PDA

View Full Version : The Futureheads


The Norks
14-08-2005, 20:12:18
obviously I'm way behind but does anyone else like them?

protein
14-08-2005, 21:11:59
I quite like some of their tracks. Probably because I've been forced to listen to them in the Rebus car for the last 12 months.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 09:41:05
it may just have been a hallucination but i seem to recall hearing gramercy or debaser saying they were shit

i'm not sure i've even heard one of their tracks

novacane
15-08-2005, 11:52:08
I'd bracket them with Kaiser Chiefs and Franz Ferdinand in that, although I don't have any great affection for them, they have a couple of catchy tunes ('Decent Days and Nights' springs to mind).

I think, rather than dismiss this kind of thing as "shit", you have to accept it as the more commercial face of indie music. At worst, I think you have to have a grudging respect for these bands.

Funko
15-08-2005, 11:56:33
people often say something is "shit" when they mean "I don't like it".

novacane
15-08-2005, 12:11:30
Yeah, "people" do

Funko
15-08-2005, 12:13:58
I do. :)

novacane
15-08-2005, 12:15:06
Me too. Even though I know it is wrong. :rolleyes:

Funko
15-08-2005, 12:19:42
Me too.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 12:53:50
i like the kaiser chiefs and franz ferdinand, i don't have any problems with their commercial success or that of any other band

it's purely about the music

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 13:00:42
But the Futureheads are "shit".

Funko
15-08-2005, 13:10:49
I had to go and look them up because I was sure I'd have heard them.

Decent Days and Nights is definitely "good".

Having listened to a couple of the other tracks on their site though, I think they'd get annoying quite quickly.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 13:16:48
Originally posted by Gramercy Riffs
But the Futureheads are "shit".

ah so it was you! :D

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 13:26:51
I think Debaser may be of the same opinion though.

novacane
15-08-2005, 13:30:31
Originally posted by Gramercy Riffs
But the Futureheads are "shit".

I can't take this guy seriously.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 13:33:51
Originally posted by novacane
I think, rather than dismiss this kind of thing as "shit", you have to accept it as the more commercial face of indie music. At worst, I think you have to have a grudging respect for these bands.

what i meant to say, other than that i like kaiser chiefs etc. is: no, if a band is shit they're shit. I don't respect the likes of girls aloud or robbie williams on the basis that they sell a lot of records, why should i apply a different attitude just because the band is nominally indie?

shit is shit, and shit that gets undeserved success is even worse.

Funko
15-08-2005, 13:36:11
Obviously you respect Girls Aloud because they are good.

novacane
15-08-2005, 13:38:42
I don't really apply an opinion to acts who just sing and dance such as Girls Aloud. I mean, whats the point in even formulating a critical opinion.

As for Robbie Williams, he's a twat, but he's not shit. If he was shit, fewer people would like him. No?

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 13:48:34
a) if you don't value something that IS a critical opinion

b) you must be crazy if you equate success with talent - the music business isn't a meritocracy, it's a hypeocracy (to coin a phrase)

novacane
15-08-2005, 14:05:24
So no opinion is an opinion now is it? How?

Your second point is just sensationalist. It can't be generalised as one or the other.

However, there are far more cases of Talent = Success than Hype = Success. As you know, talent usually needs to achieve a degree of success in order to attract hype. ("talent" shows and novelty records aside).

novacane
15-08-2005, 14:07:50
I can see your point because it is possible to read something into the fact that somebody has no opinion. But, without someone reading something into it, its not an opinion is it. Like a tree falling in the woods.

novacane
15-08-2005, 14:34:15
What this boils down to though is the point which Funko raised way back

people often say something is "shit" when they mean "I don't like it".

None of us will speak a truer word on the issue.

If 99% of people say something is shit, but 1% thinks its good, then its not shit because somebody likes it and there will always be cause for debate over whether it is actually shit or not. What you're left with is just opinions. The best thing to do then is to just ignore everybody else's :p

Nills Lagerbaak
15-08-2005, 14:50:11
I think that is more a less a given now. If I say something is "Shit" I'd like to think that most people can recognise it's just an opinion. I think some people get confused when a magazine lambasts something as "shit", because they start thinking it's something more than just an opinion.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 14:52:50
Originally posted by novacane
I can see your point because it is possible to read something into the fact that somebody has no opinion. But, without someone reading something into it, its not an opinion is it. Like a tree falling in the woods.

but you ignoring girls aloud isn't like a tree falling in the woods, because you know what they sound like, you're just refusing to say they're shit in some affectedly aloof manner

on the other point, fair enough it was a generalisation to go to the other extreme, and i do agree that in the main, to get attention you have to have some kind of talent

however, it is clearly easy to name many artists who are shit and successful, and in the same way that someone like anthony can win big brother because the people who vote are just like him, then shit bands can make big money because there are lots of people with no taste who like shit music

actually i suppose i could grudgingly respect someone who makes money in this way when it's done cynically, like crazy frog, because stupid people deserve to have their money taken from them, but it's almost worse when some well-meaning shit musician or band suddenly touches the public pulse and becomes a success

probably i'm just jealous

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 14:54:05
So whats the point of being pedantic about in the first place then?

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 14:54:58
That was aimed at novo BTW.

Funko
15-08-2005, 15:05:27
I think that the "mainstream" music buyer is after a nice tune that they can sing along to or dance to. Often they are also looking for an artist they can relate to, or who is an aspirational figure. Think that calling the people who buy music like that stupid is a bit harsh. Possibly they are uncritical, or don't spend their time looking for music which is outside the mainstream.

I think the packaging of artists and music is quite skillful - whether or not that's good or not.

Recently, in a related subject, I've been wondering why it's considered so important that people write their own songs. A lot of modern pop acts are successful performers, not writers.

Clearly having both writing and performance skills requires more talent than just doing one or the other but I'm not sure that a song written and performed by one person/act is better than a song written by someone and performed by someone else.

Dunno really. I think, essentially, I think the ability to write a good pop song is an underrated abilty.

novacane
15-08-2005, 15:35:30
I suppose most tellingly, I tend to ignore any given opinion which suggests something is shit and tend to give much greater respect to an opinion which suggests something is good. A bad opinion is as relevant as a no opinion. Hence, no point.

Funko
15-08-2005, 15:38:48
I think that both are equally valid but in either case the value depends how it's put and the expertese of the person giving the opinion.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 15:46:26
Originally posted by Funko
I think that the "mainstream" music buyer is after a nice tune that they can sing along to or dance to. Often they are also looking for an artist they can relate to, or who is an aspirational figure. Think that calling the people who buy music like that stupid is a bit harsh.

i don't think people should get bogged down in things just because i use harsh words like stupid

this is art, everything is opinion, nothing can be proved, we all know that, we've had these kind of debates hundreds of times

if i say i despise the common man and his petty tastes i'm not implying some kind of genocide, but why dress these things up in pretty language, i do think that, say, lee ryan's new single, is total abject shit with no redeeming features whatsoever

Possibly they are uncritical, or don't spend their time looking for music which is outside the mainstream.

so in other words they have shit taste? your point being?

i don't doubt that there are legions of undemanding people in search of a nice tune and some anodyne words who find lee ryan to be exactly what they are looking for, but why should i have to respect that in some way?

it is these people who perpetuate the music industry churning out bollocks, in the same way that the people who go and buy tickets for the likes of films like Triple X with vin diesel pepetuate hollywood turning out that kind of bollocks, in the same way that buying a copy of shopaholic abroad perpetuates the book industry turning out that kind of bollocks

sure, i'm not compelled to buy into these things, but imagine a brave new world where good things got all the media attention rather than derivative predictable shit cynically churned out to rake in the cash of gullible tasteless lazy people

yeah i'm dreaming, but that is pretty much why i don't grudgingly respect shit successful acts

Debaser
15-08-2005, 15:48:55
I don't think the Futureheads are "shit", but I do think they are a bit one dimensional, and by that I mean all their songs sound exactly the fucking same. I like the one that goes "I'm taking off my watch and trying not to think about time" though.

novacane
15-08-2005, 15:53:31
Of course.

For instance, if a person regularly dismisses bands as "shit" then I am much less likely to take their opinion seriously. On the flipside, I tend to give greater credence to their opinion when they suggest something is good. And vice versa.

In my case, I would suggest that i know more people who fall in the former category, and as result, attach little relevance to their opinion if something is dismissed.

Funko
15-08-2005, 15:59:15
I think I wasn't very clear about what I meant.

I think that a lot of people who buy mainstream music are perfectly capable of appreciating less mainstream stuff if only they were exposed to it.

So it's not always necessarily 'shit taste' but merely lack of exposure. I remember taking my old housemate Dan (who basically liked mainstream pop and the kind of music you get on Ibiza dance compilations) to the BBBs and we saw some two bands, one was a very competent professional sounding but middle of the road MOR band and one was Wet Dog who are decidedly minimalist, uncomercial and weird (but much better) and he surprised me by saying that he much preferred Wet Dog.

Prior to that I would have said he had shit taste in music, but that made me think.

'Good music' is out there but it's not necessarily there on a plate for people.

I have no idea who Lee Ryan is.

novacane
15-08-2005, 16:01:00
I think natural reaction among most people here is to dislike successful things anyway, perhaps due to over exposure. I'm sure we'd all feel a little disconcerted if the music we liked was embraced by the masses. Thats not a world I wish for. We should appreciate what we have now. Popular culture is what it is. I have no problem accepting it really. Half of the satisfaction associated with being a music fan is that feeling of discovering something new and relatively untapped. Take that away, and half of the buzz is lost.

Funko
15-08-2005, 16:01:27
Anyway, it's just something I am wondering about, I have no real non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 16:05:45
Originally posted by novacane
Of course.

For instance, if a person regularly dismisses bands as "shit" then I am much less likely to take their opinion seriously. On the flipside, I tend to give greater credence to their opinion when they suggest something is good. And vice versa.

In my case, I would suggest that i know more people who fall in the former category, and as result, attach little relevance to their opinion if something is dismissed.

i think that's valid, one of the things that is so cool about our circle of friends is the diversity of musical taste and the fact that we are all the kind of people to experiment and pass on the good word to our mates

i know a lot, if not most, of the stuff i have got into over the years has been as a result of recommendations from friends, and i hope i have encouraged a few people to biuy some good things myself

but that said, i have lost count the number of times i have heard debaser tell me some band is shit :D

novacane
15-08-2005, 16:09:12
Interesting point, but personally, I'm happy that (what I consider to be) good music isn't laid on a plate for people. I don't think music would be the same if it was. For me, indie music has more freedom and (in most cases) is done with a great deal more passion than popular music. I think the underdog spirit of independent music is behind this and a major contributory factor. Fast track indie bands to mainstream culture and you end up with Oasis.

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 16:09:22
Originally posted by novacane
For instance, if a person regularly dismisses bands as "shit" then I am much less likely to take their opinion seriously. On the flipside, I tend to give greater credence to their opinion when they suggest something is good. And vice versa.


Ever called a band "shit"?

novacane
15-08-2005, 16:14:15
Me? Probably. Though I tend to reserve it for extreme cases. Lee Ryan's latest offering being a case in point.

Funko
15-08-2005, 16:18:00
Ah... Google tells me it is Lee from Blue, I can only imagine how awful it is.

Blue were one of those boy bands so unmemorable that every time they came up I'd think I'd never heard them.

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 16:19:29
Originally posted by Funko
Anyway, it's just something I am wondering about, I have no real non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.

very valid in many cases, i'm sure (i find my gf to be a good example of this - i was really surprised that she liked title tk by the breeders when i played it to her, and now it is one of her favourite albums evah!!11!) but part of the problem is the unwillingess of people to take a risk or expose themselves to something different

Nills Lagerbaak
15-08-2005, 16:20:53
Well a more open minded culture in general would be nice....

Funko
15-08-2005, 16:21:27
I think a lot of times people don't quite realise there is music out there outside the top 40/radio 1.

Gramercy Riffs
15-08-2005, 16:21:45
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
unwillingess of people to take a risk and expose themselves to someone different

novacane
15-08-2005, 16:23:19
new day, old tricks

Nills Lagerbaak
15-08-2005, 16:25:13
[i]part of the problem is the unwillingess of people to take out their dick and expose themselves as something different [/B]

King_Ghidra
15-08-2005, 16:25:59
Originally posted by novacane
I think natural reaction among most people here is to dislike successful things anyway, perhaps due to over exposure. I'm sure we'd all feel a little disconcerted if the music we liked was embraced by the masses. Thats not a world I wish for. We should appreciate what we have now. Popular culture is what it is. I have no problem accepting it really. Half of the satisfaction associated with being a music fan is that feeling of discovering something new and relatively untapped. Take that away, and half of the buzz is lost.

but that's because we have to stay on the cutting edge of cool :smoke:

i know i find it really fascinating to do a bit of research into the more obscure or forgotten bands or genres and try and get it on the vibe of it, i mean look at the fun we had trying to work out what order those velvet undergound albums were recorded and released :D

a lot of people don't find the artistic or musical development of a band interesting, they don't care about context or how the sound has changed over their careers, they just hear songs that sound different and don't think to ask why. i can't understand that mentality, that sees to me to deny the human element of music, which is such a huge part of the reason it means something to us at all

Lazarus and the Gimp
15-08-2005, 16:54:34
This thread is shit.

novacane
15-08-2005, 16:58:18
Thats just, like, your opinion, man.

Lazarus and the Gimp
15-08-2005, 17:14:54
Actually I can prove it. Just look at who's posting in it.

Funko
15-08-2005, 17:15:32
Now you've joined in it's shit that's for sure.

Lazarus and the Gimp
15-08-2005, 17:25:32
It's a self-fulfilling assertion.

Funko
15-08-2005, 17:26:06
Wanking?

Provost Harrison
15-08-2005, 18:34:37
As the ultimate arbiter of good taste, I say all your tastes are shit :p

Lazarus and the Gimp
15-08-2005, 19:05:25
That would be convincing- were it not for the presence of those tracks on a few LWP compilations that everyone skips.

King_Ghidra
16-08-2005, 09:00:52
:lol:

The Norks
16-08-2005, 22:14:11
god i created a monster with this one.

Its rather patronisingto suggest that something like lee ryan's single is shit simply because its 'for the masses'. Isn't that the worst kind of snobbery? If he's successful, obviously a lot of people like it and it has a role. There's room for all kinds of music. I'm not particularly interested in the artist's musical development (although I am with some of my fave artists) or what they ate for tea when they recorded their single because to me, the big question is 'does it sound good? do i like it?' If it gets my toes tapping or I can relate to it in some way then good. I like all sorts of different stuff from Robbie Williams (sometimes) to 80's pop, to dolly, to classical, to industrial to my real passion which is jazz. I think it shouldnt matter whether something is commercial or not, but then I'm too lazy to go trawling through record shops.

Provost Harrison
16-08-2005, 22:23:01
Robbie Williams is a cunt. I don't feel it deserves pleasantries to be said...

The Norks
17-08-2005, 00:14:58
I find him quite fascinating in some ways- he's very candid and thats more than can be said for a lot of people in his position. His biography is a great book, he just had this guy tail him for a year and write whatever he wanted (exclusing names of girlfriends or people who wanted to remain private). Quite apart from that, he is a fantastic performer, whether you like his music or not. I don't like it all, and I don't know if I like him as a person but I do like some of his songs. He's one of the few people I'd bother to see live these days. I couldnt give that much of a toss whether its cool or not, or whether he's an upstanding guy.

King_Ghidra
17-08-2005, 09:15:17
Originally posted by The Norks
god i created a monster with this one.

Its rather patronisingto suggest that something like lee ryan's single is shit simply because its 'for the masses'. Isn't that the worst kind of snobbery? If he's successful, obviously a lot of people like it and it has a role. There's room for all kinds of music. I'm not particularly interested in the artist's musical development (although I am with some of my fave artists) or what they ate for tea when they recorded their single because to me, the big question is 'does it sound good? do i like it?' If it gets my toes tapping or I can relate to it in some way then good. I like all sorts of different stuff from Robbie Williams (sometimes) to 80's pop, to dolly, to classical, to industrial to my real passion which is jazz. I think it shouldnt matter whether something is commercial or not, but then I'm too lazy to go trawling through record shops.

In the first place, i didn't say it was shit because it's for the masses, i just said it was shit. The fact that it will be bought by masses of people is what was illustrating my point.

Snobbery is a word that tends to be applied to those who advocate high standards in fields that aren't scientific. Because, unlike science, i can't 'prove' something, i am open to the pillories of the vast mass of people who have low taste, are ignorant of the subject they opine on, and are too lazy to improve on the little they know.
You can call that patronising if you like, but why should i be censured for advocating high quality or for criticising low quality?

Your actual argument is the same 'people like it so that must be a good thing' argument that i already stated my opposition to, so why should i go over that again?

I have said many times that the fundamental thing i am interested in is 'does it sound good?' and i have never said that commerical music in principal is bad or that there isn't room for a vast variety of music. Don't confuse high standards with some kind of generalised bigotry against what you perceive to be a certain kind of music. I am talking about quality, whoever it is by, whatever it sounds like, or however many people like it.

The Norks
17-08-2005, 18:34:35
I wasnt particularly having a go at you KG btw, but who are you to decide what's low taste? Taste is individual surely

Eklektikos
17-08-2005, 18:43:52
It's point of view again. If it's his opinion that something is an example of "low taste" then why should he not state that opinion rather than hide it for fear of being accused of snobbery?

protein
17-08-2005, 22:45:07
I get told off for espressing my views on music all the time. You have to take the snobbery comments on the chin and just enjoy the fact that you are right and everyone else in the whole world is stupid. :p

The Norks
18-08-2005, 01:07:09
Originally posted by Eklektikos
It's point of view again. If it's his opinion that something is an example of "low taste" then why should he not state that opinion rather than hide it for fear of being accused of snobbery?

I don't think it is opinion. Taste is down to the individual- calling something 'low taste' implies that you have the inside track on what good taste is, and thats ridiculous. And its snobbery because its saying that your view is somehow better or more well informed than someone elses. Plus how do you categorize low taste? What if someone likes a wide variety of things and just enjoys them for what they are? Is that good taste or bad taste, high or low?? Just because someone likes a Lee Ryan single (or whatever) doesn't mean they have low taste, they might just find the tune pleasant or they might like the lyric. They might also enjoy Renaissance paintings and fine wines, who fucking knows. Labelling other people's tastes as 'low' is clear cut snobbery no matter how you dish it up or what semantic argument you put forward.

The Norks
18-08-2005, 01:28:21
Originally posted by protein
I get told off for espressing my views on music all the time. You have to take the snobbery comments on the chin and just enjoy the fact that you are right and everyone else in the whole world is stupid. :p

Well anything to do with arts is down to the individual. And everyone has opinions based on their own experience. I can't stand whiny white boy indie bands and college rock fanboyism. I love jazz but millions of people find it deeply irritating and pointless. At nearly 30 I couldn't give a toss what anyone thinks if I want to listen to Girls Aloud, Courtney Pine or Mozart frankly. If I like the tune or something about it, I think thats a good enough reason to listen to it. Same with art. We don't have to pretend that pop or 'music for the masses' is high art (although it can be) or that its totally creative or raw talent all the time, but it clearly has a place and a role for lots of people. If that role last 5 minutes or 5 decades so what? For lots of people like me who arent musically inclined (ie don't play or read and don't want to), we dont want to pick apart every chord or production set up either, we just want something pleasant to wash our ears with and emote to, or something that carries us off. If you enjoy music thats more technically adept or creative, well bully for you but it doesn't make your taste any better than mine.

I find it annoying and juvenile when people criticize other people's tastes in such things. If it makes them happy and it speaks to them, all well and good I think. Its all valid. One person's cool is another person's suck. Its pointless to argue about it.

This post isnt aimed at you Protein, just my general thoughts.

Nills Lagerbaak
18-08-2005, 09:23:20
I think the only type of musical inclination that can be considered to be inferior to any other, is that of closemindedness.

Seriously with any kind of art it doesn't matter what you like / don't like just as long as you're willing to give something a go. As long as you do that, I don't think anyone has the right to dismiss your tastes as "wack".

Nills Lagerbaak
18-08-2005, 09:28:33
Oh and to be explicit, you have to challenge yourself musically too. I can understand the argument that "those guys are somehow m usically inferior cos they like the safe, mainstream option"

Funko
18-08-2005, 09:34:41
Originally posted by protein
I get told off for espressing my views on music all the time. You have to take the snobbery comments on the chin and just enjoy the fact that you are right and everyone else in the whole world is stupid. :p

Yeah, that's exactly the problem with these music opinions, there is no right or wrong so if you suggest there are absolutes you wind people up.

ps. I don't think you get told off for expressing views, I think people tend to disagree with your views.

protein
18-08-2005, 09:36:06
It annoys me when people say they like only what they are supposed to like.

I was at the Tate Modern the other day and I noticed that when there was a blatently crap piece of art (ie a black canvass with a white stripe) people were reading the litte explaination instead of looking at the actual art. What's the point in that? If the art doesn't do anything for you there's no point in trying to find a reason why it should.

It seems bonkers to me. If something is blatently crap, it's blatently crap. No matter how many "experts" tell you how increadibly important and worthy it is.

If listening to S Club fills you with joy and makes you want to move and the White Stripes just sounds like student wank to you, then fair play.

King_Ghidra
18-08-2005, 09:50:30
Originally posted by The Norks
I find it annoying and juvenile when people criticize other people's tastes in such things. If it makes them happy and it speaks to them, all well and good I think. Its all valid. One person's cool is another person's suck. Its pointless to argue about it.

i just don't agree with this, arguing about these things (if it's done constructively) certainly can be productive. it's been said in this thread already that many people only like something because they don't know better/haven't been exposed to it. Telling them so is obviosuly a way of showing them that something exists beyond ther existing standards and ideas. A lot of people seem to think that they like a tune and that's it. That's crazy, we all know our tastes can change and we probably all have music we used to love that we are now ashamed of.

What i am flailing around at is that people and their tastes change.

We can all influence others by giving threm new ideas or showing them new things or by giving them a different perspective on the things they already think. That's the fundamental value of sites like CG and why we all enjoy a debate.

It's not juvenile to criticise someone else's taste, it's a fundamental human activity. The moment we stop asking why of other people is the moment you get a complacent culture. And similarly, we have to be able to listen to such criticism ourselves, none of us are so perfect that we don't need a kick up the ass or a moment to think about our own views and ideas.

I like it when my opinions and tastes are challenged because it gives me pause to think about why i think or feel that way. I'm not so proud to say my opinion is my opinion and if you don't like it sling your hook.

Funko
18-08-2005, 09:51:27
Aye. Sling yer 'ook lad. Arrrr.

The Norks
18-08-2005, 12:11:56
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
i just don't agree with this, arguing about these things (if it's done constructively) certainly can be productive. it's been said in this thread already that many people only like something because they don't know better/haven't been exposed to it. Telling them so is obviosuly a way of showing them that something exists beyond ther existing standards and ideas. A lot of people seem to think that they like a tune and that's it. That's crazy, we all know our tastes can change and we probably all have music we used to love that we are now ashamed of.

What i am flailing around at is that people and their tastes change.

We can all influence others by giving threm new ideas or showing them new things or by giving them a different perspective on the things they already think. That's the fundamental value of sites like CG and why we all enjoy a debate.

It's not juvenile to criticise someone else's taste, it's a fundamental human activity. The moment we stop asking why of other people is the moment you get a complacent culture. And similarly, we have to be able to listen to such criticism ourselves, none of us are so perfect that we don't need a kick up the ass or a moment to think about our own views and ideas.

I like it when my opinions and tastes are challenged because it gives me pause to think about why i think or feel that way. I'm not so proud to say my opinion is my opinion and if you don't like it sling your hook.

Its fine to level criticisms and to have a critical mind and to form opinions about music/art, but dismissing things as 'low' taste isn't critical, its just labelling, based on your own belief that your taste is 'high'. But yes, if people disrespect your actual opinions and tastes, they can sod off.

I'm not sure why people 'need' to challenge themselves musically Nills, it might be something you enjoy but not everyone does. that old thing they say about art 'I dont know much about art, but I know what I like' is how many people feel about these things. It would bore me personally, and you too, but live and let live.

Nills Lagerbaak
18-08-2005, 12:21:51
OK, challenging is definitely for the person who has art/music as a hobby. But I think you can say someone has "lower" taste if they are narrow minded and purposefully ignore new things and experiences, but that could be said about people in general....

protein
18-08-2005, 12:27:19
I'll agree with that. If you don't taste everything on the menu with an open mind you won't be able to decide what the best and worst dishes are.

Pop music - McDonalds.
Classical - steak tartare
Jungle - hot curry
Metal - roast kangaroo
Indie - Thai fishcakes

The Norks
19-08-2005, 10:55:36
Originally posted by protein
I'll agree with that. If you don't taste everything on the menu with an open mind you won't be able to decide what the best and worst dishes are.

Pop music - McDonalds.
Classical - steak tartare
Jungle - hot curry
Metal - roast kangaroo
Indie - Thai fishcakes

thats such bollocks! The Beatles were pop- they produced some of the most influential music of the 20th C! Pop can be great art.

I don't think its low taste not to try new things. Some people just have a firm idea of what they like and don't like. I also think you'd only apply that label if it was 'mass music' like pop or dance. If someone only liked classical, jazz or blues (music thats generally considered a more serious art form) its unlikely that anyone would accuse them of having low taste.

Nills Lagerbaak
19-08-2005, 11:11:20
I agree, I don;t think you can use words like "low taste" (As you're saying). I think you can say someone is ill informed about a subject (if they haven't made the effort to try it).
But as art is all about the thoughts and feelings that are invoked in a person, saying they have low taste about (e.g.) pop music is like saying their brain works in inferior ways.

I would say someone who likes only jazz is illiinformed about a lot of things. I think low taste can be muddled up with ill informed.

The Norks
19-08-2005, 11:26:15
realistically most people like a variety of things. My CD's are wildly eclectic but probably fairly mainstream, I can't do what my brother does and go investigating tiny bands and rare stuff, it just bores me. If I hear something new and I like it, then cool, but I don't go searching things out except with jazz and easy listening (a much maligned genre!) I have some pretty weird stuff there.

Nills Lagerbaak
19-08-2005, 11:30:14
Yeah, I'm not one of these people who go "exploring tiny record shope for the next big thing". However I do love going to live gigs and seeing unknown acts, and more importantly then being blown away by them. Yay!

The Norks
19-08-2005, 11:43:30
I used to like gigs but I had a nasty experience at a U2 gig at Wembley Stadium and I got more and more phobic about large crowds. I think the best gig I ever was that one, closely followed by Kylie at the Hammersmith Apollo. Hole was pretty good too.

Actually the best gig ever was Sheep on Drugs.

Nills Lagerbaak
19-08-2005, 11:52:19
No I mean small intimate gigs where there is a strong possibility you'd be spat on by the lead "singer"

The Norks
19-08-2005, 12:31:01
lol I don't tend to like small intimate bands except jazz artists really

The Norks
19-08-2005, 12:31:45
they don't spit they just stroke their goatees and say 'nnnnnnnnnice!' and 'smoooooooth!' ;)

Nills Lagerbaak
19-08-2005, 12:33:10
Yeah, that's good too. I love small gigs and cider, in some ways I am a very simple man.....

protein
19-08-2005, 14:21:23
Originally posted by The Norks
thats such bollocks! The Beatles were pop- they produced some of the most influential music of the 20th C! Pop can be great art.

I don't think its low taste not to try new things. Some people just have a firm idea of what they like and don't like. I also think you'd only apply that label if it was 'mass music' like pop or dance. If someone only liked classical, jazz or blues (music thats generally considered a more serious art form) its unlikely that anyone would accuse them of having low taste.
They were mass market pop. Then they started experimenting and challenging themselves and the listener and then turned long standing production and musical conventions on their head.

From McDonalds to Pacific Rim experimental fusion food.

Provost Harrison
19-08-2005, 16:23:31
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Yeah, that's good too. I love small gigs and cider, in some ways I am a very simple man.....

Yep, simple, I'd go along with that :D

The Norks
19-08-2005, 17:26:52
Originally posted by protein
They were mass market pop. Then they started experimenting and challenging themselves and the listener and then turned long standing production and musical conventions on their head.

From McDonalds to Pacific Rim experimental fusion food.

even their early stuff represented a whole new sound. I'm not saying they were the sole inventers of that sound, but the skiffle/Liverpool sound was something they pioneered