Let's be honest here, people...(music taste question)

*spams Mariah Carey music*

But in terms of making me imagine scenes in my head, and making me nod and tap my feet, and even emotionally moving me, then yes, commmercial music can do that, depending on the song. Unfortunately, I feel kind of ashamed to admit it, because I know that's exactly what the writers intended. >_>

I still don't see why doing music "commercially" precludes putting one's heart and soul into it. Some people are lucky enough to get paid to do what they love.

Spain I hate you go die etc

Oh, does anyone think that being part of the music "scene", whichever scene that may be, is required to have good taste? Just curious.

You have good taste in music if you explain why you like something with more words than "I just like it." I'll accept that you like Nickleback and even approve if you have good reasoning behind it.

Who defines good music? I can tell you why I like certain genres of metal for example(I rather enjoy powerful Grungy rythm sections combined with fast drumming providing a sensation of motion), but why should I have to?

What if someone came up and said "I like Lady Gaga because I like to dance and it is fun to dance to". Would that please you?

Music is art, but art can also be entertainment. This thread reminds me a lot of the various cliched music tropes that everyone likes to joke about but rarely admit they are part of.

What is wrong with saying "because i like it"?

My personal opinion:

In order to have good taste, you need to have favorite artists in LOTS of genres. not every one, but most. That way, You've experienced them all, and can make a choice on which genres you like and such.

Take note that some genres have more taste than others, and require extra analyzation.

^Why?

Listening to Genre X of music and hanging out with individuals who also listen to Genre X of music. Hipsters, Goths, and Metalheads are good examples.

I think I have a good taste in music simply because my musical tastes are very diverse. I love some "mainstream" aritists like The Beatles, Queen, Lady Gaga, Sara Barelis, Paramore, Taylor Swift, Daughtry, etc. But I also like several "indie" artists like MC Lars, MC Frontalot, Great Big Sea, Abney Park, etc.

I'm not into classical music, Big Band, or Blue Grass, but I do have a healthy respect for the genres. Without them we wouldn't have most of the music we have today after all!

That said, I do think I have better taste than "crunk rap" fans because I like music with a point or story to it.

edited 6th Sep '10 1:24:17 PM by HopelessRomance

Well, I'm no Crunk fan, but it does have a point.

It supposed to serve as the backdrop for a party or club. Which is why it's popular in those situations.

Ditto, I did hang out with a lot of Hip Hop Heads when I lived in the city, but even then parts of the culture I really just don't like.

Similarly, if I only associated with people who listened to the same music as me, then I'd have very few friends. And I have tried - joining my university's 'Indie Society' in first year only served to introduce me to some of the most arrogant, self-important, pretentious asshats I have ever been unfortunate enough to meet.

So yeah, I don't think the 'scene' has anything to do with how much you 'get' music itself, it's just a social construct based around the music that gives people with common ground the security of feeling like they belong to a group.

I don't know how bashing Lady Gaga a few posts back would contribute anything good to the subject, but fine. I guess it's too late to defend her.

I know that Gaga's music isn't deep or innovative, but she's pop. I expect to be entertained. There's always M.I.A., Tori Amos, Radiohead, The National etc. to drop anvils, provide social commentary, be arty, and/or bring something else to the table that makes these artists more "superior" than Lady Gaga or any other pop artist.

Anyways, there's no definite answer for something as subjective as music taste. Someone who has a similar music taste as you will have "good taste", whether you listen to Aphex Twin, Nickelback, Liz Phair, or Miley Cyrus.  ^*

edited 6th Sep '10 7:03:14 PM by SoapMagic

^ Not to mention, I consider Lady Gaga and her image to be an Affectionate Parody of the whole commercial pop scene, but taking it several steps further and crossing the line twice. How else would you explain her insane outfits and deliberate attempts for fame?

However, true commercial pop (these days) is utter shit. Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, et al...ALL OF IT. However, before what I'd like to call the Autotune Decade (2000 and onward), commercial pop stars actually had talent, and that made their music much better. I like some boy bands for this reason, but I believe that British and Japanese commercial pop is the best you can find.

Rap, too, has gone downhill. Thank god for (the two halves of) Out Kast, Eminem and (what's left of) Cypress Hill. They were good in the 90s, and they're good even now, in this day and age, when "Call me Mr. Flintstone, I can make your bed rock" is considered poetry and "Don't drop 'em cause we pop 'em like Orville Redenbacher" is considered a threat. Lil Wayne and mostly everyone in his posse have pretty much killed commercial rap...

Yes, I do like quite a few mainstream artists that people have debated about (La Roux and Lady Gaga, especially) and that people like very much (The Prodigy, Janelle Monae, MIA, The White Stripes, Late of the Pier, Gorillaz). But I also really like indie artists like The Go! Team, Okamoto's (signed to major label Ariola/Sony in Japan, but completely indie here), Codeine Velvet Club (same story, but with Island in the UK and Dangerbird in the US), Friendly Fires, and so on.

To me, it doesn't really matter if the artist is indie or mainstream...it just has to be good music, not a commercial product.

Not to mention, I consider Lady Gaga and her image to be an Affectionate Parody of the whole commercial pop scene, but taking it several steps further and crossing the line twice. How else would you explain her insane outfits and deliberate attempts for fame?

I think that Lady Gaga is straight up commercial pop, though your suggestion is interesting. While I'm not really very keen on her music I think she gets a lot of unwarranted hate.

I'm ambivalent towards the Disney set and Justin Bieber. Their music doesn't appeal to me because I'm not part of their target audience, and therein lies the problem. They're going for the tween demographic, which isn't going to do them any favours when they try to expand as artists.

As you said, a lot of older pop stars active since the eighties (and perhaps even the nineties) were arguably more talented, but they also had somewhat broader appeal.

I really hate when people say, "OMG you like pop music you are a mindless drone". Most of my music is pop on my iPod. I guess by y'alls standards I do not truly appreciate music.

It depends whether or not you actually appreciate it fully. If you say you do, I see no reason to doubt you.

Why feel ashamed? One man's crass emotional manipulation (that you'd have to be an idiot to fall) for is another man's brilliant writing (that you'd have to be brain-dead not to be moved by).

Because, I suppose, I only typically feel shame in the sense that I worry what other people will think, and people can be really quite unpleasant about liking the "wrong" music, and mainstream pop is something you're very likely to be judged for liking.

That and the fact that I do kinda feel that big commercial music production is probably rather cynical compared to indie music (because it makes the most money - if you want to make a cynical profit off music, it's in your interest to write the genre that attracts the widest audience, and that's pop). I don't like to admit to having been emotionally manipulated. Put like that, it sounds like mind control, and that's scary.

How is profit cynical? It holds no world view.

No, commercial music production is cynical, because it puts profit over idealistic goals for music (expressing emotions, telling stories, changing the world, bla bla bla).

Yeah nevermind, whatever.

edited 13th Sep '10 2:48:37 PM by TheUbiclexCalculus

I didn't mean to say that all popular music production is cynical, just that if your primary goal when composing a piece of music is to make a profit, rather than to do those things that Tzetze listed, it makes the most sense to write a mainstream pop song, because that's what makes the most money. It doesn't mean that you can't write a mainstream song for the art or put your heart and soul into it. It just means that if you are writing primarily for money, you'll write pop.

I guess my interpretation of it (I imagine there will be many others) would be that a 'non-shallow' music listener will enjoy the music they enjoy because it moves them, affects them, transports them, or however else you want to summarise that spine-tingling, transcendental experience of listening to a piece of music that you love, the experience that's like having fireworks go off in your brain and electricity run through your veins, like painting a landscape in your mind's eye, sending emotions you've never even personally experienced rushing vividly, joyously, even painfully through your mind... *er hem*. So yeah, can commercial, market-led music ever do... that? For anyone?

Which is why I love soundtracks.

WITCH!

And this:

IMO, the two examples of the music I know that fit the best. Also D Fast's "Scales of Zordium" but I can't find it on You Tube in decent quality...

edited 19th Sep '10 12:38:54 AM by Muzozavr

I would presume genuine good taste in music would be recognizing/understanding what makes features make a particular song a good/generic/crappy example of its genre and appreciating songs for those features.

In other words, good taste would be some sort of understanding of music theory — either learned or innate.

... Which, of course, means I have terrible taste in music, but I can live with that if it means I can enjoy cheesy eighties rock and video game music.