(no subject)

[randomness]

Perhaps it's because I'm up late, but this comment reacting to a recent post in Megan McArdle's blog tickled me:

Tom Ewing is wrong because he simplifies the idea of the "test of time" down to mere personal music appreciation. He seems to be saying that we are beyond judgement if we like something and it works for us.

But our musical choices reflect something about our basic nature. If I am the person who constantly says that Britney Spears is one of our best singers, and only eclipsed by Ashley Simpson, then that says something.

It says that either 1) I am stubborn as hell and willing to redefine language to fit my personal tastes or 2) that I am ignorant of experience and depth and have no familiarity with the long list of distinguished female singers.

In either case we can assume that those attitudes probably carry over to the rest of the person's life.

It's akin to someone who has lived on the same block saying, "Well this is the best place in the whole world. Bayside Queens totally kicks butt!". Or like those people who say, "Oh no, Olive Garden is THE BEST for Italian, The BEST Jerry!".

It very well might be true, but probably not, and believing such might show the limitations of your imagination, experience, or life as a whole.

And if you cannot recognize the difference in quality between Andy Palacio and Miley Cyrus, or between Ah Ha and Morrissey, then one is probably not the great visionary who will distinguish between such questions as "Do I keep my job or quit before getting a new one", "Do I max out my Roth or keep the money for entertainment, "Do I charge it or pay cash," "Do I buy that land in Arkansas from Eric Estada on the infomercial or do I build a diversified portfolio" "Do I eat the Bar-S $1.00 franks or the $7 Boars Head franks," "Do I lower interest rates to the point of no return and toss in fiscal stimulus or do I let the chips fall where they may to work out excess."

Delusional perception in music probably carry over to other parts of people's personalities, so recognizing quality and what stands the test of time is important.

I'll confess I've a fondness for a-ha, though, which I'm sure says something about my basic nature. :)

Comments

[tla]

This is a great (if extreme) example of the attitudes that have resulted in my unwillingness to express a musical preference to anyone, ever. Even my own husband. Even, to some extent, myself -- my iPod is always set to "random shuffle" so that I never have to choose.

There is a lot of allegedly great music out there that I don't appreciate, and some déclassé music out there that I do. No one else gets to judge my value as a person based on this.

Sorry -- perhaps it's the earliness of the hour. ;)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

You certainly don't need to apologize for that, especially not to me.

After all, I'm the one sitting around *listening* to the déclassé music in question.

"Take...on...me..."

:)

[tla]

Can't fault you there. It's a great test for whether my singing voice is warmed up.

[mangosteen]

"Take...on...me..."

...and then there's the Reel Big Fish cover of said song, only truly eclipsed by said group's cover "Hungry Like The Wolf".

Great (comment to the) article, BTW.

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with this, and it's not just music either. My husband has on more than one occasion accused me of having "plebeian" tastes. And I am sort of proud of that, but also embarrassed that if my colleagues or some of my friends found out what I really like most to listen to, watch, play, etc their opinions would plummet. (And my Ipod is also on perpetual shuffle, btw.)

I sort of understand where the commenter is coming from, but I also think that musical tastes, indeed all aesthetic tastes, are deeply personal. It's not the same as a right-wrong question like "do I save rationally or live in ridiculous credit card debt" as the poster seems to think. I am one of the most cautious people I know, and indeed my day job is about as intellectual as it gets. But I would still rather listen to , say, a-ha, than, oh I don't know, Mozart. Or even Morrissey.

[quezz.livejournal.com]

A-Ha was a great group to listen to, even if they didn't understand the lyrics they were singing! :)

My musical tastes run all over the map, literally, as I have music in several languages from just about every place I've been visited. I also have music of just about every genre. I recognize quality in music, but I also recognize emotional attachments to it, so some of my stuff is pop-ish or not of the quality I usually listen to. Tastes in musical genres sometimes are also judged as quality issues: for example, I listen to a lot of R&B and hip-hip because I grew up with that as much as I did classical music, alternative, etc. I've had several geek friends mention their complete distaste of the entirety of these genres and judge them on quality when they do not have a representative enough sample to make such a decision. That makes me nuts -- it's racist, but they will not accept the reasons for why that is: that their lives were largely sheltered from that genre, and that definitely says something about where they came from and what they have closed their minds to. It's why I seek what I like in every genre -- all music has something that all people can listen to.

I guess that says a lot about me, doesn't it? :)

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

That A-Ha vs. Morrissey example was the one throwing me, too. I can't tell for sure which one the author thinks is better. However, A-Ha really did write a lot of fantastic, enduring songs with great arrangement and a singer with remarkable range. Morrissey has a somewhat more buttery voice and occasionally hits on music with some real dept, but has lyrics that would by and large insult the intelligence of a two year old and still writes about how his parents don't understand him and he's chafing living under their roof as a 50-year-old rock star who hasn't lived under his parents' roof in some of his fans' entire lifetimes.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'd assumed from the general tone of the article that the author thought Morrissey was better, but I agree it's not easy to be sure.

still writes about how his parents don't understand him and he's chafing living under their roof as a 50-year-old rock star who hasn't lived under his parents' roof in some of his fans' entire lifetimes.

*snerk*

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

While I may not argue that some of my less-impressive faves are classics for the ages, or that their
practitioners are the best at what they do, they are still good music. And "best" is necessarily a subjective
judgement. Just because a lot of people thought one way for a long time doesn't make something
right (counterexamples abound). And years of training and practice don't guarantee greatness
(again with the counterexamples). IOW, Tom Ewing is right, because there isn't (and can't be) an
objective measurement.

I used to discuss this at great length with some of my friends who were snobbish about various
types of music. The fact that they didn't agree with each other was telling. Over the years, they've
come to realize that maybe, just maybe, I was right all along.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

There can be objective measurements relative to a given standard, even if that standard is "stuff I, St. Rev, like". We can call these objective measurements "qualities", perhaps.

There is no objective measurement of Quality without reference to a standard. God does not take sides between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. People who believe in such nonsense may appear cultured but are essentially ignorant primitives.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

Well elucidated. I tip my hat to you.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

There's no supporting argument here, just a long list of repetitions of "this is clearly good, this is clearly bad, and if you don't know the difference you're an idiot".

[rfrancis]

And moreover, you're an idiot in ALL WAYS if you don't agree with my musical choices. Nice.

I think Morrissey is annoying, so I'm out, apparently. I'd certainly rather listen to a-ha.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

Also:

But our musical choices reflect something about our basic nature.

No. No, they don't. Anyone who thinks so is an ass.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

I like both kinds of music. Country and western!

[jab2.livejournal.com]

it's perfectly possible to understand what level of artistic ability makes something a classic or just for fun (whether art, music, etc), but still be in the mood for something fun. yes, charles dickens is as better writer than dick francis. but i'll take the racing mysteries over the slums of 19th century london almost any day of the week, and definitely twice on sundays!

[meepodeekin.livejournal.com]

Hey, Charles Dickens was pulp in his time. Who knows what the 21st century classics will be when the 22nd century is judging.

[niliphim.livejournal.com]

Can I just say that if Lil' Jon & The Eastside Boyz' "Get Low" isn't a classic that will be appreciated 5 generations down the line.... I'll be crushed.

J/K

[merlinofchaos]

I'll confess I've a fondness for a-ha, though, which I'm sure says something about my basic nature. :)

It's perfectly possible to like something and recognize that it's not an example of best-in-class. Perhaps I'm misreading this essay, but I don't think it's talking to people who merely like Britney and Christina but recognize who they are; it seems like it's talking to people who blindly think these are the best music ever.

There is a huge difference.

Though that said, difference in quality is often quite subtle and requires a good understanding of music; I don't think a good understanding of the nuances of music is going to translate, one way or another, to understanding the nuances of investments.

On the other hand, I can see where an obvious misunderstanding of it could translate into other areas of life. But these are extremes.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

OK, I read the original post that McArdle is responding to, and...Tom Ewing pretty resoundingly pre-buts said commenter.

A couple thoughts

[kenjari.livejournal.com]

There is a big difference between whether or not a piece of music is good or bad and whether or not an individual loves it or hates it. I do think that there are some not-entirely-subjective standards against which music can be measured (what those are is something too involved for the current discussion).
However, I have always failed to see why there should be anything inherently wrong about loving something that isn't necessarily the "best in class" or being unable to appreciate something that is.
For example, I have never been able to get into Joni Mitchell. Her music just doesn't appeal to me all that much. However, I think her music is in fact of high quality and artistic merit. I think she is very good at what she does - it just doesn't do that much for me personally. I get much more enjoyment out of listening to "Everything Counts in Large Amounts" by Depeche Mode. Do I think it's higher quality than Joni Mitchell - no. Do I like it better - yes. Do I see anything wrong with it - absolutely not.

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

There's a perfectly legitimate point lurking in there -- that one should expose oneself to and critically evaluate many examples of a class before deciding that the examples one's been incidentally exposed to are the "best". (Or that the unattractive examples to which one's been exposed are the best possible examples of that class.)

Unfortunately, that point is obscured in the assumption that anyone who does so will come to the same conclusions as the commentor. This is emblematic of obnoxious twits everywhere -- the inability to distinguish between different opinions and taste and differing intelligence and criticality.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

I think r_ness's previous post is relevant here.

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I just came across that and thought, "hey!"

[kessel.livejournal.com]

As a separate rebuttal, I'd like to note that as I spent college learning about music, I became more appreciative of "good" music (e.g. Mozart, whom I like more now than I did before college) as a direct result of studying how music works, how it's written, etc. I used to find Bach endlessly boring; now find him illuminating. This factor of appreciation isn't addressed at all.

More importantly, though, is the fact that because I spent all of college learning about music, I have no concept of how economics works, to the point that I find a 300-page paperback called _The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need_ incomprehensibly complex. So the very same factor that "improved" my musical taste stunted my ability at making more crucial life decisions.

In conclusion, the commenter is wrong, and I am poor.

[kessel.livejournal.com]

PS The aforementioned investment book has on the cover a photo of a smiling man with dollar bills falling down all around him.