Music - Do old people get it?

[baby tuckoo]

And I look forward to hearing it soon, which won't happen if I don't keep listening.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

He's the guy who pops up and sings songs about the plot in "Something About Mary," a dreadful movie.

Just to show how variable tastes can be, I thought Something About Mary was hilarious.

[baby tuckoo]

Sobre gustos no hay nada escrito.

About taste, nothing is written.


There no special reason to be ashamed that you're wrong in this case, VtF. Nope. No special reason. Just one big general reason, like it wasn't funny.

[vison]

He's the guy who pops up and sings songs about the plot in "Something About Mary," a dreadful movie.

Just to show how variable tastes can be, I thought Something About Mary was hilarious.

O, mercy me, so did I.

[Alatar]

An interesting point raised by this thread (and I'm not getting at anyone in particular) but since taste is so incredibly subjective, why do people always insist that theirs is right and everyone else's is wrong?

"Something About Mary" is not a dreadful movie. Believe me, I've seen dreadful movies. You may not like it, but its not dreadful.


Jimi Hendrix was a gifted musician. You may not like him, but that doesn't change the fact that he was gifted.

Some things can be empirically proven, others can't, but to assume that because you don't like The Doors therefore everyone else is just wrong is a little egocentric to say the least.

I really would prefer is everyone spoke about what they like or dislike, as opposed to what is good or bad. I'll stand by my statement that "Ropin' the Wind" was a fine album, because it measures up to every standard by which albums are judged. Its not simply my opinion. Also, I'd rather give credit where it might not be deserved than knock that which is deserving. But do as you will.

[vison]

Well, Alatar, you aren't "Ropin' the Wind" but you MIGHT be doing something else . . . .

I don't "like" Jimi Hendrix, but I don't claim he was a crappy musician. I don't know anything about music, so have no empirical grounds upon which to judge that. I just cannot bear the sound of his voice or the way he played the guitar. I leap to the radio and hit the "off" button as quick as I can, that's how much it bothers me. I feel the same way about Roy Orbison and a few others: it is very much only a matter of taste.

About the only time I could be confident of saying any music is 'bad' is in the case of the famous "Shag" recording of the long-ago past.

[baby tuckoo]

You are right, of course, Alatar. Having the "taste" one has is nothing to be proud or ashamed of. Believe it or not, I am generally tolerant. It's just too much fun to tweak VtF. And you. It's a juvenile habit. Soon I'll become an adolescent, and things will improve.

[yovargas]

Thing is, I'm not even really talking about my personal taste. I've now put up my choice for Top 10 Best songs, but that list would be radically different from my Top 10 Favorite songs. I know there's no hard-line way to define these things and it will always remain fairly nebulous, but I feel safe in saying that, objectively, Led Zeppelin was a better band then Wham or that Aretha Franklin made better music then Cindy Lauper. Part of why your Garth Brooks comment grabbed me so much was because Ropin' the Wind came out the same month as Nirvana's Nevernmind.

[Rowanberry]

I believe that, most people find the music from their own youth (approximately from 10 to 30) closest to their heart. Some do explore older or newer music as well, though, and find gems they're never been aware of.

One reason why I think it's in general easier to find those gems from older music is, in addition to that most of the single-use stuff is already long gone and forgotten, the fact that still a few decades ago, there wasn't that much of it; much fewer records were produced than today, and fewer artists made the grade. There's a lot more of overproduced, overhyped stuff nowadays that gets forgotten in a year.

[Teremia]

Alatar: it's all Kant. We have to feel our judgement is universal. He was talking about beauty, but that probably goes for pop music as well.

… when [a man] puts a thing on a pedestal and calls it beautiful, he demands the same delight from others. He judges not merely for himself, but for all men, and then speaks of beauty as if it were a property of things. Thus he says that the thing is beautiful; and it is not as if he counts on others agreeing with him in his judgment of liking owing to his having found them in such agreement on a number of occasions, but he demands this agreement of them. He blames them if they judge differently, and denies them taste, which he still requires of them as something they ought to have; and to this extent it is not open to men to say: Every one has his own taste. This would be equivalent to saying that there is no such thing as taste, i.e. no aesthetic judgment capable of making a rightful claim upon the assent of all men.

[narya]

Back to the original question. I heard a story recently on the radio, about how people acquire tastes for novelty. It seems that if you haven't tried it by 30, you probably won't acquire a taste for it later. That includes sushi and popular music. So if it hasn't been invented yet, and you don't hear it until you are 50, chances are you won't like it.

Prim: I love hearing a piece of Bach on the radio that I've never heard before

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I disagree with the premise of this thread. I don't think it's a case where the latest generation feels they have a monopoly on taste, it's just that they feel the current trends in music is their music.

I didn't care for Something About Mary, either, baby tuckoo. In fact, I couldn't even sit through the entire movie when it was viewed on TV. I just don't care for potty humor or humor that mostly consists of men being injured in the genital region. Wil Ferrell's humor, however, is mostly strange and bizarre and, yes, a bit dumb but for some reason makes me laugh.

As for Jimi Hendrix, no, he's not a good singer, but I still like his music. I don't know if I can say exactly why I like his music. I will say that he seems to be enjoying himself while performing, and that's probably a big part of it.

One reason why I think it's in general easier to find those gems from older music is, in addition to that most of the single-use stuff is already long gone and forgotten...

That's a big part of it. I recall learning about the "sifted past" versus the "unsifted present". (We're talking in terms of music over the past 400 years or so.) Music that didn't hold up has been forgotten, while the truly great music has endured. Most of today's popular stuff will be forgotten in a couple hundred years, but the truly great stuff will live on. Unfortunately none of us will be around to experience that.

[Alatar]

Part of why your Garth Brooks comment grabbed me so much was because Ropin' the Wind came out the same month as Nirvana's Nevernmind.

But Nevermind is an awesome album too! Two fine albums can come out in the same month and be completely different. One may even be "objectively" better than the other, yet both can be held up as quality.

You seem to suggest that my saying "Ropin the Wind" was one of the finest albums somehow negates other fine albums. Thats not the case. They aren't mutually exclusive.

In fact I would say the opposite is true. Albums like "Ropin' the Wind" suffer from the fact that "Nevermind" came out the same month, and the fact that they're not considered trendy.

[JewelSong]

I thought, as both an "old" person and a music teacher I would weigh in on this one!

Good music is good music. And I firmly believe that there is good music in all genres. I do not think it is fair, or even possible, to try to compile a list of the "10 best" if you are crossing genres. There are too many variables to try to compare. What makes a country-western song excellent is different than what make a rock-style song excellent, or a classical song. They have different criteria.

As a music teacher, I do my best to "keep up" with current music and trends. This is difficult, because with new technology and the internet, the amount of new music out there is staggering. However, I have my sources!

But also, because of the internet, I find that today's young people are far more savvy and open-eared than in previous generations! Music has become a global force and whereas in "my time" music from a far-off land was considered exotic and strange, nowadays one can hear music from literally all over the world at the touch of a button. And today's popular music is indicative of this influence.

It is true that time is the only true indicator of the longevity of a piece of music. Of course, now that we have such advanced recording technology, there are actually two catagories...the musical selection and the performing artist. We will never know what a fabulous pianist Mozart was, or how Bach sounded when he played the organ. We do have their works and thousands of interpretations of that work. On the other hand, some popular artists are firmly wedded to their works...to the point where another artist doing the same song sounds odd.

My own opinion is that, for an individual piece of music to be great, it must transcend the original composer or artist. The Beatles (to name just one example) have succeeded in this regard. The songs of Lennon/McCartney have been recorded by countless others. Their music also appears in various music series books as part of a general musical education. ("Eleanor Rigby" is a fantastic song for teaching a minor chord progression!)

I think a poll that asks about the "10 best songs" needs to specify both genre and also specificy whether it is looking for the best song or the best performer. Because they are two completely different animals.

[yovargas]

Ok, Al, I'll conced that. I rankled a bit as I took your statement to mean that Garth Brooks made a great album but for the most part the last 15 years of American music was crap. I see that was a misunderstanding on my part so I'll conced that point and say, well, maybe Ropin' the Wind is "still one of the finest albums to come out of the US in years".

But we've still got a point of contention with your second statement!

No, but I have the benefit of having a much wider experience to choose from I've been listening to music for nearly 30 years and I reckon if an album can impress a jaded guy like me it has to be something special.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

Good music is good music. And I firmly believe that there is good music in all genres.

That was an excellent post, Jewel, but I think it belonged in the other thread.

[narya]

My own opinion is that, for an individual piece of music to be great, it must transcend the original composer or artist. The Beatles (to name just one example) have succeeded in this regard. The songs of Lennon/McCartney have been recorded by countless others.

Their songs even sound great as elevator music. The "offensive" part of their music, whatever that is, has been stripped away, and the essential good structure remains, and is acceptable to all generations.

[Alatar]

But we've still got a point of contention with your second statement!

No, but I have the benefit of having a much wider experience to choose from I've been listening to music for nearly 30 years and I reckon if an album can impress a jaded guy like me it has to be something special.

Thats ok, I only put that bit in to annoy you.

[yovargas]

Mission accomplished!