring the experience is and I've occasionally come out of it enjoying the material I listened to.

Influence does play a major part in what people's opinions are, whether they be colored by their social circle, or what constitutes being cool, etc. Definitely something I take into account when I talk to somebody about music.

 

Yes that is exactly what a social influence is.
The fact that the opinion is popular means that we are more likely to agree with that opinion. Especially initially. On reflection we may change our mind.

 

So using the math Thick As A Brick could never be considered to be Jethro Tull's best album

 

That's not what I meant. I meant that it may be possible that a large number of people come to the same opinion honestly and independently. Are you going to tell me that if I believe that the first six Sabbath albums are their peak, that that is an opinion that I hold due to "social influence", regardless of the fact that I reached it in my teen years without influence from any other Sabbath fans? The heck with that.

 

Love it, thanks!

 

I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with it. And I don't have to show anything to anybody, it's not about persuading people to follow my lead.

Obviously, I'm not going to try to convince someone who listens exclusively to jazz or opera that they should buy 40th Anniversary RAMONES box sets. But if a fan insists that Animal Boy is absolutely The Best Ramones Album, I know - personally - that they are either, a). cursed with cloth ears, or b). don't like the Ramones too much, or c). have an irrational sentimental fondness for the first Ramones album that they heard as a teenager. I'm not suggesting that they be arrested or publicly humiliated. On the opposite spectrum, I don't hang around with University professors discussing Dostoevsky and Flaubert; if they scoffed at Truman Capote I'd perfectly understand and accept the context.

My perspective (and I think it was pretty clear) is that all this angel dancing on the head of a pin PC recognition of everyone's tastes as being completely equal is silly. And frankly, none of this plays-out in real life - I only encounter it on the Internet. If my wife shows my music collection to a woman friend and she asks what I like, I'll mention Country music along with other genres. On two occasions, middle-aged women have responded with, "Oh, I like country music... as long as it's not too twangy. I don't like the twangy stuff!" Fine. I'm not going to handcuff them to a chair and force-feed Hank Williams, Lefty Frizzell and George Jones into their ear holes. I don't insist that my wife never invite them over for coffee again. We discuss subjects other than music.

I converse about music with people who are into it. We may disagree about all kinds of things, but it's fun and we learn from one another. That happens on this forum. I also have a few friends who aren't that into music, but who actively seek-out my recommendations. I know their tastes and can steer them in the right direction, recommend new bands, etc. I act as their Free Search Engine, so-to-speak.

With music, it's not an important issue, but it does reflect social attitudes in our modern world; there is no right and wrong anymore. Just consider this my personal opinion, and the argument disappears. Right?

 

So you're the arbiter of good taste! Nice to meet you. I'm the guy who thinks he's cool because I like The Velvet Underground way more than the Beatles. We should have a beer.

 

Among my friends Peter, Alex, Dean and (when he's in a good mood) Richard, I am indeed said arbiter. I'll add my wife to that list; she has very good taste without being a record collecting geek. And with your Strummer moniker and Alejandro avatar, you are without question, WAY COOL. But I can also happily hang with people who haven't bought an album since the late-70's... just don't expect me to publicly pin a Blue Ribbon in good, well-rounded taste on their lapels.

 

I prefer the much more sophisticated (and 1/2 French!) trés cool, in lowercase letters. Notice how each lowercase letter doesn't shout, but instead subtly radiates it's natural individual coolness by not trying too hard, all while joining other lowercase letters to form a chic bilingual phrase. It's bilingual state illustrates a desire to cross cultures with coolness, sharing coolness and becoming cool with the world, with the entire human race. The first word is French because my wife thinks French is sexy. Unless they talk too fast, when it becomes just another language, or...not so cool.

Put another way, I just like the music I like.

 

I certainly agree that we're talking about opinions and preferences. However, when you state emphatically that someone who doesn't like movie X must be a "certified nitwit with non-existent 'taste' in cinema", then presumably you believe that you have some basis for saying that the things you like in a movie really are better things to like in movie than what he likes. I have to say that, on the face of it, it certainly looks as if you're saying that he's wrong or mistaken in preferring what he prefers, irrespective of his reasons for his preferences.

If you're not saying that, and all you're actually doing is acknowledging that you like different things in a movie, then that's all I'm saying, and we agree. In that case, there's no right or wrong about one's preferences; they simply are what they are.

Similarly, if you acknowledge that someone might have such high standards that he or she could quite reasonably regard Capote's book as insignificant, and you don't conclude from that fact that the person must therefore "lack critical thinking and taste" for dismissing the book, then we're in agreement here too. The fact that there might also be patently idiotic and ridiculous reasons for dismissing a book doesn't mean that there can't be many very good reasons, and very different kinds of reasons, for doing so. But there's no privileged position from which anyone can correctly and finally judge the "true merits" of a book; that's a fantasy. The same thing would apply with music.

Although I would say that our fundamental tastes and preferences in music or art generally are ultimately subjective and are neither correct or incorrect, I also don't think that it's completely pointless to discuss what we like or dislike, and more importantly, why we like what we like and dislike what we do. In other words, we can often discover a lot, and understand things much better by doing so, but we have to recognize that there are very hard limits established by people's subjective preferences that really can't be disputed, and those limits are all over the place when we're judging music and art.

As I noted before, it's possible sometimes to point out to someone that their standards aren't consistent, but there might be many different ways of resolving the inconsistency, without any way of saying how they "ought" to do it. Sometimes you can't even do that much: for example, Einstein said that while he loved Bach and Mozart, he didn't care much for Beethoven because he was "too dramatic and too personal". Of course, someone else might justifiably say that Beethoven is better precisely because he's more dramatic and more personal. How can you possibly say whether something is too dramatic or just dramatic enough? Either preference is a purely subjective matter of taste, and depends entirely on what you're looking for in your music.

 

I can count the times a review "nudged" me to an album on my fingers, and I've been buying them for over 50 years.

 

People are products of their environment,what you are raised with is what you're gonna like for the most part,I'm Black and was raised with mostly soul music,but I also love-Jazz-Gospel-Classical-Pop-Blue eyed soul,but of course some folks only like what they like and that's it,I ain't mad at em.

 

I guess that we both like a good argument.

This is not about conflating taste to empirical standards in all things.

Back in NYC, I used to go drinking with a friend and a few of his pals who were all Dead Heads… they might also listen to the occasional Hot Tuna album. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit, but one time I asked a Hot Tuna fan if he liked acoustic blues artists... Rev. Gary Davis, Mississippi John Hurt, Robert Johnson. He shrugged and said that he couldn't get into "old time" stuff. I didn't goad him about it, but the simple fact is, the guy had extremely narrow tastes in music. Whether that was by choice, relative disinterest, financial circumstance, lifestyle/family limitations or whatever, his tastes were not as informed, well-formed, or as "good" as the friend who would organize these pub sessions. I trusted his judgement.

I recognize the superior tastes of many people that I have known through the years; in books, theater, food, wine, and in music too. I sometimes think that my music collection is just another Rolling Stone/NME-certified lump of musical canon fodder. I wish that I was more adventurous and open-minded than I am.

One good friend is a gourmet and wine connoisseur. I do not put my "tastes" on a par with his; I try to learn from him. I mean, he'll whip-up eight or ten dishes for a New Year's Eve party, improvising things that he's tasted in restaurants. Chorizo/rice-stuffed squid with a tomato caper sauce? No problem. When we had them over for dinner I was nervous as hell. Of course, they couldn't have been more appreciative and I realized afterwards that they never get invites from any of their friends - they're all scared to have them over.

It's a generous conceit, but I don't feel compelled to recognize all opinions or tastes as being equally valid, my own included. Salient to this thread, no matter how far we roam, the flock can still exert a strong pull.

 

Exactly!

 

Yeah, I believe that all opinion is subjective but that doesn't mean I value all opinion equally.

 

Agreed. There's no accounting for taste, but certainly some opinions are more well rounded and informed than others.

 

I agree with you to some extent, and your musical experiences is one of thousands of possible examples illustrating pretty well that you may not like for the most part what you are raised with.