(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

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.