On Musical Expression And Music As Art

He is saying that you should try all genres before you decide you don't like them. basically this is an extended misunderstanding over a common sense issue =P

Hi guys/gals,

Since music is art, it can be judged both objectively and subjectively. When it comes to taste (liking or not liking) it is obviously purely subjective, but you can also judge an album/track/band objectively, for example, by looking at the musicianship, influence on the genre or in general, live performance, and other criteria.

I have to agree with the others who have stressed the importance of being open-minded and not bashing musical styles they have not listened to or have not at least tried to appreciate.

Many kids nowdays start with a certain style (it seems that the most prevalent nowdays is Metal) and do not rear their heads outside of it. Anything that doesn't have the extreme Metal elements in it is usually judged by these people as "boring". 

If you look at my last.fm charts: http://www.last.fm/user/Caleb666 you will notice that I try to listen to almost every kind of music. I think that we all have something in common, and certain pop hooks are bound to be liked by many people (even those aggressive metalists... who will probably say that they don't like it 'cause they think it makes them look less manly).

This is something that I have encountered many times. Being called "gay" for listening to Soul, Soft Rock, and some earlier 50s Vocal Jazz stuff, or, someone equated my taste to that of his grandmother for listening to Classical music. These prejudices and labels must be eradicated.

There's no such thing as "old" music. Music is asexual (hey, look at Glam Rock and Glam Metal!). It seems that extreme metal and Metal in general has gotten the image of being for real men, while the rest softer/quieter type are for "pussies", which is an ugly stereotype.

Music doesn't have to be extreme and loud to be able to make you get on your feet and dance. This is something many Metal fans don't understand. 

Keep on rockin' my friends!

Edited by Caleb666 - August 07 2008 at 15:14

kibble_alex wrote: Music doesn't age, neither does it die.

... it does not offer truth, and neither does it lie?

Seriously, though, I will have to disagree on that one. Take all the music that was written long before recording technology was invented, for example the music from the Renaissance that you mentioned. Here, we have very little idea exactly how the composer wanted it to be performed. A piece of music can change over time, "age" you could call it, without a single note changing. Even if its "essence" can be preserved, it cannot be done 100%, especially if its original cultural context (and hence the intended audience) no longer exists in the same way.

kibble_alex wrote: I'm a huge metal fan and i understand that perfectly :-| but i see what you mean. Music is immortal IMO; hey i know people who listen quite gladly to Renaissance music (no i'm not talking about the band :P), which goes back nearly 500 years from now. Then you have folk fans which stretches even further back. Music doesn't age, neither does it die.

Interesting.
I beg to differ.

If music doesn't age, why is it when we listen to music from a certain time period, we are able to pick out a rough time frame of when it was created?

A funny thing: Since I last posted in this thread, I've actually begun warming up to non-Melvins grunge and started to like that genre after I bought Nirvana's In Utero on a recommendation from a friend. Even Soundgarden, whom I always thought of as the definition of "band I by all logic should like but still don't get", have finally begun clicking for me.

^Well I've yet to see someone that knows as much theory as you around here

HughesJB4 wrote: rogerthat wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: kibble_alex wrote: I'm a huge metal fan and i understand that perfectly :-| but i see what you mean. Music is immortal IMO; hey i know people who listen quite gladly to Renaissance music (no i'm not talking about the band :P), which goes back nearly 500 years from now. Then you have folk fans which stretches even further back. Music doesn't age, neither does it die. Interesting. I beg to differ. If music doesn't age, why is it when we listen to music from a certain time period, we are able to pick out a rough time frame of when it was created? Because each era reflects the evolution of a form of music or even music in general at that point in time, the state of society and goings-on in the world through the lyrics and - in the recorded music era - the music recording and production technology of the time.  In that sense, music is inseparable from the time when it was originally created. That does not necessarily mean that it would lose its relevance to future audiences with the passing of that period of time, which is probably what Alex was trying to say. Over to Alex.     I guess I didn't read it the same way as you did, but cheers anyway for helping me see that side of it

That is kind of what i meant. It does age physically obviously, but it's effect on people never fades or ages. For instance im still listening to baroque music and a lot of the members on PA are listening to 60s/70s prog rock. Of course, the quality has aged, but the effect it has on people remains strong.

Love this tread, as it goes beoynd just saying this is better than that.

Its also important to point out that most people that listen to a lot of music, will often need change all the time. So for a period i will listen to a few new Hard Rock bands , later it will be a new pop singer i find interesting for a week or 2, and the next thing will be relistning my old Fripp's. If im asked what i like best, ill not pick the POP singer, cos i know it wont last, but that said the record can be wonderful music for a short while.

Edited by tamijo - March 06 2009 at 10:30

This was incredibly well said.  In regards to the learning music in order to appreciate it thing, it is so very true.  Before I started playing guitar (a little over two years ago?) I listened to very few types of music and I continued to be relatively close minded until I heard John Mclaughlin and Mahavishnu Orchestra.  The fact that he was able to get some of the erratic sounds and tones from his guitar dumbfounded me as a guitar novice, but having a basic understanding of the instrument.  From there I looked through an assortment of virtuosos (Malmsteen, Vai, Gilbert, Segovia, Paco De Lucia, Meola etc) and am now looking at the opposite side of the spectrum with ambiet music alla Eno, Explosions in the Sky etc.  In my opinion, ones ability to appreciate something is relative to their understanding as well as open minded-ness.  

The Pessimist wrote: tamijo wrote: Love this tread, as it goes beoynd just saying this is better than that. Its also important to point out that most people that listen to a lot of music, will often need change all the time. So for a period i will listen to a few new Hard Rock bands , later it will be a new pop singer i find interesting for a week or 2, and the next thing will be relistning my old Fripp's. If im asked what i like best, ill not pick the POP singer, cos i know it wont last, but that said the record can be wonderful music for a short while.      The great thing about music is that it is so diverse, that you can literally listen to something completely new every day for the rest of your life and still not have covered at half of it. You can progress through your music tastes. About a week ago I was listening to Nasum (grindcore band) quite frequently. Just yesterday I was listening to Miles Davis and Return To Forever. At the moment I'm listening to a Brahms Violin Concerto. I think the point I'm trying to make is that there is good in almost absolutely everything, from Grincore to Jazz to Classical to Reggae, there is always something to enjoy there if you are willing to open your mind. Why just now I had my friend round who is into Avenged Sevenfold, played him Bach's Lute Suite in E Minor (the one with the famous Bourree) and he said it's one of the best pieces of music he ever heard. And he's never even considered listening to classical music before Just goes to show really, prog can be the same. You just gotta be willing to expand your horizons.

That said, expanding your horizons is something that's easier said than done because getting completely familiar with a specific sub-genre's tropes and conventions so you can get to really understand what it has to offer under the surface, let alone properly absorb all the albums that are its classics, take a really long time. Most of the genres I listen to right now I've been familiar with for around 8 years even if it's only recently I think I've gotten a good understanding of them. The big exception is post-punk which I've gotten into within the last couple years, and even then it's something derived from rock music as is pretty much all the stuff I listen to. By the way, the two post-punk artists I listen to most have some connection to stuff I've been a fan of for years. Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds are influenced by traditional American music which I've grown up with, and the Sisters of Mercy I might have been prepared for through their influence on Type O Negative. Then maybe that is not the case, since I think Type O Negative are better as an odd but serious heavy metal band than as a goofy goth rock band.

That said, through all the weird stuff Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds seamlessly blend they seem to be a gateway drug to music I might not listen to.