Your personal taste, what does it actually mean?

Personal taste is hard to explain, just like a lot of people have said on this thread. You like it because you like it, and that's it, end of story. Obviously there are many reasons as to why you personal taste is what it is, not only in music but in every aspect of your life, but the bottom line is "I know what I like, and I like what I know", and what I know is progressive music, so bring it on.

Gerinski wrote: rod65 wrote: Part of the original post involved the question of "musical beauty" that might exist independent of personal taste.  (.......) I've gone on long enough. Hopefully, some of the more patient among you will actualy have read all of this, and offer a response.   Good reasoning, and I believe that at the root of things it is partly right. However it does not provide any support why music with attributes that we label as "proggy" should be any more beautiful (objectively) than other music. "Communal" (as you say) music had been for the most part of human evolutionary culture simple, mostly rythmic and oriented to dances and rituals. For more modern and complex music, the evolutionary reasoning looses completely its strenght, a few hundreds or even thousands of years do not provide evolutionary arguments (it is even doubtful than evolutionary arguments apply to the human race timespan at all). Within the purely musical context, what people with musical inclinations appreciate is nearly certainly due to nurture anyway, not to nature, music even in its most primitive forms is too modern to have had evolutionary effects, although it's true that in the very background of it all there is a natural trend for human beings to appreciate structure and patterns in the world surrounding us.

Dark, organic, resonant, classical and jazz influences, unique timbres and instrumentation, imperfections, improvisatory and orchestrated elements, in-the-pocket minimalist grooves with wild building solos, glorious endings, insightful and dynamic lyrics, concept albums, well-placed drum fills, high treble basses (Rickenbacker), jazz club kits, soaring guitar solos, ethereal sections with a well-grounded pulse and/or groove, organ interludes, intense and unplanned syncopation, stoned Canterbury sound, drum grooves, guitar riffs, and singing that swivels around the meter as opposed to defining it, respect for space between sound, shrieking groaning wind instruments, flute interludes, snares with a bassy pop and melodic resonance, hollow slick jazz chords, intricate sounds like the -tack- of a singer opening his mouth or the contact sound of a stick on a ride cymbal or a finger on nylon strings, rustic beauty, madness, syncopated licks gliding over straightforward grooves, 3/4 over 4/4, 9/8 over 4/4, bands going into wild improvisatory sections and hitting beat 1 all at the same time, bold but restrained, enchanting and adventurous, raw

One interesting point about taste and prog - have you noticed how fans of most musical genres are exclusive "That's not blues/funk/ska/r&b", but prog-heads tend to be inclusive "There's definitely a bit of prog in that" on almost anything from Elbow to Parliament. I've often wondered why, but it may be, as somebody said earlier, that "I want people to join my club"; take that as you will.

Lozlan wrote: It's the peril and blessing of being in such a divergent genre.  Still waiting for PA to accept ABBA and DMB.

Definitely some proggy bits on Abba the Album

GY!BE wrote: Your personal taste means absolutely nothing to others but everything to you.

Unfortunately my taste is largely dependent on everything I'd already listened to up until the moment I decide to listen to something new, yet again. And I'm sure this applies to everyone, but of course some more than others - because, in that case - mainstream music would die out rather quickly, and everyone would develop eclectic tastes in no time. The reason it applies to me is because - once I hear a band do something well, I naturally have a lessened appreciation to a band of very similar sound, following them... as it's been done before. That's why it's important to break boundaries, create new ones... totally forget about 'genre', and be free to experiment with anything.

lucas wrote: I am always surprised when someone asks me : "what kind of music do you listen to ?"   In fact, I don't have prejudices on any musical genre, and my interest in music has no boundaries. Just like Jimi Hendrix, "I can listen to any kind of music, as long as it interests me".   I attend concerts of all musical genres : ethnic, jazz, metal, classical, funk...but unfortunately what I observe is that often people are limited in their tastes (I met someone at a jazz concert, who is into jazz, jazz-rock and everything that revolves around jazz, but when I told him that Emerson can be of interest to him (the trio playing at the venue involved a B3 player, Larry Goldings, and we were discussing about B3 players), he replied he doesn't listen to pop music !).   Being open to all musical cultures is the key to tolerance !   I really don't understand how one can claim the only music he listens to is the best and anything other is rubbish.

I'd like to say that about myself, but it's not true anymore. I love when bands pull elements from various genres and that's what keeps me interested. I don't understand jazz. I like Mahavishnu Orchestra and own 2 MIles Davis CDs, but I can't get into a lot of it. Classical I can listen to. It's comforting and thoroughly inspiring.

I hate vocals, only like things than constantly shift time signatures (no 4/4), and hate anything that remains in the same key for more than thirty seconds.