Your personal taste, what does it actually mean?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71552
Printed Date: July 18 2025 at 15:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Your personal taste, what does it actually mean?
Posted By: undercover_man
Subject: Your personal taste, what does it actually mean?
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 18:53
|
Yeah, that so called PERSONAL TASTE … Years ago, when reading for the first time discussions on prog websites, I was very surprised how different we, progheads, are. As for everyone’s personal taste, literally everything is possible : a band, adored by one listener, is totally uninteresting for another one. No, I didn’t expect every proghead would love VdGG, King Crimson and Gentle Giant like I do, but nevertheless : doesn’t exist something like „musical beauty“, at least to a certain extent independent to our personal taste?
These thoughts lead me to a lot of questions :
What does it actually means : your personal musical taste? Is it just a list of your favourite bands without corelation among listed ones? Or do you have some specific styles, qualities, features or elements of some piece of music, which you consider as necessary to fit to your personal taste? How many bands or albums do you consider as fitting to your musical taste almost without reserves? Are they from one single subgenre or from more ones? As for me, probably two the most important aspects of my personal taste, two of many, are : 1) mood I could undersign S.Wilson’s (of PT) words : „ Only sad music makes me happy.“ Dark, sad, haunting mood, that’s exactly what I love. Happy, romantic, joyful music has never any emotional impact to my musical cells, as well as technical music „without any mood“ is really not for me 2) adventure my personal taste says : music must be to a certain extent adventurous and challenging. Catchy and easy listening songs or parts of songs usually quickly kill my enjoyment, I simply want to hear something more than radio friendly melodies spiced by progressive instrumentation Many thanks for your thoughts. |
Replies:
Posted By: TheOppenheimer
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 19:29
|
Your own personal taste depends on your own personal taste. It's all a very subjective matter. Personal taste can be A for someone, B for some other person, or C for any other person. For me, personal taste is the group of elements that define what music you prefer listening to. Personally, i like: dark and/or heavy deep ambient scapes (Agalloch, Porcupine Tree) agressive technical instrumental sections (Dream Theater, Ayreon, Rush) melodic/epic crescendos or endings. (Pink Floyd, Octavarium) viking, gallop or "crunchy" heavy riffs (Ensiferum, Circus Maximus) extended improvisational ambient pieces, to leave playing like functional/background music (Tales from topographic oceans, Reverend Bizarre, GY!BE) and general metal, prog metal, heavy prog and ambient prog. Music is too big to be defined in a few lines. We've had HUNDREDS of years of music, and we just can't get to know what does musical taste mean, yet. ------------- //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A veces es cuestión de esperar, y tomarte en silencio. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 19:39
|
^ good answer.. I tried to write a response but it just got too complex and contradictory suffice to say if it's good it's good |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:00
|
What's interesting is that sometimes personal taste is a matter of timing, be it trying new things or what you feel in the mood to listen to at any particular time.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:02
| I like stuff. Do you like stuff? |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:04
I hate stuff, I prefer things.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Triceratopsoil wrote:Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:16
|
I like things that I like, and stuff that I like, but not things or stuff I don't like.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:17
How peculiar. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:27
I think this thread has too much salt.   Maybe a little more Jon? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 20:44
|
My personal taste is very simple: progressive (death) metal and hardcore hip hop. Almost anything from these genres will appeal to me. I also listen to other genres. I love some dream pop and folk, but there's more dream pop that I don't like than dream pop that I like. Same with folk. "Mood" and "adventure" are very nice words. :) By the way I don't believe anything Steven Wilson says. He said " http://www.aural-innovations.com/issues/issue7/ptree03.html - I don't think we are a progressive rock band . I think we're just a rock band." He said "happy, romantic music is really not for me" but the Deadwing album is full of happy and romantic music (IMO). ------------- 
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 21:43
|
I actually was wondering something similar the other day, and found a very good definition in Wikipedia, treating taste as a perception of which are acceptable ways of communicating and which aren't. Just read it for yourself, it's long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_%28sociology%29 ------------- 
|
Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 21:47
| spicy food is good too |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 21:49
Agreed -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 21:57
| love the spicy food |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 22:11
|
Going on with the more serious approach to the topic, i think such thing as "good music" does exist and it is based on it's humanistic content so to say, can't find a better word than that, the more you can say at the same time the better and that's why complexity plays a role for some people, as it is harder though not impossible to make a strong statement with a 2 minute pop song than in a 20 minute epic. The problem is, for the latter, you need a very peculiar personality, to be willing to take the trouble of listening and understandig the whole thing, that's where taste starts playing a role. People want to see a reflection of their own thoughts, ideas and emotions in their music, some people are just not intered and are happy to perfom their daily catarsis with easy listen, some want to do so with a 3 chord punk song and some seek it in blues guitar solos.
-------------
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 21 2010 at 23:59
| It depends on the psychotropic substances that are present on your blood at that particular moment... |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:14
How do you define this? What is communication in music? ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:41
|
If ur in a good mood then all music is good, if ur in a bad mood then all music sucks.....Its up to ur own personal taste as to whether u are in a good mood or bad mood. -------------   
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:47
|
Well i would parallel it (if such a verb exists) with an answering machine, a one way message that leaves an impression to the listener, depending on his interpretation of the message. -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:52
An answering machine uses words and only tells you to leave a message, this analogy makes no sense. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:55
It wouldn't be an analogy if it was the exact same thing, would it? -------------
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 00:56
I have to disagree here, as there is music that can completely ruin a good day. If you've been in Uruguay long enough i bet you've heard of a little thing called cumbia villera? -------------
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 01:22
 -------------
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 01:31
Maybe so, i still can't find a corelation between my mood and appreciation of music, for example dancing with the moonlit knight moves me when i'm feeling happy, blue, angry, bored, drunk, or cheerful with little difference -------------
|
Posted By: octopus-4
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 04:41
|
Many years ago I watched a TV show with a number of pop artists and deciding who was the worst was very difficult. There was something chemical in my blood that came from my lung so I watched the whole show. There was just one artist who gave me a quite positive sensation, like his music was hitting the right neurons. Weeks later I discovered from the radio that it was effectively a good song and that the author was likely in my same state when he wrote it. It depends on what is running in your blood at the moment, but if it's good it's good. What changes is the level of attention that you pay to it at the first listen. ------------- I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 05:31
An analogy has to make sense and actually be an analogy though. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 05:58
|
Very good question. It must be because i want give a answer Even if there is some different genre on the progressive world and that some people don't like bands that others likes, i think there is a common taste in all progressive music independent of any personal taste. This is a taste for something complex, more challenging then pop music. This music require more effort to be appreciate. If i have listened to more symphonic music then avant-garde or space rock music is rather a matter of choice than a matter of taste. I don't have time to explore and buy all the music in all different prog genres. It is difficult for me to explain why some people prefer some type of progressive music over some other, some bands over others. That why we can close the discussion, by saying, it's a matter of taste. But this answer doesn't satisfy me. |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 06:39
|
One of the fascinating characteristics that you find in many proggers (although certainly not all) is versatility, I can happily switch from the softest Renaissance to DT, to jazz-rock, to KC or VDGG, to old Genesis / Yes / ELP, to crossover, to Jesus Christ Superstar, to Oldfield to the Enid to Ayreon to classical music to Steve Vai to Bowie and the list would be so long and embracing such a wide diversity of styles, including even more modern interpretations of prog such as from the Mars Volta to GSY!BE to the Cardiacs. You do not find this versatility of music taste in most people out of the prog environment.
This suggests that indeed what we appreciate above all is certain qualities in music rather than certain styles.
Having said that, I'm a symphonic old fart and even if I love a lot of other music and I try to be open and listen to new and different things, I have to admit that I always end up concluding that still nothing fulfills me like the classic symphonic and eclectic prog.
|
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 06:55
Yes, i think you have nailed down something interesting here : "Versatility". You can enjoy a lot of different genres in the progressive rock and also in other genres of music. That's what keep the music experience enjoyable. You always find something new to avoid boredom. I realise over the years that to be able to enjoy my symphonic music, i need to listen to something different. And also i think it can pursue a need to experience different kind of emotions, moods. |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 07:12
|
men tend to try and match their acquisitions with those who are higher in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class - social hierarchy . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste_%28sociology%29#cite_note-Veblen-5 - [6] In terms of taste and modern consumption this means that taste is formed in a process in of emulation: people emulate each other, which creates certain habits and preferences, which in turn contributes to consumption of certain preferred goods.
above comes from the wiki link previous in this thread.
So by becomming member of a website like this our taste will shift towards more progressive music in order to beter belong to this web-society. etc. so being aroud prog-heads results in becoming a proghead by association and emulating each others tastes. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 07:41
This is a way of explain the subject, but i don't think that my love of progressive music depends completely on the influence of people in a higher social hierarchy. I didn't listen to prog music to be accepted by the prog society. |
Posted By: infandous
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 08:04
|
This sums up my feelings on the topic: "I don't know why, it's the same reason why you like some music and you don't like others. There's something about it that you like. Ultimately I don't find it's in my best interests to try and analyze it, since it's fundamentally emotional." - Jerry Garcia This is what it comes down to. Music elicits an emotional response in people. Emotion is a very personal thing (though it can be shared, in some situations), hence musical appreciation is a very personal thing. Of course, there is the aspect of appreciating the technique of a player, or the compositional skill of a writer. But even there, it is a personal preference issue, as not everyone appreciates complexity or simplicity (and everything in between applies here as well). |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 08:42
ok if now 2 people think it didn't make scense then it must have been so  My bad then, the important thing is that you understand what i was trying to say.-------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:11
Not sure i do. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:16
Well at the moment the artist writes a song, what he is doing is ordering sound based on their current state of mood, and what they have to say. That same ordered sound is received by some random person. If that person can identify with the content of the music, then there's a like, if not, not. -------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:17
Sounds kinda obvious.  Are you saying that someone writes a song and someone else might like it and someone might not?
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:30
No but i can see why you would think that.I mean someone writes a song and someone else might like it if he can identify his own feelings, thoughts and maybe even values in it, i don't think it's just random... -------------
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:33
^^Ok.....I think I understand. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 09:38
|
Yey Well i just thought of an example actually, specially about the "values" part. One person can love frank zappa for his irony, but anotherone might not like his entire music because he says "a****le" and "son of a bitch" a lot, and some people have his head printed in fire that that is wrong, always. Edit: PD: Frank would be disgusted with the censorship in this forum, just saying... -------------
|
Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 10:30
|
I am brought up with a classical musical background, I sang in several choirs, played in a baroque flute ensemble, and play several instruments (not very well, but enough for 'home' usage). I like listening to classical music ('classical' is used in a wider sense, that means european compositional music from early renaissance to modern times, roughly from Palestrina to Stockhausen). And I like rock music which is influenced by this kind of music. I like it, if a rock music song resembles in structure this compositional 'classical music', in terms of: - sophisticated construction with beginning, middle part, ending - dynamic, tempo and rhythmical changes - polyphonic and contrapuntal structures in melody - extended harmonies with chromatic chord shifting and triad breaking - unusual usage of instruments (a recorder next to an E-guitar is cool!) So that is why I like the music I find in PA! |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 12:22
I think it's more sophisticated to construct a song inside out. the beginning and ending as a middle part bookended by the middle part.
(Soon by Yes, or Bijou from Queen has such a construct) ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Tengent
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 12:54
| I made a list of 50+ songs I consider to be perfect and listed the reasons why I thought so. Apparently timbre is a big element in my tastes, along with dynamic layering. |
Posted By: rod65
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 15:00
|
Part of the original post involved the question of "musical beauty" that might exist independent of personal taste. The orthodoxy that seems to be emerging from the discussion--pretty much as expected given the orthodoxy of post-modern culture (and yes, there is such a thing)--is that everythng depends on personal taste. "Good is good, and bad is bad." So just for the sake of argument, or rmore accurately for healthy discussion, I'd like to suggest an opposing position: Yes, there is such a thing as musical beauty independent of individual taste.
This is a difficult case to make and, in a democratic society, an unpopular position to maintain. Moreover, I am not a musicologist: merely an interested non-expert. Anyway, here goes...
We might first consider the attributes that music across the world has in common. Regardless of the culture it comes from--and like many on this site, I've been exposed to a pretty broad array of music both Western and on-Western, modern and non-modern--music tends to have structure. At its very basic level then, we might consider music as being sound arranged according to some kind of structure. Exceptions can readily be cited from avant-gard music and other genres whose position is essentially counter-establishment, but none of these often interesting efforts makes sense without the prior asumption of structure. That is, they count on the expectation or assumption of structure on the part of the listener and then derive their meaning partially from subverting or challenging that assumption. This is the case with any art that takes a self-consciously alternative stance: the thing to which it presents itself as an alternative is always assumed beforehand.
So fine. There is structure. But so what? Is structure beauty? Probably not. But the fact that music always involves either structure or the expectation of structure suggests a few quetions, the first of which is, What is it in the human brain that responds positively to structure? That is, is there a physiological explanation for what we experience as aesthetic beauty? Or is there some explanation that might be rooted in evolutionary psychology, i.e. any way in which a positive reaction to the experience of structured sound might have a survival value, and thus any likelihood that those possessing the genes necessary for such a reaction might be more likely to survive and thus pass on their DNA than those who lack such a potential?
Here, we need to consider the earliest and most basic uses of music. They seem to have been largely social--maybe religious or maybe not depending on who you read--but almost certainly social. Or maybe "communal" is a better word. That is, the live performance of music--until recently the only way of experiencing it--brings people together, often but not always in the context of dance (shared motion) or story (shared narrative), both of which help to cement communities together and thus make them more able to withstand external pressures either human or non-human. That is, they contribute, among other things, to identity both private and, more importantly, shared. In other words, the positive response to structured sound actually does help cultures, and thus the people who make up those cultures, survive.
So what do we mean by 'beauty'?
The answer to this one, in the context of the current post, is decidedly non-romantic. The experience of beauty, I think, is simply that positive reaction to which I refer above--and beauty thus an emergent property of some types of structure. For most of its history, human artifice has consideted, at both the practical and aesthetic levels, of transforming chaos into order. This is what we do when we take a pile of stones and turn them into a house, or when we take a specific group of sounds from the chaotic jumble of possible sounds and impose a meaning or a structure on it (language and/or music). Other examples abound--for example the large majority of creation myths, to say nothing of painting prior to some self-consciously chaotic movements all of which are recent and all of which assume an expectation of order on the viewer's part. Order, in other words, is beautiful. Most cultures have recognized this, and part of the reason is almost certainly that an appreciation of order helps us to survive.
So beauty then? Our experience of aesthetic beauty is largely our appreciation of order--I mean it is the specific cocktail of hormones and other brain chemicals that bathe our neurons upon perception of objects or words or images or sounds arranged according to a structure to which our evolutionary past has predisposed us to respond to positively. In that sense, musical beauty does exist independent of personal taste: personal taste is simply our own responses and expectations arising from the unique details of our individual lives. We may, by this logic, have a personal taste for things that not actually beautiful I don't have a problem with that, but I think that the distinction is meaningful.
Short version: Beauty resides in all brains genrally by virtue of their physical structures; taste resides in our individual brains by virtue of our experience.
Shorter still: Beauty is mostly nature; taste is mostly nurture.
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.
 |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 15:36
|
I strongly believe that the personal taste in music is obtain by experience and can grow with time depending on how much time and serious everyone is putting in music. It's like any other areas, you don't become a carpenter in one day. But when you say to people that the music of some artists is not "good", they think it's impossible to judge something that is only a matter of taste. Would you put your trust in someone with no experience to build your house? It's like the question, would you trust the judgement of someone that had never heard a progressive rock album when he does a review of a progressive rock album? |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 15:52
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.
|
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 16:36
And there is one other thing ... the like/dislike thing. I might not exactly love something, but I can appreciate its musicianship. Gentle Giant is the example for me ... I can appreciate the immense effort and talent to do that, but it is not one of my favorites, although I will always have "In a Glass House" and "Octopus" in my collection!
As a reviewer, this is the greatest challenge ... how do you take the personal out of the discussion and offer a fair analysis of the music so that your words help explain the art itself ... that's what a lot of literary criticism has done to help define and populate the world of literature, and we can do the same with this music ... but we have to get more intelligent and less condescending ... to say ... metal style is not my cup of tea, is like saying ... sorry ... I'm not a reviewer! That's my fan talk!
I think it is ok to study and mention "styles" ... the problem is, and the same with literary and artistic criticisms, that automatically you start comparing it to something else. The minute you do that the individuality of the person/artist you are reviewing leaves. You're no longer reviewing this artist. You are reviewing a copy of something else out there that you know/like ... and might have absolutely nothing to do with the artist you are actually trying to review.
You have to be objective in these things, or it's not a review!
I can't say for sure, to tell you the truth. Being multi-cultured (Portugal to Brazil to America), means that I am fairly well suited to European and Latin American music and also jazz and rock. Thus, if I had to tell you what is my taste in music, I probably can't answer that and my posts here show that ... I'm right at home with Hawkwind, as well as Incredible String Band, as I am with Villa - Lobos and Stravinsky and Pink Floyd ... and Egberto Gismonti and Keith Jarrett and Jan Garbarek ... and I think that kind of mind scares a lot of people that don't (yet!) get what some of the other stuff is all about.
In the end ... it is not about a mood ... since that changes every second of your life. It is about that very special moment of your life, where a piece of music illuminated your heart like so few things can ... and, today, at 59, I can tell you what those feelings are since I am a writer and poet ... but I am not sure that most people have any idea what it is ... to be honest with you, that feeling has no words ... you have to feel it and live through it ... the rest? ... just words, my friend! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 16:36
|
Crickey. I really don't understand my personal preferences half the time. Some things I can state with (relative) certainty: Not a big progressive metal fan. I do make some allowances (Ayreon, Ice Age), but for the most part, my tastes veer in a more eclectic, less thunderous vein. I really enjoy proto-prog, psychedelia and (most of all) early prog groups from 70-74. I'm a slavering Hammond organ addict, so a decent keyboard player if often essential to the music I prefer. I tend to veer away from Yes-style symphonic...indeed, I have yet to listen to a Yes album from end to end. I've tried Close to the Edge about two dozen times, and I can never get past And You And I. Genesis has also been a problem. Yet I really enjoy some symphonic...I'm a huge Kansas, Beggars Opera, Fantasy, Camel, ELP fan, so essentially my tastes don't make any gorram sense. Really, eclectic and crossover prog is where it's at for me...GG, VdGG (leading up to Godbluff, I'm still struggling with their stuff post-Pawn Hearts), earlier KC (Lizard is a MUST), alongside stuff like Gnidrolog, Gracious etc. If it came out before 75, I'll probably be all over it. Now for the analysis...I think my preoccupation with early prog has to do with recording techniques and the energy inherent to an emergent genre. I have a real difficult time getting into contemporary prog, and no small portion of this involves the fact that so much modern prog is merely emulating without innovating. Also, it all sounds so slick...sterile might be another word. I just picked up the big release of 2010, Excavation of the Mind by Sky Architect, and so far it's leaving me very cold. Again, it's the weirdly clinical aspect of digital recording...I like Presto Ballet based almost solely on their use of analogue tape. Call me shallow, but production values really, really matter to me. Cut back to the great albums of the late 60s-early 70s, and the sound is just there. Usually it's most noticeable to me in the resonance of the drums...I am a drummer, and I like a crisp, organic sound to my snares (one of the curses that's kept me from enjoying a lot of prog's more industrial products, actually). I also...and yes, I will claim this...I'm a sucker for catchy vocal lines. If a band's vocalist meanders around like a drunken bee hunting for a flower, I'll get bored very quickly. Not surprising, I suppose - my first (and still greatest) love is Queen. So what is personal taste? Well.......it's personal. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: undercover_man
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 17:28
That's exact formulation of my thoughts and I could tell my own story to prove it :
About 13 years ago I met my wife and as you expect, we were two people with different musical taste : I was already proghead, not too experienced and informed, but nevertheless proghead. Top albums according to my taste at that time were : Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Fugazi, Selling England etc., while my wife moved to my flat with CD's by Duran Duran, REM, George Michael ...
I had a little mercy when she struggled to listen to my favourite CD's, but one day, about one year later after our meeting, she started to love Pink Floyd and Marillion. But during this year I started to dive deeper into prog waters and my list of the most favourite albums has changed quite radically : difficult prog like VdGG, KC and Gentle Giant quickly replaced Marillion etc.
And my wife, already believing to my advices, started to expose her ears to Pawn Hearts, Godbluff, Lizard, Acquaring The Taste. You could imagine her first reactions - "that's so strange, there is no emotional guitar solo, ... THAT'S OUT OF MY TASTE" But I always replied : "Be patient, there's much more depth under the surface than in your favourite Marillion songs"
I don't remember how much time it lasted, maybe another year or two, but now our personal taste is almost identical, I have more time to listen to, so my list of favourites is wider, but I believe one day she will love even my RIO heroes as UZ, Present etc.
Often I ask myself why my wife is the only one human being, which I succesfully convert to music of VdGG and KC. The reason is probably I was living with her in one flat, I was driving with her in one car and I didn't allowe her to give up.
|
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 19:35
I just quote this last bit so that i don't make a mess out of the thread. That's a very nice explanation of what musical beuty might be. And i happen to agree in most points, except the evolutionary part which might have been only an accident IMO, that's kind of a mistery... why did we developed a taste for organized sounds, the thing is, we did. So now what? why do some people find some music interesting and other not. I think that's the question of the century AND the thread itself. -------------
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: September 22 2010 at 21:37
|
Is there a difference between personal taste and general taste, or is personal taste just a small piece of the general taste with the specification that it's based on social differences. (not quite how I mean this, but for now it has to suffice) ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 00:36
| Regarding taste, I like ethnic music, so I have a soft spot for any prog band with these tendencies. Bands with folk influences, like Jethro Tull for example, or with classical tendencies, are always on my "favorites" list. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 02:51
|
Last week I tasted that, this week I tasted this.......but there is an underlying theme of preference. No matter how much the waiter suggests the " Dream Theatre Special" I just won't bite.
.
Great thread BTW  ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: yanch
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 06:29
|
I'm not sure if my personal taste actually means anything other than this is the music that I enjoy listening too and that makes me happy. We are all wired differently, so different things appeal to each of us. Personal taste is unique for us all. There may be influences from how we've been raised, where we've lived, our experiences, etc. but in the end it's about what appeals to us. Some of us have a very wide range of styles we like, some narrower. I can say I'm in the middle some where. I like some folk, some classical, a bit of jazz, a good deal of "classic rock." Prog is what I love the most and I enjoy various of the sub-genre's-symphonic, neo-prog, eclectic, folk, heavy, some psychedelic/space rock, and even some prog-metal. That said, I don't like every band in the sub-genres, just some that have a sound, feel, style, mood, etc. that connects with my brain. As to why these bands appeal to me-can't really say, I just know I like them a lot. So, for me understanding what my personal taste means isn't a big deal. Nice thread and some very, very interesting comments!
|
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 11:28
|
I strongly believe that personal taste revolves exclusively around the power of the listener to interpret. In literary circles, the concept is known as 'The Author is Dead,' and it's one of the fundamental pillars of post-modern literary criticism. Similarly, an album, as recorded by a group with a particular vision or intention, is nothing by a hypothetical conglomeration of sounds until someone deigns to listen to it. Therein lies the process of interpretation, and therein lies the crux of personal taste. Regardless of authorial/songwriter intent, regardless of the public perception of a piece of art, regardless of all academically acknowledged traits, the act of listening to a song or reading a book is a moment of sheer empowerment for the reader/listener. As to why, exactly, personal taste can differ so dramatically from publicly accepted importance (I hate Ernest Hemingway, but obviously someone thinks he's the wasp's nipples), that's really a conglomeration of personal experiences, expectations, and influences. We are all conditioned from birth onwards to accept, loathe, detract from, hate, criticize, or adore certain aspects of art. We can also, in the process of experiencing new art, redefine our reactions to said art. I've become a very committed fan of numerous bands that, for years, did absolutely nothing for me. With prog, I think, this tendency is particularly important: the genre gives the listener plenty of room to grow, to expand their extant comfort zone. Moving from Marillion to VdGG is actually a perfect example of this. For me, the revelation was how damn good Gentle Giant are. In the end, listening to and enjoying music is very dependent on the emotional response of the listener. This could be in response to lyrical content, virtuosity of the musicians, overall structure of a musical concept, or maybe just a love of a particular instrument or method of recording. As to why we find ourselves in open sympathy with these methods of creation...who can say? Ultimately, attempting to delineate between objective quality and subjective enjoyment is like trying to describe the color blue to a blind man. It just ain't gonna happen in any cohesive way. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: The Highly Charged
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 17:02
|
"Your personal taste, what does it actually mean?" Why ask the question? Is the OP, and many responding, in need of having his/her personal preferences validated? It seems to me that this is how the concept of taste is most often used. I like what I like, but I tell you about it because I seek your approval or I am keen to join your club - taste is normative. This is consistent with the social/hierarchical roots of tastes discussed earlier; to say "I like Mozart" is to say I wish to be seen as middle-class. As to how we arrive at our taste, I cannot believe, at least in the subtle distinction between Canterbury and Jazz-fusion or Symphonic Prog and P-funk (in the grand scheme of 50,000 years of human culture Yes and Funkadelic are almost identical) that this is physiological. That said, I recently attended a small Space Rock festival where I found myself surrounded by people who, like me, really could not dance; out attempts to move in time to the rhythm were comedic and spastic - all of us. So, maybe Hawkwind only appeals to the rhythmically challenged, maybe we are wired differently. This doesn't explain why taste changes - quite frankly much of the stuff I adored as a younger man - Yes, Genesis, Renaissance (especially Renaissance) I have no time for now, finding myself listening to the more succinct loveliness of Tool or Opeth or Magma; curiously, still prog, just different prog. Did I get bored? Did I hear Songd from the Wood or Novella or Close tot he Edge too many times? Perhaps, but these days I eschew Heinz ketchup for the hand made ketchup from the deli - but that might just be normative too. And a Grand and Mellow Hello to all on the forum |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 18:06
Haha ... I like that ...
The sad part is that there was some excellent music in there and we are probably going to look at this band the same way we look at Genesis and ELP and other progressive monstrosities. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 19:05
And it is one of the reasons why I have been working on trying to improve the reviews and the discussions of our beloved music here ... we have to get better than just "fan comments" ... and help define the music and it will place it in the annals of music history.
To expect the rock'n'roll hall of shame to add this to their list of music, will not be realistic until the day that we get past the "fame" part of it ... and help define something more than the "money" ... that can now be wasted because there is so much of it for everyone! But for this to happen the contingent of "progressive" folks and writers need to get better ... and also help cement the bands of today ... not just the bands of yestercentury.
But there is a major difference when the comments are strictly about I like and I don't like ... which is not a criticism or a review ... it's a personal opinion!
You're gonna get trashed like me!
And usually, the difference that makes it "better" is, obviously the fact that the specific piece of music, art, or book, helped empower a lot more folks, than other pieces ... thus, Beethoven is considered good, just like Mozart and a lot of bands, are NOT considered good. Somewhere in the middle of this, history gets involved, and the discussion loses its shape. A lot of the modern arts were a very strong attempt at breaking these barriers down ... and just like a famous song ... "a day in life" ... that just continues on and on ... becomes a comment about how boring it has all become, and how we want new experiences.
I seriously believe, that rock music and jazz music, will become the two most important elements of music in the history of music for the 20th century, along with Stravinsky ... why? ... they broke the mold ... completely ... and created a new mold -- and sometimes I think that we're trying to call it "progressive" as a way to discuss it, but I'm not sure there was a lot more to it than just a keyboard, or a synthesizer.
I have a story on that ...
Nice!
Assuming that we know what the reaction is, since many times (specially fans), tend to like things and not exactly know why.
Or as Syd Barrett has stated ... "people have stood, and cheered ... something they did not understand!". And you could easily spread that to many creeds and political ends as well!
For me, I started on H to He ... so ... we're talking very early 70's or something like that ... I also heard many times but while I appreciated them a lot, they just were not my personal preference ... and the reason why is that their lyrics and (specially) early compositions are really "intelectual" compared to a lot of other work out there that simply followed the aba sonata format and call it rock'n'roll because it was loud and electric!
I think there is a massive difference starting then with it, than starting now ... but funny ... as much as I love the music, I am not so emotionally attached to it to the point where I can not appreciate anything else anywhere in the world in music ... and I think, at least from my 20 years of being a film reviewer that is important and sometimes can show a sense of objectivity to the review ... not necessarily to the personal enjoyment of it.
Another example on the "visual" side of things ... I have loved Djam Karet's first 5 albums a lot ... and despite all these reviews mentioning Robert Fripp and KC and this and that ... and then all of a sudden seeing that they did a cut thanking Fripp and Pinhas ... I had never been able to make the connection ... even when Chuck Oken stated that Robert Fripp is his greatest inspiration in music ... and wouldn't you know it ... I put on KC through Lark's Tongs in Aspic (can't stomach a lot of the other stuff for some reason) ... and yeah ... I hear that guitar now ... and I can tell you why ... because the music was so visual to me, that it never had "musicians" in it ... it had massive visuals that I could write and film to easily enough ... and it didn;t matter if there was Fripp and Pinhas there or not ... the fact of the matter is that Fripp and Pinhas is better used/heard on the later albums, not the earlier ones that are so moody and expressive and less "rock music" per se!
But, the main difference, and I told Chuck that is this ... I can close my eyes and there is no Fripp there for me ... there is just the visual that the music gives ... and that is something that is specific strictly to that piece of music and nothing else ... and it may or may not have been what the writer and creator of the piece may have intended in the first place ... which makes for 2 completely different things ... which is the reason why sometimes the dump Labrie thread is so disappointing because it is so dis-respectful to the cause of any artist and their work. ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 19:18
Might also clarify this ... it's no longer a "hypothetical comglomeration of sounds" ... because it is now real.
It may have a representation in its entity that you feel, or someone else feels, but the artist himself/herself might not have felt that at all ... the only time when this might be "hypothetical" would be during its gestation period, not after the birth!
The only thing that might be considered "hypothetical" is your own conglomeration of images and thoughts during the experience of listening/reading/experiencing the piece of work ... until such a time when you -- as the artist -- can sit down and write these down for everyone else to see.
Thus the listening to it later, by an outsider, is not the same thing, and many times not even what was intended at all.
This is a lovely thread ... totally far out ... thank you for being here! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Revan
Date Posted: September 23 2010 at 19:49
I tend to want people joining my club -------------
|
Posted By: Pelata
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 07:14
|
Personal taste only matters to the person. We like what we like and ultimately I think it's inexplicable. Why do people like Lady Gaga and Jay-Z? They just do. Why do I hate thier music? I just do.
My tastes tend to run fairly wide. My iPod runs from King Crimson to Sarah McLachlan...from Amorphis to Night Ranger...from Iron Maiden to Duncan Shiek....and that's the way I like it.
|
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 08:04
| 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. |
Posted By: Pelata
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 08:53
Well said!
|
Posted By: rod65
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 13:27
Thanks, Gerinski. I knew there were some problems with my arguent, and I think you have hit upon the main ones. I'm pretty sure our potential to appreciate music is hard-wired, and possessed in different degrees by different people (and to head off any misunderstandings, I am not going to suggest that smart people are hard wired to appreciate prog: we recently had a rather accrimonious thread on that topic). Just as some brains are wired to play music very well, regardless of what other potentials they might have, so some brains seem to be more inclined to appreciate music. As for the kind and complexity of the music so appreciated, that's an open question and probably mostly answerable on the nurture side of the spectrum: we cannot like somethng to which we have not been exposed.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 24 2010 at 21:35
| I think rod65 has got it right. There is such a thing as beauty in an aesthetic sense in music but whether it moves you or only aesthetically beautiful music moves you is where your personal taste checks in. I also agree with another poster that taste itself is developed from experience and patient application by the listener, it's not something you are born with. Some people will pick up more details in the music than others because of their experience and it will enhance their appreciation. |
Posted By: progvortex
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 14:42
|
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
------------- Life is like a beanstalk... isn't it? |
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 16:19
Sheer poetry. I can hear your post. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: The Highly Charged
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 16:54
| 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. |
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 16:59
It's the peril and blessing of being in such a divergent genre. Still waiting for PA to accept ABBA and DMB. ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: The Highly Charged
Date Posted: September 25 2010 at 17:23
Definitely some proggy bits on Abba the Album |
Posted By: GY!BE
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 18:03
|
Your personal taste means absolutely nothing to others but everything to you.
------------- It is all a dream, a dream in death... |
Posted By: Deleuze
Date Posted: September 28 2010 at 18:29
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: esky
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 15:01
| It usually means that I can like or not like a prog band that's new to me within moments of a song starting up. With the new bands I'v e heard, this unfortunately leads to an ill response that turns me away from them. Must admit, though - I haven't heard much that is new. |
Posted By: daria
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 16:06
|
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.
What excites me, is originality/creative. Now, by that I don't necessary mean 'technical', because anyone can learn to play technically; there are millions of shredders out there, for example, but who really gives a crap about every single one of them? They're like crime, or the news... we've become so desensitised to it all, to the extent that no emotional acknowledgement can be rendered. Ideally, I love bands who can combine their ability, with the overall perception/sound, to create a musical journey that CAN be distinguished from all the rest. I find this a lot in Dream Theater's stuff, I'm aware a lot of people don't agree with me, but hey this is on personal taste.
Apologies on being vague, but I could write a hell of a lot more.
I'm interested to find out other people's view on this. I usually bring this topic up in person... Perhaps, to one day, embark on the real correlation between them all.
|
Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 16:31
|
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.
------------- "Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood) |
Posted By: CloseToTheMoon
Date Posted: September 30 2010 at 21:22
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. ------------- It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen. |
Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: October 05 2010 at 16:33
|
In a nutshell, personal taste, I think, is based both on one's experience or story and is also influenced by one's personality.
Figuring out why you like something would involve rediscovering your personal history which includes a very large number of factors. Often times it is probably not worth the effort (witness the many responses which dismiss the effort of trying to answer the question) because in one sense that personal history is full of accidents and personal facts that may be uninteresting in themselves or forgotten and difficult to recall or rediscover. On the other hand, these same facts are what has gone into making you the person that you are so they can also have an intrinsic value and even be valued collectively if the topic of conversation supports it. Also, a good storyteller could deliver this information in an entertaining way.
One of my theories (I'm an armchair philosopher in case you haven't noticed) is that we all develop in our personalities and interests in a biased way. I believe that this is a general fact of psychology and has everything to do with economy of energy in the brain...if there are multiple choices or ways of doing something that are otherwise all equally attractive but your instinctual needs require an answer in a certain amount of time, it is advantageous to solve the "problem of multiple and equal choices" by developing a bias. One then simply chooses one's "favorite" and is able to quickly satisfy the need at hand.
For those who feel their interests are not biased, I suspect the following two scenarios may apply:
1. Lack of general interest or appreciation in the matter
2. Deep objective knowledge and appreciation of the matter
If music doesn't impact your deeper personal needs then you are not going to develop a preferential relationship to music. If, on the other hand, you love music and have made it a great focus in your life, you may arrive at a place where you have somewhat transcended a preferential personal relationship to music and can find something good in just about any good piece. I suppose you could call this a post-personal relationship to music. Those who just listen to pop music on the radio or whatever radio station and, on a shallow level, equally appreciate all songs might be described as having a pre-personal relationship to music.
I suspect prog fans are largely those who have a self-conscious personal relationship to music...either they play instruments or they find in music a deep need that is not met otherwise in their lives. The pursuit of music for them fulfills a need and so they are likely to develop some biases as they explore the realm of music. With long term pursuit of music one finds that if one is growing on a personal level one also grows in the scope of the types and kinds of music that can be appreciated. For those who study music, they, perhaps, tend to take on a more transcendant relationship to music which is less biased and personal and more appreciative of the whole.
Now pop music fans can also develop preferences in music of course, but due to the difficulty level of listening to much of prog I suspect that for prog fans the percentage of serious music listeners is much higher.
One factor, I suspect, in the truth of the above comes from another principle of instinctual gratification: how hard do you have to work to fulfill your need? For those with a lot of disposable income to spend on music the biasing factor may be greatly reduced. For those of us with very little disposable income the need to select based on preferences becomes much more important.
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: October 05 2010 at 21:06
|
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. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Calculate900
Date Posted: October 07 2010 at 19:59
| I found that dark, spacey material is the most appealing to me in the prog rock genre. It's what got me started with Pink Floyd, and what eventually led me to Peter Gabriel's experimental material (III, Up) and King Crimson's as well (Red, Power to Believe). |