I'd also agree that the OP should either find something they can agree on and go from there, or just talk about other things. My friends and I all have completely contradictory tastes in music and feel differently about how important it is in our lives, but it's never been a problem since we just don't talk about music unless we're all hating on the same thing.
It's not like this guy is overtly forcing his opinions on people.
As someone who makes music with friends and hangs out with musicians, it was really strange, when a friend of mine said that using multi-track recording was 'selling out'
We're not even selling anything
Electricity is selling out.
'I'm cleansed of the system! 'Cept when my amp needs electric power.'
A band 'sells out' probably at the point when people you wouldn't hang out with start to like them, too.
A band technically sells out the moment they do anything for money.
A band literally sells out the moment they decide to change their sound to best match the audience likely to give them the most money. Even if they like making that kind of music.
I'm assuming it's not just music he does this with, right>? That was just the easy example.
Yes, correct. Since music is pretty much his life it's a much easier to come up with those examples for him then say, a movie or whatever. But his mindset does apply to many other things.
I really hope he will change his views on "selling out", how will he otherwise support a wife and child with a band. Its not like he is getting into an industry without any competition.
But that is just me being dutch o_O
Well, he's leaving an incredibly well paying job now because of his unhappiness. His wife and him love FL more than the place there at now so they're deciding to just pack up and head home. They're sorta new-age hippies. Plus, as long as they're happy they don't care how much money they make.
ed: also, if you want to make him uncomfortable, just continuously ask him to justify his ridiculous positions. That's particularly easy with music, since there is good stuff in whatever genre or subgenre you want to name.
See, that's the thing though. I have asked him to do that and his response to not liking some of his favorite music ranges from a short "You just don't get it" to something along the lines of "You have to open your eyes. Once you realize how much of the shit music out there has corrupted peoples tastes, then you'll understand how good it is." It gets extremely annoying after a while because...
I'd also agree that the OP should either find something they can agree on and go from there, or just talk about other things. My friends and I all have completely contradictory tastes in music and feel differently about how important it is in our lives, but it's never been a problem since we just don't talk about music unless we're all hating on the same thing.
It's not like this guy is overtly forcing his opinions on people.
Is it?
He does. Whenever anyone disagrees with his whole philosophy it's like an alarm goes off in his head that says "MUST. SPREAD. INFLUENCE" and he has to try to convince people to think like him. It's why I hate arguing with him because if I choose to do so I have to make sure I'm not doing anything 2 hours later because that's how long it's going to take to wind him down.
Have you ever been at a party, or some other social gathering where the topic of religion comes up? You know how annoying it gets--regardless of your beliefs? No one is going to outright denounce their faith and become an athiest or immediately convert to Catholicism when a game of beer pong is going on 7ft away; it's just pointless conflict.
Well, he's the guy who thinks he's going to convert you to like his tastes, sooner or later.
I'm intrigued. What are some of the bands that he holds up as undeniably and objectively superior to everything else out there?
He's a devout RX Bandits lover. He praises the band Receiving End of Sirens(who I think broke up, but I digress.) And I swear to God, his favorite musician, bar-none, is this dude named Gavin Castleton. If there was a way to get a Gavin Castleton religion started, he'd be the Pope. Whenever I say I just don't like the guy, that's when he spouts out the "you just dont get it" remark and has to tell me why I should like him.
ed: also, if you want to make him uncomfortable, just continuously ask him to justify his ridiculous positions. That's particularly easy with music, since there is good stuff in whatever genre or subgenre you want to name.
See, that's the thing though. I have asked him to do that and his response to not liking some of his favorite music ranges from a short "You just don't get it" to something along the lines of "You have to open your eyes. Once you realize how much of the shit music out there has corrupted peoples tastes, then you'll understand how good it is." It gets extremely annoying after a while because...
This just means that you're not drilling far enough down to what his justification actually is. Like, you're letting him deflect your question with more general statements about how bad everything else is, without forcing him to quantify anything. "So wait, how do tastes get 'corrupted'?"
A fun rhetorical way to do this is to just be relentlessly plainitive in your questioning.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
R&G: What’s your take on the state of the music industry today?
Seth: The music industry is really focused on the ‘industry’ part and not so much on the ‘music’ part. This is the greatest moment in the history of music if your dream is to distribute as much music as possible to as many people as possible, or if your goal is to make it as easy as possible to become heard as a musician. There’s never been a time like this before. So if your focus is on music, it’s great. If your focus is on the industry part and the limos, the advances, the lawyers, polycarbonate and vinyl, it’s horrible. The shift that is happening right now is that the people who insist on keeping the world as it was are going to get more and more frustrated until they lose their jobs. People who want to invent a whole new set of rules, a new paradigm, can’t believe their good fortune and how lucky they are that the people in the industry aren’t noticing an opportunity.
R&G: Are you saying that the technology players like The Hype Machine, Last.fm, MOG or Pandora are taking advantage of the new paradigm?
Seth: I would go to even smaller places. I would talk about the folks who started CD Baby. I would talk about musicians who are making a great living leading a small tribe – 1,000 true fans connecting directly with each other, leaving out many layers of middlemen. I would talk about powerful musicians like Neil Young who are moving things in one direction, versus powerful musicians who are just sitting back and watching the whole thing fade away.
R&G: Can you give an example of a powerful musician or a super-group that’s missing the boat?
Seth: We saw both Metallica and AC/DC take interesting paths when it came time to figure out how to generate new generations of fans, when it came time to play with distribution, etc…
R&G: Going with Best Buy or Wal-Mart?
Seth: Yeah. A Wal-Mart deal seems really sexy, but you’ve got to figure out who you are reaching and what is it doing for you in the long run. Suing your fans is an interesting approach to maintaining the status quo, but there’s no evidence that it leads to long-term benefits. There are musicians who are reaching out and building fan bases and then there are those who are fighting the other direction. I went to see Ricky Lee Jones live in New York City a couple months ago. At the end of the concert they stood up and said, “If we get your email address at the front of the room, we will email you a live recording of tonight’s concert when it’s ready.” 72 hours later, there it was. The idea that you could have a micro-market of 250, 500, 1,000 copies of a CD every night is a totally different way of thinking about what you do for a living, rather than making one album a year marketed with payola and promotion that reaches a certain group of people and ignores everybody else.
R&G: You mentioned “tribes” earlier. Are you referring to “tribes” being the fans of the artists?
Seth: My new book is called Tribes, so I can’t help but use the term “tribe.” I’ve been thinking about it a lot. I define a tribe as a group of people sharing a common culture, a goal, a mission, probably a leader. There are tribes of people – like the ones who go to South by Southwest – who are connected because they want to remake the music industry. There is the tribe of people who follow Bruce Springsteen and will pay unreasonable amounts of money to hear him live and compare playlists. The important distinction here is that music labels used to be in the business of grabbing shelf space, on the radio and in the record store. Now, the music industry needs to realign and be in the business of finding and connecting and leading groups of people who want to follow a musician and connect with the other people who want to do the same.
R&G: I see artists actively pursuing their fans by gathering opt-in mailing lists and offering B-sides and tickets before they go on sale to the general public. I feel like a lot of bands are actively reaching out to their fans.
Seth: Also, the middle geography has disappeared. In the ‘70s or ‘80s you listened to a song because “everyone else” was also listening to it. That’s the definition of pop music. In those days we defined “everyone else” as people in our high school or people who listened to WPLJ. Now, “everyone else” is not defined by where you live or what radio station you listen to. It’s defined by which horizontal or vertical slice of the world you connect yourself with. I might listen to Keller Williams because everyone else in my world includes frustrated Deadheads. We don’t have new Grateful Dead to listen to, so everyone else in my circle is listening to Keller Williams, so he is pop to us. He’s not pop to the kids at the middle school who have never heard of him, right? So you end up with all these silos and niches and lots and lots of ways to look at the world.
R&G: With the a la carte downloads offered by iTunes, eMusic and Amazon, when do you think we’re going to see the death of the album?
Seth: I spend a lot of time hanging out with teenagers, and I’m pretty sure the album is already dead. We bundle stuff up for economic reasons. Movies are the length they are for a reason. Songs are the length they are for a reason. Albums were invented because that’s about as much time as Thomas Edison could put on one piece of recording. But in a digital world, there’s no reason that you can’t have a six-hour product or a three-minute product. So anybody who says it has to be 46 minutes long because that’s how long you can fit on two sides of an LP, I don’t think that’s a good reason to make that your product.
R&G: Do you think that the CD will be a secondary market in the near future?
Seth: Digital is about to surpass the CD, and once it starts to happen it’s going to happen faster and faster and faster. The more interesting thing to me is who is going to control the playlist. If there is an infinite amount of music available – and I would argue that as soon as the amount of music available exceeds the amount of time you have in your life, that’s infinite – somebody will have the leverageable spot of deciding what to listen to next. And it’s unclear whether someone will charge to tell me that or will pay to tell me that. It’s still up for grabs in every one of these vertical silos. Who are the tastemakers and how do these ideas spread? The analogy I like to give is if you’re an author and Oprah Winfrey calls, you don’t say, “How much are you going to pay me to go on your show and give away all the ideas in my book?” In fact, if you could you would pay to be on Oprah. For a really long time the music industry has had two minds: On the one hand, they would pay money to be on Clear Channel or MTV; on the other hand, they would charge you money to hear their music in concert or out of your stereo. Those days are all getting intermingled now. “I am the program director of my radio station, so where’s my payola?”
R&G: Do you see music blogs being a player in the future of whatever the new music business turns into?
Seth: I think they are, and I think the definition of a blog is going to keep changing. Blogs are certainly not what they were seven years ago. They have a totally different look and feel and covenant. The idea of amateur self-published media where everyone can be a writer, that’s here forever. We’re never going to go back to, “No, you must listen. You cannot speak.”
R&G: You’ve written about copyright issues on your blog. DRM is pretty much gone, but with copyright and suing the consumer, what’s your opinion on that?
Seth: It’s really fine and good to have a moral or ethical conversation. I think it’s more productive to have a practical conversation about power. The fact is that the industry will never have enough power to keep someone from pirating something because they think they’re going to end up in jail. The numbers that would end up in jail are too big. They’re probably not going to have enough power to get people not to copy something because they think it will get them in trouble with their mom. After all, it’s an industry built on getting in trouble with your mom. What we’re left with is the argument that if you copy that song, we’ll stop making music. And what the intelligent consumer has noticed is that the amount of music that keeps getting made keeps going up, not down.
R&G: How do managers or do-it-yourself artists stand out in the crowded marketplace?
Seth: It helps if the band is great, if it’s remarkable, and if it’s doing stuff worth talking about. In the old model, what we learned from Schick is that if you come out with a razor just like Gillette but a little cheaper, and you get shelf space, you’ll do fine. Top 40 radio has a long history of being just like the other guy, but with a slightly different song. Just like the other guy, but with better shelf space. That doesn’t work in a totally flat digital world. You only spread if you’re remarkable. Take a look at YouTube videos. If a YouTube video becomes very popular and someone copies it, the new one does not become very popular because it’s just a copy of the old one. I start by saying the music itself – the band, what they’re saying, what they stand for – has to be more than “this is just another version of that.” Also, you have to make it easy for people to speak up. You have to make it easy for people to find each other, to talk about it. You have to create a culture for your tribe. If you go to a Garth Brooks concert and then walk down the street to a Rat Dog concert or a Dead concert, you can tell who’s going to which concert. There’s a culture. There’s a uniform. There’s a code of conduct. You can invent that for your band if you can live it. Inventing it makes sense, because then people know who else is in the tribe.
R&G: When a band brands itself, there is a credibility issue with their fan base; they run the risk of being perceived as a sellout.
Seth: I think the first thing I’d ask is, “perceived as a sellout by whom?” Some people say Patricia Barber is a sellout because she’s a popular jazz musician as opposed to a starving jazz musician. But the people in the crowd don’t think that. I think selling out is largely about expectation, about being transparent and telling the truth to your audience. When The Talking Heads went from being unsuccessful at CBGB to being really successful on MTV and making a movie with Jonathan Demme, some people said they sold out. Other people said they wished they were more pop-like. I’m not sure that’s something that needs to be at the beginning of the conversation. I think that what you have to do is make it clear to your tribe and to yourself what you stand for, and do that.
The entire interview is excellent, but the last question and answer seem relevant to some things talked about in this thread.
He's living a life where it's his way or the wrong way. How can I reason with him?
Discern contradictions in his reasoning.
Unless he maintains that contradictions are not problematic.
In which case you punch him or stop talking to him.
I'm not sure whether this thread is destined to be "How to converse with a person who's closed-minded?" or "Do bands sell out, Y or N?", but in the case of the former, _J_ hit the nail on the head. In any intentional effort to question someone's perspectives, be it music, politics, religion, or whatever, ask questions. Ask questions calmly and nonconfrontationally until contradictions in their reasoning appear, and then press them on this. Don't attack, don't argue, don't fight them on it; simply lead them to the inconsistencies and force them to deal with them.
In this particular case, ask him what makes is music/brand/whatever right? What standards are used to determine this? Can these standards be applied logically elsewhere? Who determines what these standards are? What gives them the authority to make this determination?
Is the point of the conversation where people debate whether or not Metallica sold out with the video for "One" or that Green Day sold out with "Dookie"?
metallica didn't sell out, they died on September 27 1986.
the thing is he kind of does have a point, even if he's expressing it in a self centered and relatively ignorant way. if you really like music, can understand and have a more nuanced grasp of it and go out of your way to find some of the good variety, Owl City sounds genuinely offensive to your ears. It doesn't make you a better person for being aware of stuff that isn't spoonfed to you, but it doesn't make you any worse either. This kind of attitude seems more due to him not being around compatible company. If you have a lot of friends who share your interests and/or aptitudes, you'll find it easier to get along with people who don't.
I had a friend (former, I guess for unrelated reasons) who was a fan of Matt and Kim and huge fan of Paramore. Her first day on campus we somehow find each other and randomly start hanging out and omg Matt and Kim are coming to OU the next day. She seems surprised that I knew about them but doesn't seem put off by it.
I invite my now-gf and some other friends to hear how awesome they are. They're playing in a pretty small auditorium so it's not like they're huge enough to have sold out yet.
The next week or so she's watching Gossip Girl. OH FUCK. MATT AND KIM ARE ON THERE? SELL. OUTS.
I didn't get it. I didn't really care either. They made it on some shitty CW show? Cool. People like their single from that Bacardi commercial? Cool.
These things went all over her though and it more or less made her not want to support the band simply because everyone else was. This was really snobby to me.
I can understand someone not liking a band anymore because, in essence, they've "sold out" and gone from their roots. Roots being what they originally sound like and what they sing about. Now imho, any good band will experiment and tweak their sound and style over their lifetime granted they make it long enough to do so. That I can understand. But because they've made a few splashes in lower pop culture? Good lord it confused me.
We were also partying one time and someone decided to play some Paramore. Now, heaven forbid anyone singing along and fucking up the lyrics. I think her quote was something like, "If anyone one of those little bitches messes up the lyrics I'm gonna have to set them straight." We were in another room, we couldn't hear them sing but we just knew there was a Paramore song. She left to the other room for a while to see this mysterious poser who decided to play her beloved band's song and confront them and let them know that she, yes she, was the Queen of all things Paramore.
This attitude is really fucking obnoxious. One of the first posts about 99.imahugefuckingfaggotthrowingfauxpercentagesout of music being too generic and bland? Ya, I get it. I like some of it and I don't like some of it. A catchy beat is hard to, well, beat. Same with a catchy chorus.
Now at the same time I do like a more refined sense of music. I do listen to groups/artists who aren't well known and whose lyrics aren't as mainstream, so to speak. I like them for both reasons and don't try to set on some pedestal of superiority because I knew them "before they made it big" or any similar reason.
Personally? I fucking love Party in the USA as a song. Not a fan of Miley or anything, but the song just makes me happy for whatever reason. To me it's the "Party all the Time (Eddie Murphy)" of our generation. I love it. It's not an overly great song, no. They lyrics aren't deep and Miley has the generic teenybopper formula working for her.
TL;DR: I like music. I listen to different kinds.
Alternatively on the subject of conversing with close-minded people, I had a similar situation the other day. Group of friends went out to the hottub and there were two random girls there we started talking and drinking with. Pretty cool girls. One was conservative and the other an earthy liberal. They would mention topics and graze them which piqued my curiosity.
Fuck me. I asked her to explain her stance and she did. Going over and over how her religious values told her this and that, and this is how she should act and treat people.
I tried to have my turn and state my side (I gave her a good 15 minutes and I was genuinely intrigued to hear how she interpreted things and why she believed them.) As I was doing so she kept interrupting me and saying, "Hold on. Let me just say this." Every other word. I humored her. but then I tried to raise my house to be stern about, "Hey. I let you talk plenty. Be nice and let me."
It got so frustrating I called her a cunt and other choice words and left. Best reaction? Definitely not. I was trying to entertain the other side and listen, see what it was all about. In essence I believed some of the same things she did but just took them to more literal or genuine way. I never got that far unfortunately but I started asking the same question.
In that situation, where you're trying to simply converse and open up a forum for discussion (not trying to argue) and the other side acts like that, how would you guys react? I know I was in the wrong and don't need a lecture about it, but it just made my blood boil because she made all of these assumptions about liberals and Dems (we're in the south) and she reaffirmed my assumptions of the generalized conservative Republican.
As to the whole music discussion, right now there's not only too many artists to keep track of and really appreciate; there's too many genres! I'm blown away all the time by how huge the world of music has become and yet it's growing every year. Of course when I meet someone who hasn't left the kiddy pool and still only listens to what they hear on the radio or see on tv, I'm going to be a little exasperated. There might be some good stuff in the shallow end and there's always going to be people who like what they like and have no desire to look for anything different. Then again, since everyone naturally expresses themselves through their taste in music I can't help but think that those people are not only close-minded but apathetic and shallow as well.
As to your friend and his issues, it sounds like he's kind of on the same page. He's looking to refine his tastes in things. That's great but unless he has any reason why A is better than B it's just subjective taste. What I don't really care for is when people say there are no justifications behind taste and to extrapolate that, Twilight is just as good as Let The Right One In. Two movies about vampire love. I'm having some difficulty making my point here but I guess its, in my own little world everything is worth discussing and analyzing and the person who doesn't is a silly goose. The rest of it comes down to attitude. If he's looking for some reason to shit on other people instead of trying to get them to understand why he loves whatever and appreciate it like he does then he's just an egotistical silly goose.
Humor and subtlety could work. I took the opposite approach. I had a friend and roommate in college who did this. Over a period of time, his tastes in food and drink and music became objective truth to him, that only inferior, less experienced people would ever disagree with. It was all very singular, too. There was one band, one beer, one liquor, etc., and even if you agreed that it was good, if you also liked anything else to any degree then you were also inferior and less experienced and held in a pretty strong contempt for your ignorance.
Anyway, I just took opportunities where I saw them to show him that he isn't a god, that he can be completely wrong about something. I usually wouldn't go straight for his most dearly held opinions. I mean, I agreed with him for the most part on the beer and food and liquor and music at the time, though I was also much more open to variety. But I'd take swift advantage of any time he branched out and tried to declare himself the authority on some opinion or taste where I knew I had a good chance to convince him otherwise.
It was never done with total malice, I didn't want to make him hate me, but a few times I royally embarrassed him in front of a large group by quickly trouncing his authority or opinions on something in a manner that even he couldn't refute. In at least one, maybe two of those cases he even came to me later with what seemed like genuine open-minded respect and gratitude for shutting him up. I won't say that I completely changed who he is or anything, I didn't want to, but he definitely softened his edge.
But, like someone implied earlier, I think it's also just a phase that guys and sometimes girls go through that usually disappears long before age 30. It can happen when people go to college, or if they suddenly make a lot more money, or if they move to New York or a similar highly metro scene. They quickly get real full of themselves, and usually life will correct this with some humility and defeat.
Yeah, it's a phase I think every hipster music fan goes through. The deep philosophical question is whether or not music can be judged to be objectively bad or good. There's arguments for both sides of that question, but in most cases I would say that the only arbiter for what is good and bad is the opinion of whomever happens to be listening to it.
I have never and will never understand why some people get so hung up on the music they listen to, or only listen to certain genres, or whatever. It's just completely incomprehensible to me. I can enjoy listening to just about anything with a few notable exceptions, mainly being sounds, vocal styles or instruments I find annoying.
If I mixed up my albums there would be no rhyme or reason to it. Bluegrass, rap, country, orchestral stuff, punk rock, corporate crap, whatever. Beach Boys next to Garth Brooks next to Public Enemy next to monk chants. It's all about whatever mood I'm in or what I'm doing. This strange obsession some people have with defining themselves and their subculture by the music they listen to just seems so arbitrary.
To me, music is like food. It's a spice to life, something to enjoy while it happens. And eating fine cuisine at a classy restuarant isn't going to stop me from munching on cold fried chicken the next day for lunch.
Maybe it'd be different if I was a musician myself but I really don't get it.
This goes beyond defining oneself. This is more about defining others.
And some people just feel they have no real identity of their own. So they latch onto thing they believe will help. Music is more emotionally driven and immediate than probably any other piece of media so it's easier to gravitate towards.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
Yeah, it's a phase I think every hipster music fan goes through. The deep philosophical question is whether or not music can be judged to be objectively bad or good. There's arguments for both sides of that question, but in most cases I would say that the only arbiter for what is good and bad is the opinion of whomever happens to be listening to it.
I'd agree. There is a good chance that it's just a phase. I've seen people go through it before, though it's usually at an earlier age.
I don't see how being passive-aggressive and poking at them will help either of you. Change the subject to something you can agree on and move on. If you're going to try so hard to convince him that he's so wrong for trying to convince you that he's so right, well that seems like a silly goose thing to do. He may even find your point of view (if it really does appose his) to be refreshing after a while. I know I prefer to hang out with my friends who listen to nothing but terrible 80s music or terrible 90s grunge over hipster donks who just happen to like the same bands as I do. Sometimes I bother myself with some of the opinions I have.
I have never and will never understand why some people get so hung up on the music they listen to, or only listen to certain genres, or whatever. It's just completely incomprehensible to me. I can enjoy listening to just about anything with a few notable exceptions, mainly being sounds, vocal styles or instruments I find annoying.
If I mixed up my albums there would be no rhyme or reason to it. Bluegrass, rap, country, orchestral stuff, punk rock, corporate crap, whatever. Beach Boys next to Garth Brooks next to Public Enemy next to monk chants. It's all about whatever mood I'm in or what I'm doing. This strange obsession some people have with defining themselves and their subculture by the music they listen to just seems so arbitrary.
To me, music is like food. It's a spice to life, something to enjoy while it happens. And eating fine cuisine at a classy restuarant isn't going to stop me from munching on cold fried chicken the next day for lunch.
Maybe it'd be different if I was a musician myself but I really don't get it.
I'm pretty much in the opposite category. Not so much in the "I only like indie bands/musicians" way, but in the "I'm generally pretty picky about what I like, and really don't like/can't get into/don't identify with" a lot of music.
Some music is just generally aurally unappealing to me - country, a lot of southern rock, a bunch of rap/hip hop. It's just not for me. Alan Jackson followed by Ludicris, for example, sounds extremely undesirable to me. I'm sure there are a few gems in there that I'd like, but I haven't encountered them yet.
And, just to be absolutely clear, as I seem to be having issues properly explaining my POV on things this week, my likes/dislikes don't stem from some sort of hipster mentality. It's not about some sort of faux artistic integrity, or other bullshit. It just comes from not hearing much that's appealing to my tastes from those genres.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
The best part is the inability to understand that you probably have given it a chance at some point and it simply doesn't 'click' with you.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
The best part is the inability to understand that you probably have given it a chance at some point and it simply doesn't 'click' with you.
In my experience this sort of protest is met with something along the lines of, "But you just haven't heard the right tracks! Here, listen to this live version of their demo B-side!"
I have a weird psychological problem with music in that it completely fails to evoke an emotional reaction in me absent of non-aural context the way that it does very nearly everyone else I've ever known. People regularly find it completely bizarre that I not only don't identify myself by my musical choices, but don't even know what they're talking about when they start on song titles and band members and such.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
The best part is the inability to understand that you probably have given it a chance at some point and it simply doesn't 'click' with you.
It's a common problem, every music nerd's dream is introducing somebody to some new genre or band and completely blowing their mind, and we usually take it to far.
Full disclosure, I happen to be an intense music nerd/hipster and used to be like the guy OP refers to, I was walking my dog last night and some goose was having a deck party and playing Shaggy's "It wasn't me", and I'm ashamed to admit it bothered the shit out of me the rest of the night. That someone could be that dated and out of it in regards to musical taste was unconscionable. But yet, these people were having a party while I went back to my house to drink a beer alone with the dog and spin obscure vinyl records.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
The best part is the inability to understand that you probably have given it a chance at some point and it simply doesn't 'click' with you.
In my experience this sort of protest is met with something along the lines of, "But you just haven't heard the right tracks! Here, listen to this live version of their demo B-side!"
Or, if you're my older brother, it's "Just one more Sevendust song. I know you'll like this one!"
...
Has anyone else gone through defined musical phases in their lives? I mean, for me, when I started high school, I was all about Candlebox. Towards the end of high school, it was Live and Stabbing Westward, with a healthy dose of the Dave Matthews Band (yeah, that's an odd mix, thematically speaking). In college, it went from Stabbing Westward to Tool, then A Perfect Circle. It's not that I shunned other artists, but they were my 'main/primary' bands. My brothers are the same way. The older brother who went through the Sevendust phase went through a Scorpions phase that lasted several years, well into the 90's.
... holy shit, looking back at that paragraph, I feel old. 1997 wasn't that long ago, right?
I'd also agree that the OP should either find something they can agree on and go from there, or just talk about other things. My friends and I all have completely contradictory tastes in music and feel differently about how important it is in our lives, but it's never been a problem since we just don't talk about music unless we're all hating on the same thing.
It's not like this guy is overtly forcing his opinions on people.
Is it?
Yeah. If he's peddling his opinions as fact, just stop talking about those things. If tries to press on, tell him that you don't gain any value from a conversation about how your opinions are objectively wrong, and that you're tired of it, and to kindly drop it. Eventually either he'll realize he's retarded and you can discuss those topics again, or he won't and will probably morph into some fuckwad you don't want to hang around anyway.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I realize this topic is old, but I didn't think this deserved a new thread necessarily.
My sister-in-law and her husband came in for the weekend. It was generally fun and games until the discussion turned towards politics (as it inevitably does with these two, because they're very political). Just to give you a bit of background on them, he is an atheist due to being very skeptic about anything non-empirical. She is a Catholic, following in her mother's footsteps, and she basically became a Catholic so she could get married in a really pretty church and then later decided she wanted to follow their odder (in my opinion) hard-line stances. Both of them are dedicated Democrats.
We mostly agreed on a number of things until somebody brought up AIDS in Africa. This led to her husband and I coming to a very amicable agreement that a combination of abstinence and condom information would be very helpful. My sister-in-law decided to wig out and really go off the deep end, saying things like "abstinence is the only proven 100% effective method of preventing STDs, so we shouldn't bring condoms into the equation because people will think that a condom will enable them to continue having sex when really abstinence is better for them".
After basically ripping this argument to shreds, she moved on to, "Well, who is going to provide these condoms and instruction along with abstinence information? Because it's not going to be us! And besides, look at NYC, where condoms are readily available. There are STDs in New York!"
I'm keeping this much briefer than it actually went down, and she said a lot of other really dumb things, but I just want you guys to get the idea of what I've been dealing with.
After outlining what we thought should happen, she actually said, "But condoms don't prevent HIV!"
"..."
Her husband actually said at this point, "Seriously? Is that what you seriously believe?"
So she pulls up an article... hold on, let me see if I can find it... this one. From the Catholic News Agency.
Obviously we request an unbiased source. So she flares back and says, "Well I don't see you guys citing your sources!" Her husband and I tell her that literally 99.9999% of the research out there shows that condoms decrease the transmittal of STDs. In fact, I was just reading up on this exact topic a week ago. So she changes tactics again and accuses me to my face of lying about having read about this stuff.
Her husband then says, "Helga," (names changed to protect the idiotic) "you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?" To which she stammers and wheedles for a while, and then finally she says, "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
He and I said, simultaneously, "Then why are you arguing against us so much?!"
Family gatherings are like a bar. It's probably best to leave politics, religion or whatever else that's going to cause drama at the door.
When I have to start dealing with citing sources while hanging out with family is when I move out to a cabin in the middle of Wyoming somewhere.
Some people just want to start an argument so they can feel superior for holding their opinions. I find it's best not to indulge them.
Well, they were mostly arguing between the two of them at the dinner table, so it's not like I could just get up and leave. And they always say I'm too reserved, like they come and visit but they don't really see me. So I was trying to oblige them by interjecting every once in a while. Then I got in too deep and didn't want to look like a moron by looking like I didn't know what I was talking about, and then it just all went downhill.
And I don't mean in a 'change tactics in response'. I mean 'change the subject'. You're not going to 'win' even when you're actually right. It's difficult, but learn to suppress the instinct you might have to get in the last word on a subject. Unless it's literally life-or-death or you put money on it.
Yeah, I guess getting her to admit she didn't actually know what she was talking about was about as good as that sort of thing gets. And to her credit, she did apologize for calling me a liar. Guess next time I'll just ask what's up in that crazy world of sports.
I would have probably just tried to change the subject to something a little more neutral, I guess, depending on how good-natured this argument was. But then I come from a pretty apolitical family, so maybe that's just what I'm used to. I've got some Blue Dog extended family who live in another state, and they're great company as long as you don't get them onto their opinions, whereupon I usually just sit around wishing they'd shut up, even when I agree with them. It's like, we see each other twice a year and this is what you want to talk about?
A lot of people are pretty set in their ways and aren't going to change their minds because of an argument. People usually have to change their opinions through personal experience.
You literally can't win, josh. Today at Easter dinner (which is a whole other issue, since my dad still calls himself a Catholic even though he hasn't been to church in about 9 years whereas I am an out and out atheist) my dad said "You always seem so quiet when you come home, come on, discuss this topic with me" and I will say "Okay, well, let's talk about taxes like you want." And then I destroy him in the argument (thanks in large part to these forums) and my mom, brother, both aunts, and uncle all agree with me and he gets mad and says "We shouldn't discuss politics!!!!". I responded with "You just yelled at me for not arguing with you!" and my family piles on and he stammers and becomes really passive aggressive until I leave.
Seriously, you can't win. I feel good because I stood up for myself but he has these absolutely ridiculous views on taxes. He has voted Democrat his whole life but apparently now he is deathly afraid of taxes and thinks that the government is suddenly extremely wasteful and decadent. He literally has no idea why and he can't back up ANY of his arguments at all. My little brother is going to be covered by his retiree military health benefits now until 27 and my dad is actually angry about it! And I can't get him to tell me why. I honestly think that everything else in his life making him mad and he is just transferring it into something that he feels is a valid outlet for his anger.
In my experience it is impossible to argue with a so-called close-minded person mainly because the issue at hand is rarely what is driving the argument. My girlfriend and I argue about religion a lot but honestly I think the real reason she still considers herself religious is A) because her parents are religious and she just can't seem to disagree with them on anything because she would feel guilty* and because she has low self-esteem and so no matter what she thinks she just automatically assumes she is wrong. So even though she probably agrees with my arguments on religion she just outright dismisses them. It's not a logic thing, the argument is hiding some other issue.
* her 'guilt' is absolutely amazing. She has said that no matter what her parents do to her she has to be grateful to them and be good to them. I asked 'If your father raped you would you still owe them?' and she said 'Yes, they gave me life so I can never be angry at them'. I fully understand the general idea but she just takes it to a ridiculous extreme. She is extremely liberal while her parents are conservative and it causes an incredible amount of angst in our relationship. She feels great about voting for Obama and campaigns for him but then feels incredibly upset about 'betraying' her parents. It is a deep emotional problem for her for which she is seeking counseling. I am only bringing it up to highlight my point that the actual topic is probably not the real reason for an argument.
To me, music is like food. It's a spice to life, something to enjoy while it happens. And eating fine cuisine at a classy restuarant isn't going to stop me from munching on cold fried chicken the next day for lunch.
I'm pretty much in the opposite category. Not so much in the "I only like indie bands/musicians" way, but in the "I'm generally pretty picky about what I like, and really don't like/can't get into/don't identify with" a lot of music.
Some music is just generally aurally unappealing to me - country, a lot of southern rock, a bunch of rap/hip hop. It's just not for me. Alan Jackson followed by Ludicris, for example, sounds extremely undesirable to me. I'm sure there are a few gems in there that I'd like, but I haven't encountered them yet.
Fits with the food analogy, I think. Some folks are picky, some folks refuse certain kinds, some folks like everything, and there's a million other special snowflake combinations. I'm one of those who likes a little bit of every genre but I don't like every song; I usually have 2-3 songs I like from most artists with the occasional person I like so much that I get everything they make. Also, my music library probably contains way more soundtracks and J-pop than most.
Story where Catholic silly goose is ignorant about treating AIDS in Africa
Man, I'm Catholic but I think condoms should be allowed, especially to save lives, so I've had to grit my teeth more than once in discussions about solving the AIDS problem with abstinence only. Thing is, I understand why the rule is in place, and why the Catholic church wants to enforce that rule, but I don't think that excuses putting people in danger and worsening an already terrible problem by refusing to explore a potentially successful alternative. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibilities the church has taken upon themselves to help the sick are more important than their responsibilities to enforce church rules. The rules are not supposed to have lethal costs.
You guys are lucky you have any help at all. I stopped talking, FULL STOP, at family gatherings when my views changed enough to be a bother. Well, that's not entirely true; I'll converse with anyone who knows me well enough to keep discussions on the topics of books, movies, writing, and food.
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)
Jesus predicts it's not going to be easy for the Christians the Christians since they'll be persecuted by the rule makers. But what does that prediction mean when the Christians are the ones making the rules?
emnmnme on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Family gatherings are like a bar. It's probably best to leave politics, religion or whatever else that's going to cause drama at the door.
When I have to start dealing with citing sources while hanging out with family is when I move out to a cabin in the middle of Wyoming somewhere.
Some people just want to start an argument so they can feel superior for holding their opinions. I find it's best not to indulge them.
My dad lives in a cabin in the middle of wyoming. I routinely have to google things he's heard on sean hannity on my phone in a vain attempt to explain they aren't true.
On the music thing, there's some perspective I think I can hand out on this issue.
I am pretty invovled with local music. My buddy, who some of you know by an alias of Knob, is in more than one local band. Most of my good friends are musicians of some type.
There are a couple things I think I can chip in, from lots of working as a doorman, hours of attending local shows, being basically at nearly the point of burnout with local music much of the time:
1. There's a lot of obscure music that's shit. There are a ton of guys you've never heard of for a perfectly good damn reason. "Popular" and "good" are uncorrolated
2. You aren't better because you heard it first. You saw a band live, early in their career, and the other guy didn't? unless you are talking to someone who was a physical and socioeconomic neighbor at that time, that's an accident of your birth.
3. There's a lot of talent on the radio. The most annoying hit of the moment isn't all of pop. There are people in pop bands that ooze talent. The current, actual top 40 has jay-z, ludacris, Alicia Keys, etc in it. The other thing about this is the annoying hit of the moment also sometimes isn't that representative of the band that produced it.
4. Classic rock fans: You are viewing life through several strange filters
5. Sometimes a band isn't that big when they get big: A band I love, Murder By Death, played in a bar in my hometown the same week Inglorious Basterds comes out with them high on the bill. Murder by Death is still touring and broke. Being on a big movie soundtrack is just getting them some exposure.
6. People genuinely change. Look at your own tastes. When you're 30, the stuff you listened too at 16? You probably still "like" it, but you probably only dig it up and listen too it every now and then. Imagine you started a band at age 16...by the time you were 30, you'd be ready to semi-retire the material you did at 16Part of the reason AFI changed is because they got legitamtely over their own sound. This is why bands from really narrow genres tend to break up or start side projects
7. A working band, as a small buisness (which is what it really is), is a genuinely difficult financial proposition. There's a ton of competition, it's a very political industry, you work with volitile personalites, and you split everything at least 3 ways. That's BEFORE you get an agent, a tour manager, roadies, techs, or factor in the FACT that if you run your business like a business, half your band and half your audience is going to break your balls about it.
To address the OP, the actual point of dealing with difficult people, I like to introduce bite-sized facts to induce some dissonance. Like I was talking to a guy about the health care bill recently, and he was saying the insurance exchange was beyond the scope of the constitution, I asked him if he would like it if the exchange was run by the state instead of the feds, he said he'd be more comfortable with that, I said, "Well, that's how the bill actually works," and he said, "Oh"
4. Classic rock fans: You are viewing life through several strange filters
As a recovering classic rock addict (I got into it really hard in the...some time ago... And then I 'grew up'.), I'm interested to hear more about this one. Either here, or a PM would do if it's ultimately not relevant to the thread.
Posts
It's not like this guy is overtly forcing his opinions on people.
Is it?
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
'I'm cleansed of the system! 'Cept when my amp needs electric power.'
A band 'sells out' probably at the point when people you wouldn't hang out with start to like them, too.
A band technically sells out the moment they do anything for money.
A band literally sells out the moment they decide to change their sound to best match the audience likely to give them the most money. Even if they like making that kind of music.
Well, he's leaving an incredibly well paying job now because of his unhappiness. His wife and him love FL more than the place there at now so they're deciding to just pack up and head home. They're sorta new-age hippies. Plus, as long as they're happy they don't care how much money they make.
See, that's the thing though. I have asked him to do that and his response to not liking some of his favorite music ranges from a short "You just don't get it" to something along the lines of "You have to open your eyes. Once you realize how much of the shit music out there has corrupted peoples tastes, then you'll understand how good it is." It gets extremely annoying after a while because...
He does. Whenever anyone disagrees with his whole philosophy it's like an alarm goes off in his head that says "MUST. SPREAD. INFLUENCE" and he has to try to convince people to think like him. It's why I hate arguing with him because if I choose to do so I have to make sure I'm not doing anything 2 hours later because that's how long it's going to take to wind him down.
Have you ever been at a party, or some other social gathering where the topic of religion comes up? You know how annoying it gets--regardless of your beliefs? No one is going to outright denounce their faith and become an athiest or immediately convert to Catholicism when a game of beer pong is going on 7ft away; it's just pointless conflict.
Well, he's the guy who thinks he's going to convert you to like his tastes, sooner or later.
He's a devout RX Bandits lover. He praises the band Receiving End of Sirens(who I think broke up, but I digress.) And I swear to God, his favorite musician, bar-none, is this dude named Gavin Castleton. If there was a way to get a Gavin Castleton religion started, he'd be the Pope. Whenever I say I just don't like the guy, that's when he spouts out the "you just dont get it" remark and has to tell me why I should like him.
This just means that you're not drilling far enough down to what his justification actually is. Like, you're letting him deflect your question with more general statements about how bad everything else is, without forcing him to quantify anything. "So wait, how do tastes get 'corrupted'?"
A fun rhetorical way to do this is to just be relentlessly plainitive in your questioning.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
http://www.rollogrady.com/rollo-grady-interview-seth-godin/
The entire interview is excellent, but the last question and answer seem relevant to some things talked about in this thread.
I'm not sure whether this thread is destined to be "How to converse with a person who's closed-minded?" or "Do bands sell out, Y or N?", but in the case of the former, _J_ hit the nail on the head. In any intentional effort to question someone's perspectives, be it music, politics, religion, or whatever, ask questions. Ask questions calmly and nonconfrontationally until contradictions in their reasoning appear, and then press them on this. Don't attack, don't argue, don't fight them on it; simply lead them to the inconsistencies and force them to deal with them.
In this particular case, ask him what makes is music/brand/whatever right? What standards are used to determine this? Can these standards be applied logically elsewhere? Who determines what these standards are? What gives them the authority to make this determination?
metallica didn't sell out, they died on September 27 1986.
Also obligatory this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fIRo-UtdOU
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
try to explain that if you really understand music, this correlation is a stupid illusion.
I invite my now-gf and some other friends to hear how awesome they are. They're playing in a pretty small auditorium so it's not like they're huge enough to have sold out yet.
The next week or so she's watching Gossip Girl. OH FUCK. MATT AND KIM ARE ON THERE? SELL. OUTS.
I didn't get it. I didn't really care either. They made it on some shitty CW show? Cool. People like their single from that Bacardi commercial? Cool.
These things went all over her though and it more or less made her not want to support the band simply because everyone else was. This was really snobby to me.
I can understand someone not liking a band anymore because, in essence, they've "sold out" and gone from their roots. Roots being what they originally sound like and what they sing about. Now imho, any good band will experiment and tweak their sound and style over their lifetime granted they make it long enough to do so. That I can understand. But because they've made a few splashes in lower pop culture? Good lord it confused me.
We were also partying one time and someone decided to play some Paramore. Now, heaven forbid anyone singing along and fucking up the lyrics. I think her quote was something like, "If anyone one of those little bitches messes up the lyrics I'm gonna have to set them straight." We were in another room, we couldn't hear them sing but we just knew there was a Paramore song. She left to the other room for a while to see this mysterious poser who decided to play her beloved band's song and confront them and let them know that she, yes she, was the Queen of all things Paramore.
This attitude is really fucking obnoxious. One of the first posts about 99.imahugefuckingfaggotthrowingfauxpercentagesout of music being too generic and bland? Ya, I get it. I like some of it and I don't like some of it. A catchy beat is hard to, well, beat. Same with a catchy chorus.
Now at the same time I do like a more refined sense of music. I do listen to groups/artists who aren't well known and whose lyrics aren't as mainstream, so to speak. I like them for both reasons and don't try to set on some pedestal of superiority because I knew them "before they made it big" or any similar reason.
Personally? I fucking love Party in the USA as a song. Not a fan of Miley or anything, but the song just makes me happy for whatever reason. To me it's the "Party all the Time (Eddie Murphy)" of our generation. I love it. It's not an overly great song, no. They lyrics aren't deep and Miley has the generic teenybopper formula working for her.
TL;DR: I like music. I listen to different kinds.
Alternatively on the subject of conversing with close-minded people, I had a similar situation the other day. Group of friends went out to the hottub and there were two random girls there we started talking and drinking with. Pretty cool girls. One was conservative and the other an earthy liberal. They would mention topics and graze them which piqued my curiosity.
Fuck me. I asked her to explain her stance and she did. Going over and over how her religious values told her this and that, and this is how she should act and treat people.
I tried to have my turn and state my side (I gave her a good 15 minutes and I was genuinely intrigued to hear how she interpreted things and why she believed them.) As I was doing so she kept interrupting me and saying, "Hold on. Let me just say this." Every other word. I humored her. but then I tried to raise my house to be stern about, "Hey. I let you talk plenty. Be nice and let me."
It got so frustrating I called her a cunt and other choice words and left. Best reaction? Definitely not. I was trying to entertain the other side and listen, see what it was all about. In essence I believed some of the same things she did but just took them to more literal or genuine way. I never got that far unfortunately but I started asking the same question.
In that situation, where you're trying to simply converse and open up a forum for discussion (not trying to argue) and the other side acts like that, how would you guys react? I know I was in the wrong and don't need a lecture about it, but it just made my blood boil because she made all of these assumptions about liberals and Dems (we're in the south) and she reaffirmed my assumptions of the generalized conservative Republican.
As to your friend and his issues, it sounds like he's kind of on the same page. He's looking to refine his tastes in things. That's great but unless he has any reason why A is better than B it's just subjective taste. What I don't really care for is when people say there are no justifications behind taste and to extrapolate that, Twilight is just as good as Let The Right One In. Two movies about vampire love. I'm having some difficulty making my point here but I guess its, in my own little world everything is worth discussing and analyzing and the person who doesn't is a silly goose. The rest of it comes down to attitude. If he's looking for some reason to shit on other people instead of trying to get them to understand why he loves whatever and appreciate it like he does then he's just an egotistical silly goose.
Anyway, I just took opportunities where I saw them to show him that he isn't a god, that he can be completely wrong about something. I usually wouldn't go straight for his most dearly held opinions. I mean, I agreed with him for the most part on the beer and food and liquor and music at the time, though I was also much more open to variety. But I'd take swift advantage of any time he branched out and tried to declare himself the authority on some opinion or taste where I knew I had a good chance to convince him otherwise.
It was never done with total malice, I didn't want to make him hate me, but a few times I royally embarrassed him in front of a large group by quickly trouncing his authority or opinions on something in a manner that even he couldn't refute. In at least one, maybe two of those cases he even came to me later with what seemed like genuine open-minded respect and gratitude for shutting him up. I won't say that I completely changed who he is or anything, I didn't want to, but he definitely softened his edge.
But, like someone implied earlier, I think it's also just a phase that guys and sometimes girls go through that usually disappears long before age 30. It can happen when people go to college, or if they suddenly make a lot more money, or if they move to New York or a similar highly metro scene. They quickly get real full of themselves, and usually life will correct this with some humility and defeat.
This would seem to matter. Though the reality is that some friendships just drift apart over time. Especially if they're moving away.
If I mixed up my albums there would be no rhyme or reason to it. Bluegrass, rap, country, orchestral stuff, punk rock, corporate crap, whatever. Beach Boys next to Garth Brooks next to Public Enemy next to monk chants. It's all about whatever mood I'm in or what I'm doing. This strange obsession some people have with defining themselves and their subculture by the music they listen to just seems so arbitrary.
To me, music is like food. It's a spice to life, something to enjoy while it happens. And eating fine cuisine at a classy restuarant isn't going to stop me from munching on cold fried chicken the next day for lunch.
Maybe it'd be different if I was a musician myself but I really don't get it.
And some people just feel they have no real identity of their own. So they latch onto thing they believe will help. Music is more emotionally driven and immediate than probably any other piece of media so it's easier to gravitate towards.
There is music I don't care for, and some I even flat out despise. But it doesn't define me and I won't insist that anybody who likes what I don't is wrong for it. (Unless they're obnoxious about it and just won't shut up... Then I let them have it.)
Say what you will -- Do not bad mouth David Grohl or the Foo Fighters.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Is he like.... the best the best the best the best the best the best there is?
Perv.
I'd agree. There is a good chance that it's just a phase. I've seen people go through it before, though it's usually at an earlier age.
I don't see how being passive-aggressive and poking at them will help either of you. Change the subject to something you can agree on and move on. If you're going to try so hard to convince him that he's so wrong for trying to convince you that he's so right, well that seems like a silly goose thing to do. He may even find your point of view (if it really does appose his) to be refreshing after a while. I know I prefer to hang out with my friends who listen to nothing but terrible 80s music or terrible 90s grunge over hipster donks who just happen to like the same bands as I do. Sometimes I bother myself with some of the opinions I have.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
I'm pretty much in the opposite category. Not so much in the "I only like indie bands/musicians" way, but in the "I'm generally pretty picky about what I like, and really don't like/can't get into/don't identify with" a lot of music.
Some music is just generally aurally unappealing to me - country, a lot of southern rock, a bunch of rap/hip hop. It's just not for me. Alan Jackson followed by Ludicris, for example, sounds extremely undesirable to me. I'm sure there are a few gems in there that I'd like, but I haven't encountered them yet.
And, just to be absolutely clear, as I seem to be having issues properly explaining my POV on things this week, my likes/dislikes don't stem from some sort of hipster mentality. It's not about some sort of faux artistic integrity, or other bullshit. It just comes from not hearing much that's appealing to my tastes from those genres.
Fake EDIT:
This. And this leads me to mention a pet peeve of mine - people who insist on forcing music you don't like down your throat to somehow convert you to liking it, all while they insult you for being 'close-minded.' I've had a few people try it with me. Silliest of mother fucking geese, they are.
The best part is the inability to understand that you probably have given it a chance at some point and it simply doesn't 'click' with you.
In my experience this sort of protest is met with something along the lines of, "But you just haven't heard the right tracks! Here, listen to this live version of their demo B-side!"
I have a weird psychological problem with music in that it completely fails to evoke an emotional reaction in me absent of non-aural context the way that it does very nearly everyone else I've ever known. People regularly find it completely bizarre that I not only don't identify myself by my musical choices, but don't even know what they're talking about when they start on song titles and band members and such.
It's a common problem, every music nerd's dream is introducing somebody to some new genre or band and completely blowing their mind, and we usually take it to far.
Full disclosure, I happen to be an intense music nerd/hipster and used to be like the guy OP refers to, I was walking my dog last night and some goose was having a deck party and playing Shaggy's "It wasn't me", and I'm ashamed to admit it bothered the shit out of me the rest of the night. That someone could be that dated and out of it in regards to musical taste was unconscionable. But yet, these people were having a party while I went back to my house to drink a beer alone with the dog and spin obscure vinyl records.
Or, if you're my older brother, it's "Just one more Sevendust song. I know you'll like this one!"
...
Has anyone else gone through defined musical phases in their lives? I mean, for me, when I started high school, I was all about Candlebox. Towards the end of high school, it was Live and Stabbing Westward, with a healthy dose of the Dave Matthews Band (yeah, that's an odd mix, thematically speaking). In college, it went from Stabbing Westward to Tool, then A Perfect Circle. It's not that I shunned other artists, but they were my 'main/primary' bands. My brothers are the same way. The older brother who went through the Sevendust phase went through a Scorpions phase that lasted several years, well into the 90's.
... holy shit, looking back at that paragraph, I feel old. 1997 wasn't that long ago, right?
Yeah. If he's peddling his opinions as fact, just stop talking about those things. If tries to press on, tell him that you don't gain any value from a conversation about how your opinions are objectively wrong, and that you're tired of it, and to kindly drop it. Eventually either he'll realize he's retarded and you can discuss those topics again, or he won't and will probably morph into some fuckwad you don't want to hang around anyway.
My sister-in-law and her husband came in for the weekend. It was generally fun and games until the discussion turned towards politics (as it inevitably does with these two, because they're very political). Just to give you a bit of background on them, he is an atheist due to being very skeptic about anything non-empirical. She is a Catholic, following in her mother's footsteps, and she basically became a Catholic so she could get married in a really pretty church and then later decided she wanted to follow their odder (in my opinion) hard-line stances. Both of them are dedicated Democrats.
We mostly agreed on a number of things until somebody brought up AIDS in Africa. This led to her husband and I coming to a very amicable agreement that a combination of abstinence and condom information would be very helpful. My sister-in-law decided to wig out and really go off the deep end, saying things like "abstinence is the only proven 100% effective method of preventing STDs, so we shouldn't bring condoms into the equation because people will think that a condom will enable them to continue having sex when really abstinence is better for them".
After basically ripping this argument to shreds, she moved on to, "Well, who is going to provide these condoms and instruction along with abstinence information? Because it's not going to be us! And besides, look at NYC, where condoms are readily available. There are STDs in New York!"
I'm keeping this much briefer than it actually went down, and she said a lot of other really dumb things, but I just want you guys to get the idea of what I've been dealing with.
After outlining what we thought should happen, she actually said, "But condoms don't prevent HIV!"
"..."
Her husband actually said at this point, "Seriously? Is that what you seriously believe?"
So she pulls up an article... hold on, let me see if I can find it... this one. From the Catholic News Agency.
Obviously we request an unbiased source. So she flares back and says, "Well I don't see you guys citing your sources!" Her husband and I tell her that literally 99.9999% of the research out there shows that condoms decrease the transmittal of STDs. In fact, I was just reading up on this exact topic a week ago. So she changes tactics again and accuses me to my face of lying about having read about this stuff.
Her husband then says, "Helga," (names changed to protect the idiotic) "you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?" To which she stammers and wheedles for a while, and then finally she says, "I have no idea what I'm talking about."
He and I said, simultaneously, "Then why are you arguing against us so much?!"
It's just, rsdgnjstrgnjiosrogli!!!!!!!!
How do you deal with this sort of thing?!
When I have to start dealing with citing sources while hanging out with family is when I move out to a cabin in the middle of Wyoming somewhere.
Some people just want to start an argument so they can feel superior for holding their opinions. I find it's best not to indulge them.
Well, they were mostly arguing between the two of them at the dinner table, so it's not like I could just get up and leave. And they always say I'm too reserved, like they come and visit but they don't really see me. So I was trying to oblige them by interjecting every once in a while. Then I got in too deep and didn't want to look like a moron by looking like I didn't know what I was talking about, and then it just all went downhill.
And I don't mean in a 'change tactics in response'. I mean 'change the subject'. You're not going to 'win' even when you're actually right. It's difficult, but learn to suppress the instinct you might have to get in the last word on a subject. Unless it's literally life-or-death or you put money on it.
But in those cases, you've already gone too far.
A lot of people are pretty set in their ways and aren't going to change their minds because of an argument. People usually have to change their opinions through personal experience.
Seriously, you can't win. I feel good because I stood up for myself but he has these absolutely ridiculous views on taxes. He has voted Democrat his whole life but apparently now he is deathly afraid of taxes and thinks that the government is suddenly extremely wasteful and decadent. He literally has no idea why and he can't back up ANY of his arguments at all. My little brother is going to be covered by his retiree military health benefits now until 27 and my dad is actually angry about it! And I can't get him to tell me why. I honestly think that everything else in his life making him mad and he is just transferring it into something that he feels is a valid outlet for his anger.
In my experience it is impossible to argue with a so-called close-minded person mainly because the issue at hand is rarely what is driving the argument. My girlfriend and I argue about religion a lot but honestly I think the real reason she still considers herself religious is A) because her parents are religious and she just can't seem to disagree with them on anything because she would feel guilty* and
* her 'guilt' is absolutely amazing. She has said that no matter what her parents do to her she has to be grateful to them and be good to them. I asked 'If your father raped you would you still owe them?' and she said 'Yes, they gave me life so I can never be angry at them'. I fully understand the general idea but she just takes it to a ridiculous extreme. She is extremely liberal while her parents are conservative and it causes an incredible amount of angst in our relationship. She feels great about voting for Obama and campaigns for him but then feels incredibly upset about 'betraying' her parents. It is a deep emotional problem for her for which she is seeking counseling. I am only bringing it up to highlight my point that the actual topic is probably not the real reason for an argument.
Fits with the food analogy, I think. Some folks are picky, some folks refuse certain kinds, some folks like everything, and there's a million other special snowflake combinations. I'm one of those who likes a little bit of every genre but I don't like every song; I usually have 2-3 songs I like from most artists with the occasional person I like so much that I get everything they make. Also, my music library probably contains way more soundtracks and J-pop than most.
Man, I'm Catholic but I think condoms should be allowed, especially to save lives, so I've had to grit my teeth more than once in discussions about solving the AIDS problem with abstinence only. Thing is, I understand why the rule is in place, and why the Catholic church wants to enforce that rule, but I don't think that excuses putting people in danger and worsening an already terrible problem by refusing to explore a potentially successful alternative. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibilities the church has taken upon themselves to help the sick are more important than their responsibilities to enforce church rules. The rules are not supposed to have lethal costs.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34)
Jesus predicts it's not going to be easy for the Christians the Christians since they'll be persecuted by the rule makers. But what does that prediction mean when the Christians are the ones making the rules?
My dad lives in a cabin in the middle of wyoming. I routinely have to google things he's heard on sean hannity on my phone in a vain attempt to explain they aren't true.
On the music thing, there's some perspective I think I can hand out on this issue.
I am pretty invovled with local music. My buddy, who some of you know by an alias of Knob, is in more than one local band. Most of my good friends are musicians of some type.
There are a couple things I think I can chip in, from lots of working as a doorman, hours of attending local shows, being basically at nearly the point of burnout with local music much of the time:
1. There's a lot of obscure music that's shit. There are a ton of guys you've never heard of for a perfectly good damn reason. "Popular" and "good" are uncorrolated
2. You aren't better because you heard it first. You saw a band live, early in their career, and the other guy didn't? unless you are talking to someone who was a physical and socioeconomic neighbor at that time, that's an accident of your birth.
3. There's a lot of talent on the radio. The most annoying hit of the moment isn't all of pop. There are people in pop bands that ooze talent. The current, actual top 40 has jay-z, ludacris, Alicia Keys, etc in it. The other thing about this is the annoying hit of the moment also sometimes isn't that representative of the band that produced it.
4. Classic rock fans: You are viewing life through several strange filters
5. Sometimes a band isn't that big when they get big: A band I love, Murder By Death, played in a bar in my hometown the same week Inglorious Basterds comes out with them high on the bill. Murder by Death is still touring and broke. Being on a big movie soundtrack is just getting them some exposure.
6. People genuinely change. Look at your own tastes. When you're 30, the stuff you listened too at 16? You probably still "like" it, but you probably only dig it up and listen too it every now and then. Imagine you started a band at age 16...by the time you were 30, you'd be ready to semi-retire the material you did at 16Part of the reason AFI changed is because they got legitamtely over their own sound. This is why bands from really narrow genres tend to break up or start side projects
7. A working band, as a small buisness (which is what it really is), is a genuinely difficult financial proposition. There's a ton of competition, it's a very political industry, you work with volitile personalites, and you split everything at least 3 ways. That's BEFORE you get an agent, a tour manager, roadies, techs, or factor in the FACT that if you run your business like a business, half your band and half your audience is going to break your balls about it.
To address the OP, the actual point of dealing with difficult people, I like to introduce bite-sized facts to induce some dissonance. Like I was talking to a guy about the health care bill recently, and he was saying the insurance exchange was beyond the scope of the constitution, I asked him if he would like it if the exchange was run by the state instead of the feds, he said he'd be more comfortable with that, I said, "Well, that's how the bill actually works," and he said, "Oh"
I host a podcast about movies.
As a recovering classic rock addict (I got into it really hard in the...some time ago... And then I 'grew up'.), I'm interested to hear more about this one. Either here, or a PM would do if it's ultimately not relevant to the thread.