Ego and music..

bottleneck

bottleneck

talks a load of rubbish
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
6,766
Reaction score
1
Location
bucks
Im listening to an album I havent heard since I was about 15 - 'Duke' by Genesis.

By my late teens I'd decided that I didnt like Phil Collins. All that movie acting in 'Buster' and his solo pop career grated. My sister liked his music too, so I couldnt like him on principle !

Well, I got the LP for half a sheckle, and its just alive with memory, and I remember why I really liked it all those years ago.

It got me to thinking about how we refuse to like music because we let our Ego's get in the way. Perhaps its just not cool enough, our peers dont like it - blah blah.

Hey, I also like the Stereophonics, Michael Jackson, Coldplay and U2, so shoot me now!!

Anybody else got this problem of their ego dictating what they can listen to ?

Silly isnt it?
 
I'm not sure what ego would have to do with not liking stereophonics. The fact they're bland, dire, middle of the road crap would seem the MOre obvious reason :confused:
 
Ah, but you see Mo - the difficulty is in KNOWING that a lot of people think that they are dire and crap, and being able to admit to liking them anyway :)

For what its worth I dont think that about them at all. I think theyve got some great songs and some catchy guitar hooks. The 'gotta go there to come back' album in particular is good I think.

I like Dire Straits too!

:)
 
bottleneck said:
Ah, but you see Mo - the difficulty is in KNOWING that a lot of people think that they are dire and crap, and being able to admit to liking them anyway :)

For what its worth I dont think that about them at all. I think theyve got some great songs and some catchy guitar hooks. The 'gotta go there to come back' album in particular is good I think.

I like Dire Straits too!

:)
Click to expand...

But has it not occurred to you that the reason a lot of people think the sterochronics are dire and crap, might be because the ARE dire and crap :) .

Anyway the whole "not liking something because it isn't considered cool" thing changes with time. For example as a teenager in the early 80s I was a big fan of Johnny Cash (country music of any sort was seriously uncool among 16 year old boys in 1983) - He's now considered cool. At the time my peers thought I was beyond help.

Some excellent stuff is not considered worth listening to just because it s not fashionable and some stuff is not considered worth listening to ... because its not worth listening to.

Mind you there are a couple of artists I just can't bring myself to like and if I'm perfectly honest its because someone I've known and really disliked was an uber fan of theirs. David Bowie being a prime example (and U2 for that matter).
 
ah - thats another one too -! nice one.

Im going to terribly mis-quote this, but I think it might have been Jonathon King (?) who said that the best artist by default is the one that sells the most ..

I dont like Franz Ferdinand much, but they are all over the Brits this year. I suppose I'd have to accept that they are good because they are popular.

I suppose I should also accept that Robbie Williams is good because he is very popular. In fact 'Angels' has just been voted the best song in the last 25 years.

Ive got different opinions, but I can't argue with the polls..

Chris
 
bottleneck said:
Ive got different opinions, but I can't argue with the polls..
Click to expand...

Yes you can! And you'd be right to do so!

You just have to dismiss what you've quoted from JK as bollox! :)
 
bottleneck said:
Ive got different opinions, but I can't argue with the polls..

Chris
Click to expand...

As Mo! says, you can. Angels was voted best song in 25 years ... clearly by idiots. Lots of great music is popular, lots of great music isn't. Unfortunately lots of completely shite music is also popular. Frankly I'd go by the test of time rather than the test of the polls. Grandma we love you, touch my bum, come on barbie lets go party ... nuff said.
 
bottleneck said:
..... I suppose I'd have to accept that they are good because they are popular.

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris...nope :D

Just because something (or someone) is popular doesn't make em good. It just means the public are like sheep. One goes and the rest follow...without thinking why....because its safe to feel like one of the flock.
 
Uncle Ants said:
Grandma we love you, touch my bum
Click to expand...

What does your Grandma have to say about this sick suggestion, you perv. :-)

I don't think most people are sheep, I just think most people don't think about music too much, or develop their taste much beyond what gets played on the radio. Very few people are obsessive music-weirdo-geeks after all, for most people music is only a small part of their lives. And great pop music is great music, full stop. The sublime can be found everywhere, not just in the margins of culture. It's rarer in pop music than it could be, not because people are stupid consumers, but because most pop music is made for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with music, it has no strictly creative reason to exist, it's made to pay the mortgages and coke habits of record company executives.

Having said all that, the Stereophonics are completely rank.

-- Ian
 
I dont think Im winning too many people over to the rank and file of the Stereophonics!

Oh well, in my new found bullet proof vest, I likes em. :)

I do think Robbie Williams is an interesting case. For what its worth I dont actually own any of his records or want any. I can recognise why so many people do like his music though, and the live act.

'Angels' really was a massive hit - there was a shot of it being played at Glastonbury where the whole crowd were singing it. The fact that it was voted to be the best song in the last twenty five years does mean something.

If a soap opera on the TV has more views than any other it is a measure of its success. The latest big brother series was considered to be one of the best - a fact measured because more people watched it than ever.

The scene when Bobby Ewing came back to life in Dallas is probably the most memorable in the shows history, and I believe it had the biggest audiences. Is most memorable and most popular also not the best also here?

What is it about music that lets us put our own personal opinion as the deciding factor on what makes something better/worse instead of more conventional means?

I dont believe its the artistic content. I bet if asked people would vote Van Gogh's 'Sunflower' painting to be his best. Best because its the most widely known and popular - not because the brush strokes are the best or the meaning is the deepest..

Oh dear Im ramblin..
 
Well, I do think the opinions of somebody who listens to a lot of music, and thinks about music a lot, count for more than the opinions of somebody who just listens to music as a background noise, when it comes to judging good and bad, since the former person is likely to have much better taste than the latter, more awareness of the history of music, more sense of what's genuinely innovative rather than derivative. Experience counts, in all fields of aesthetic judgement. Doesn't mean such a person is right, but it does mean they are likely to have good reasons for their preferences, reasons they can articulate and argue about. It's not all down to "I like this, I don't like that", there are good and bad reasons for aesthetic choices, as someone who has a Graham Sutherland hanging in their kitchen, for example, rather than an Athena poster, would probably appreciate :-)

-- Ian
 
bottleneck said:
I suppose I should also accept that Robbie Williams is good because he is very popular. In fact 'Angels' has just been voted the best song in the last 25 years.

Ive got different opinions, but I can't argue with the polls..

Chris
Click to expand...

Hi,

The poll for the best song in the last 25 years was done in a special way. The shortlist, of 25 songs, was nominated by a special panel made up of members of the music industry and media. All the singles had to been performed by a British act since 1977.

BBC Radio 2 listeners then had to vote for their top five favourite hits from a list of 25 songs. A top five was worked out then the Radio 2 listeners had to choose their favourites from the five.

So the 25 song were choosen by a few people. I don't know what method they use to pick the tunes. Only a small percentage of the population voted for them.

At the end of the day, how do you pick the best song?

SCIDB
 
sideshowbob said:
Well, I do think the opinions of somebody who listens to a lot of music, and thinks about music a lot, count for more than the opinions of somebody who just listens to music as a background noise, when it comes to judging good and bad, since the former person is likely to have much better taste than the latter, more awareness of the history of music, more sense of what's genuinely innovative rather than derivative.
Click to expand...
Another valuable skill if you want to be able to articulate your opinions in any kind of meaningful way is possessing the rudiments of aural analysis, which is to say the ability to understand music both horizontally (melody, rhythm and structure) and vertically (texture and, especially, harmony - which often means chord sequences with pop music) through listening alone. Combined with an understanding of conventions like cadences, the aural analyst is better equipped to decide why and how something is innovative, satisfying or downright clever vs. what is derivative and what just doesn't work. Saves a fortune on sheet music too if you want to be able to play something yourself :D
 
Was there was a moment in popular culture (or at least on the periphery) when music was taken somewhat seriously, and thought to be more than entertainment?
It is interesting to me that most of the records I am currently buying were recorded between the early sixties and late seventies, a time when there was clearly a small market at least for "challenging" music, and also a time, I think, when popular music was able to attract many of the most creative minds.

the aural analyst is better equipped to decide why and how something is innovative, satisfying or downright clever vs. what is derivative and what just doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I would suggest only when combined with very wide listening. There are plenty of clever, but narrow-minded types out there.
 
Not quite sure about aural analysts being able to dissect music into integral parts etc.. Sounds all a bit too intelligent to me.

Having an open mind seems to be the most important thing - for ages I refused to listen to Jazz thinking it was all a bit pretentious and clever but this was down to reading articles and seeing people on television being pretentious and not down to the music itself. A 'Kind of Blue' showed me the error of my ways - I'm sure my 'listening' life would be lacking something if I had never listened to 'A Love Supreme'.

Also being a bit of a commoner I thought only posh people going out in tuxedos listened to classical music - again this is something I got over and have a large classical collection. Once I got over these problems two huge worlds of music were available to go and investigate.

Too many people just slap Radio 1 on and get mind washed into being told what is good by the same single by their bands of the moment being played over and over and over.

As for ego - I hate U2 with a passion and no one will convince me thay have any worth what so ever (and Bono must have the most punchable face) and for some reason, even though I should hate them, I really like Travis and have no idea why.
 
joel said:
Yes, but I would suggest only when combined with very wide listening. There are plenty of clever, but narrow-minded types out there.
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps. I've had the good fortune to run into quite a few very clever people and I'd say one of the traits of a clever person is the ability to consider things from all sides, so that when making a judgement the decision is made on merit rather than simply by seizing on something irrationally - which requires him or her to be open-minded rather than narrow-minded. In any case this skill I'm talking about only really develops with a modicum of study and a lot of practice, so the very wide listening is a prerequisite anyway.

Personally I think you're less likely to run into 'clever but narrow-minded types' than those who like to present themselves as some sort of authority or guru, despite the fact that they don't really understand what they're talking about - these people are especially prevalent on the internet, and especially especially prevalent on hifi fora. :)

griffo104 said:
Not quite sure about aural analysts being able to dissect music into integral parts etc.. Sounds all a bit too intelligent to me.
Click to expand...
It's actually a prerequisite for doing any of the music 'grade' exams - for example, at the higher grades, you're required to identify by ear lengthy chord sequences, including in several cases the position of the chord (root, first inversion, second inversion).
 
PeteH said:
It's actually a prerequisite for doing any of the music 'grade' exams - for example, at the higher grades, you're required to identify by ear lengthy chord sequences, including in several cases the position of the chord (root, first inversion, second inversion).
Click to expand...

Exactly.. Way too intelligent for me :confused:

I have Aria by Beat Furrer where he explains how he created the music and goes into mathemetics and all sorts of stuff - gave me a headache and made me feel stupid - still enjoyed the music though but can't really appreciate it cos I couldn't understand why he did it.

Sometimes a piece of music sounds good to you simply for the fact it has an emotional impact on you or it simply rocks. Even if your ego would stop you from listening to it normally.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top