I hate even the idea that if a certain genre of music is appreciated by a snootier brand of person, than those who don't enjoy it should feel that they just must not be high-up enough to understand it. Their tastes aren't mature.
Why? Because it's "not nice" to suggest it? Why is that your biggest metric? Is being inoffensive the most important thing in the whole world?
Besides - it is really more of a practical, pragmatic observation. People who get really into film or books or music tend to cluster around certain things. Individual tastes will vary, but averaged out among a large group of similar people, you're going to have a lot of film buffs who, for instance, love The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and not very many who are all about Sorority Boys.
There are certain things that to enjoy you need more of a background in that medium. Not everything is equally accessible to everyone. Why on earth should it be? What would be the point of that?
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
You're assuming here that in order to like something, you must find a deeper meaning in it. This is false.
Actually, I'm not. For instance, I love the song "Spin me Round." I have two different versions of it on vinyl -- the single and the murder mix, to be specific. Do I find a deeper meaning in being spun round? Fuck no! It's a stupid pop song. If someone were to say "I fucking hate that song" my response would be "oh I can totally understand that."
If someone were to say that about Miles Davis' solo on Blue in Green, I would seriously ask their opinions why, because I would try and show them a way to appreciate to enhance their life.
So you like a shitty pop song, and it's ok for you to like a shitty pop song. But it's not ok for someone else to like a shitty pop song?
If they get so outraged and yet can't say why, probably.
Why should they have to justify what they like to you? And I'll point out you asked why he liked BNL after calling him boring and spineless, saying he had bad taste in music, and demanding he tell you what was "musically interesting" about BNL. You've just openly admitted it's ok to like shit for no reason, but that only applies to you?
I hate even the idea that if a certain genre of music is appreciated by a snootier brand of person, than those who don't enjoy it should feel that they just must not be high-up enough to understand it. Their tastes aren't mature.
Why? Because it's "not nice" to suggest it? Why is that your biggest metric? Is being inoffensive the most important thing in the whole world?
Besides - it is really more of a practical, pragmatic observation. People who get really into film or books or music tend to cluster around certain things. Individual tastes will vary, but averaged out among a large group of similar people, you're going to have a lot of film buffs who, for instance, love The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and not very many who are all about Sorority Boys.
There are certain things that to enjoy you need more of a background in that medium. Not everything is equally accessible to everyone. Why on earth should it be? What would be the point of that?
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
If that’s the attitude of the person saying it, then yeah. Some things are meaningless to those without background; that can be a high horse thing, but it doesn’t have to be. Acknowledging that people need the background doesn’t automatically make you a douche though.
They're allowed to, it just makes them beneath him.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
most people can't turn in on their existence and say anything
This is something I struggle with. My immediate answer would be "Yes! They do it all the time without realizing it!" That being is constantly engaged in the world, and we are constantly pulling our subjectivity back like a hand from a hot stove. However, if most people can't do that, what is that saying about people? I really don't want to make that kind of value judgement about people. It seems necessary that everyone has the capability to do it.
The moment after the pickup in Der Grosse Fugue, what does it evoke? Your entire self? One aspect of one self? One moment of authenticity and genuine self-understanding? Why can't a person find that same thing in BNL, or Hot in Hurr, or Banana Phone?
They can, but I would love for them to explain it to me so that I can understand what a worldhood like that may be like.
why aren't people allowed to like music that is shallow and sounds nice?
They're allowed to, it just makes them beneath him.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
I really doubt Pods ‘suggested’ that.
He seems to think everybody should be interested in taking the studious approach to things that he has, and so he basically flamebaits people he disagrees with.
They're allowed to, it just makes them beneath him.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
Thing is what he says doesn't line up with what he did on any level, and he already established that he holds others to a higher standard than himself, likely due to the mistaken notion he holds that he has trained his mind to form only justifiable and worthwhile opinions through numerous courses in useless pretension and twattery.
Podly you didn't just say people actually have to justify their opinions to you
that's insufferably pompous
No, not to me. But I think that people THINK that they like something, when they really don't even like it. They just prefer to like it, and get outraged when people force them to confront themselves.
Basically, most people's actual identity is a void around which they oscillate suppositions and fantasies. They should confront that and become actual people.
i think you are misunderstanding the people in that thread
they genuinely like BNL; they just aren't sure why, or are unable to express it
when it comes to music, people often like what is familiar and comfortable (me included); some people like challenge, novelty, etc. it's like any art appreciation.
BNL is like any kind of pop music, it's familiar, comfortable, predictable for many people, and that's good for them. they enjoy it. it affirms them.
i don't like some bands that do weird rhythms because i can't get into a listening groove and internalize the rhythm. they're interesting and talented but i have zero interest in a song that doesn't have nice even rhythms. basically if i can't even attempt to dance to it i have little interest.
comparing that to the way i approach literature, i feel my musical taste is undeveloped or immature, but that's okay. those words have negative connotations but they shouldn't necessarily. not everyone can appreciate every art on every level. it would be exhausting.
I disagree. For example, people often identify themselves by the things that they like, by the things which speak to them. What music would I pick to identify myself? My current self? Probably Brian Eno's Another Green World, David Bowie's Low, Smashing Pumpkin's Adore, Bill Evan's performance in Blue and Green, the moment after the pickup in Beethoven's Der Grosse Fugue. Do I have actual reasons for liking them? If you would like to get into a discussion of rationality, I can do that, but lets assume that I do -- that my liking this music, it's speaking-to-me, is a transcending element which binds fast my multiple selves.
Now try and do the same for BNL. I refuse to believe that someone could actually turn in upon their existence and say "well shit, yeah, BNL!" It has simply not been my experience in life. People live their lives in their interpellated egos and interpolate their existence in the gaps between what they suppose is true.
most people can't turn in on their existence and say anything, let alone pick music to express it. i think doing so is over simple and facile, whether it's BNL or Beethoven. The moment after the pickup in Der Grosse Fugue, what does it evoke? Your entire self? One aspect of one self? One moment of authenticity and genuine self-understanding? Why can't a person find that same thing in BNL, or Hot in Hurr, or Banana Phone?
More to the point, why aren't people allowed to like music that is shallow and sounds nice?
then you can say that person's opinion is based off of information you think is silly. therefore you think it's dumb.
Pods is dehumanizing people's opinions to the point where they simply aren't allowed to exist .
I hate even the idea that if a certain genre of music is appreciated by a snootier brand of person, than those who don't enjoy it should feel that they just must not be high-up enough to understand it. Their tastes aren't mature.
Why? Because it's "not nice" to suggest it? Why is that your biggest metric? Is being inoffensive the most important thing in the whole world?
Besides - it is really more of a practical, pragmatic observation. People who get really into film or books or music tend to cluster around certain things. Individual tastes will vary, but averaged out among a large group of similar people, you're going to have a lot of film buffs who, for instance, love The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and not very many who are all about Sorority Boys.
There are certain things that to enjoy you need more of a background in that medium. Not everything is equally accessible to everyone. Why on earth should it be? What would be the point of that?
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
If that’s the attitude of the person saying it, then yeah. Some things are meaningless to those without background; that can be a high horse thing, but it doesn’t have to be. Acknowledging that people need the background doesn’t automatically make you a douche though.
I think you'd have to have remarkably refined and informed tastes to be able to consistently hold opinions about something's quality to a significant extent. We argue all the time about, "in the real world." We come down on the pragmatic side constantly. I think that save for someone like Cornelius, from Achewood, you'd be better served by reserving judgment.
Else you end up in a position where you're making broad, negative statements about music you don't like one second, and contradicting yourself with more specific statements about the music you do like, the next.
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
They're allowed to, it just makes them beneath him.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
I really doubt Pods ‘suggested’ that.
He seems to think everybody should be interested in taking the studious approach to things that he has, and so he basically flamebaits people he disagrees with.
No, but I think that if someone lives a life without something -- a book, music, a movie -- that they really identify with, then I hope that someone can help them enjoy life more.
No, but I think that if someone lives a life without something -- a book, music, a movie -- that they really identify with, then I hope that someone can help them enjoy life more.
I think you'd have to have remarkably refined and informed tastes to be able to consistently hold opinions about something's quality to a significant extent. We argue all the time about, "in the real world." We come down on the pragmatic side constantly.
Else you end up in a position where you're making broad, negative statements about music you don't like one second, and contradicting yourself with more specific statements about the music you do like, the next.
1) As jacobkosh noted, the tastes of people seriously into a genre tend to cluster. Overlap doesn’t necessarily mean anything, but it’s worth checking out.
2) I feel no obligation to detail why I like or dislike anything, but I’m far more willing to talk about things I enjoy. If I don’t like something I don’t waste my time on it.
They're allowed to, it just makes them beneath him.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
I really doubt Pods ‘suggested’ that.
He seems to think everybody should be interested in taking the studious approach to things that he has, and so he basically flamebaits people he disagrees with.
No, but I think that if someone lives a life without something -- a book, music, a movie -- that they really identify with, then I hope that someone can help them enjoy life more.
Sure, and that’s fine. I love recommendations.
But your approach to stuff you don’t like is rather more negative.
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
Well, accusing someone of a moral failing because they're not as into music/art/whatever as you is dickish, I agree (although I think everyone would be better off if they took a bit of time to be into something, and I feel sorry for people who only engage exclusively with the most facile examples of any type of human expression).
But on the other hand, "your tastes aren't good enough" is a perfectly acceptable argument when there's a discussion going on about the medium in question. If some hypothetical dude's only seen crappy movies from the past five years and is holding forth about why [movie] is awesome or sucks, I think it's perfectly fair to point out that he has dick for experience and should bulk up his Netflix queue if he wants to talk.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
So, it's ok to like shitty pop if you realize it's shitty pop and don't try and defend it as good.
Hmm.
maybe more "if you don't try to defend it as good in a certain way, ie profundity and evocative power"
much like how it's okay to enjoy reading spy thrillers as long as you don't claim they're high-quality literature
but pods was ragging on people for calling BNL "fantastic". It sounds like you aren't allowed to call it good in any way.
I think Spin Me Round is a fantastic track. It's amazing: it has amazingly distinctive percussion that blends well, it's super well-known, and it's at 128bpm. Within that framework, it's fantastic! I am not quite familiar with a framework in which BNL would be "fantastic" besides "hrmm I need some musical anesthesia "
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
Well, accusing someone of a moral failing because they're not as into music/art/whatever as you is dickish, I agree (although I think everyone would be better off if they took a bit of time to be into something, and I feel sorry for people who only engage exclusively with the most facile examples of any type of human expression).
But on the other hand, "your tastes aren't good enough" is a perfectly acceptable argument when there's a discussion going on about the medium in question. If some hypothetical dude's only seen crappy movies from the past five years and is holding forth about why [movie] is awesome or sucks, I think it's perfectly fair to point out that he has dick for experience and should bulk up his Netflix queue if he wants to talk.
Oh, experience is absolutely important. I'd agree.
Mind you, this is all of course a completely personal barometer.
When you're at the stage where you're suggesting your friend needs to see some better movies because they're too inexperienced and haven't seen shit, that's fine.
When you get into calling them ignorant because they don't enjoy Citizen Kane for all it's technical mastery, and why that makes it so much better...
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
Well, accusing someone of a moral failing because they're not as into music/art/whatever as you is dickish, I agree (although I think everyone would be better off if they took a bit of time to be into something, and I feel sorry for people who only engage exclusively with the most facile examples of any type of human expression).
But on the other hand, "your tastes aren't good enough" is a perfectly acceptable argument when there's a discussion going on about the medium in question. If some hypothetical dude's only seen crappy movies from the past five years and is holding forth about why [movie] is awesome or sucks, I think it's perfectly fair to point out that he has dick for experience and should bulk up his Netflix queue if he wants to talk.
I disagree here. I’ve probably seen less than 100 films, but I don’t think that makes my opinion worthless. Less useful or insightful, maybe.
I disagree here. I’ve probably seen less than 100 films, but I don’t think that makes my opinion worthless. Less useful or insightful, maybe.
I think that's more what he means. Although I suppose the implication is that your opinion is actually useless to you, too, since you have so little to compare your own current experience to.
But your approach to stuff you don’t like is rather more negative.
Well that's because I'm a vociferous prick. I'd be the first to admit that, but I think that it is a good tactic for grabbing people by the lapels and shaking them from their unexamined life.
(Two Infinite Jest references in there, to really boost up the twattery of my recent posts)
Posts
Well, duh. It's Beethoven. :P
what strange world do you live in where Indian food = lots of time on toilet?
It has little to do with coddling anyone. I'm not suggesting that Date Movie actually has Oscar-worthy merits. That's not what I meant, or what I was suggesting.
On the other hand, "your tastes just aren't good enough" has something of a high potential for abuse among assholes.
I guess I was reacting more to that, really.
But no,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rm_hHfNe6M
Seriously. If anything Indian food results in a much faster, more efficient shit.
nah podly is willing to admit he likes shallow nonsense like various dance songs
the question is, why is it okay to like that and not barenaked ladies?
he did say that it was more about the fact that they got angry when he suggested that BNL isn't good, and if someone were to say that his dance song preferences were no good he would reply "yeah i can understand that"
Who is this Nosferatu looking motherfucker? I do like the rhythm, though.
Have you seen those wacky Ben Stiller comedies?
I don't know what we're yelling about.
Hmm.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
This is something I struggle with. My immediate answer would be "Yes! They do it all the time without realizing it!" That being is constantly engaged in the world, and we are constantly pulling our subjectivity back like a hand from a hot stove. However, if most people can't do that, what is that saying about people? I really don't want to make that kind of value judgement about people. It seems necessary that everyone has the capability to do it.
They can, but I would love for them to explain it to me so that I can understand what a worldhood like that may be like.
See my response to MHaP
this is why I don't change the channel on the radio when that "spin me round" flo rider song comes on
He seems to think everybody should be interested in taking the studious approach to things that he has, and so he basically flamebaits people he disagrees with.
maybe more "if you don't try to defend it as good in a certain way, ie profundity and evocative power"
much like how it's okay to enjoy reading spy thrillers as long as you don't claim they're high-quality literature
Thing is what he says doesn't line up with what he did on any level, and he already established that he holds others to a higher standard than himself, likely due to the mistaken notion he holds that he has trained his mind to form only justifiable and worthwhile opinions through numerous courses in useless pretension and twattery.
then you can say that person's opinion is based off of information you think is silly. therefore you think it's dumb.
Pods is dehumanizing people's opinions to the point where they simply aren't allowed to exist .
Honestly I find that idea somewhat unsettling.
I think you'd have to have remarkably refined and informed tastes to be able to consistently hold opinions about something's quality to a significant extent. We argue all the time about, "in the real world." We come down on the pragmatic side constantly. I think that save for someone like Cornelius, from Achewood, you'd be better served by reserving judgment.
Else you end up in a position where you're making broad, negative statements about music you don't like one second, and contradicting yourself with more specific statements about the music you do like, the next.
maybe in your strange country. In mine it just leads to the lovely situation of a tummy full of delicious food.
I see what you did there.
Nah. A combination of ESL + aversion to radio = me missing out on a lot of that stuff.
No, but I think that if someone lives a life without something -- a book, music, a movie -- that they really identify with, then I hope that someone can help them enjoy life more.
Oh, wait.
2) I feel no obligation to detail why I like or dislike anything, but I’m far more willing to talk about things I enjoy. If I don’t like something I don’t waste my time on it.
Stupid high cholesterol
but pods was ragging on people for calling BNL "fantastic". It sounds like you aren't allowed to call it good in any way.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
But your approach to stuff you don’t like is rather more negative.
Well, accusing someone of a moral failing because they're not as into music/art/whatever as you is dickish, I agree (although I think everyone would be better off if they took a bit of time to be into something, and I feel sorry for people who only engage exclusively with the most facile examples of any type of human expression).
But on the other hand, "your tastes aren't good enough" is a perfectly acceptable argument when there's a discussion going on about the medium in question. If some hypothetical dude's only seen crappy movies from the past five years and is holding forth about why [movie] is awesome or sucks, I think it's perfectly fair to point out that he has dick for experience and should bulk up his Netflix queue if he wants to talk.
I think Spin Me Round is a fantastic track. It's amazing: it has amazingly distinctive percussion that blends well, it's super well-known, and it's at 128bpm. Within that framework, it's fantastic! I am not quite familiar with a framework in which BNL would be "fantastic" besides "hrmm I need some musical anesthesia "
Oh, experience is absolutely important. I'd agree.
Mind you, this is all of course a completely personal barometer.
When you're at the stage where you're suggesting your friend needs to see some better movies because they're too inexperienced and haven't seen shit, that's fine.
When you get into calling them ignorant because they don't enjoy Citizen Kane for all it's technical mastery, and why that makes it so much better...
That's pushing it.
I think that's more what he means. Although I suppose the implication is that your opinion is actually useless to you, too, since you have so little to compare your own current experience to.
so late.
Well that's because I'm a vociferous prick. I'd be the first to admit that, but I think that it is a good tactic for grabbing people by the lapels and shaking them from their unexamined life.
(Two Infinite Jest references in there, to really boost up the twattery of my recent posts)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.