(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

[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? :)