Have you grown out of really listening to music?

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

That sounds mostly compatible with what I'm saying.

I just fundamentally disagree that "better" should necessarily be reserved as a strictly provable objective term the way that some people use it. To me, it's very subjective, because the purpose of the medium is subjective to begin with. Better is just what you personally see and argue that there's more value in, IMO. It doesn't need to be 100% objectively applicable to every human in the world for it to be fair to use that word, nor should anyone take it that way, in my opinion.

But even on the ACTUAL objective side, I would still lean towards thinking that either you or your girlfriend are more right about what they think, and that if you could step into each others brains and fully understand each other, you would be able to determine who was more right and come away with a similar experience. That's obviously technically impossible with current technology, so I agree that it makes no sense to ever be 100% certain of your opinions about good or bad (nor can any objective argument/superior knowledge ever prove that), but I disagree with the idea that our estimations of everyone's preferences should be treated as exactly the same, exactly as likely, and exactly as valid. Everyone just has their best guess that could very well be wrong. Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean that you shouldn't hold onto your best and most compelling guess and refer to that as what you "think" is better, IMO.

As I said, I think her music sucks. Most people think my music sucks ass or that I don't really enjoy what I'm listening to and just do it so I can look "weird" or whatever. I work with teenagers and they have a blast telling me everything I listen to is pure shit (even The Beatles), I think the exact opposite but I keep it to myself because I understand that most of them still define themselves by what they consume (music as much as clothes). I don't think I'm right. I don't think that by linking to their brains, I'd discover that I'm right and I feel the only idea really is pretentious.

I love films, I know cinema and I've studied it to some far extent, my favorite director is Raoul Ruiz and I think his work is the most interesting and complex and that very few come close to his mastery both on narrative and "filmic" levels. Still, come and tell me you think Frank Henelotter is a better director and I'll have a blast with you. And we can find ways to make Frankenhooker a pretty complex and interesting film, worth a thesis in gender studies.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's true that there can be a subjective argument. The problem we usually run into is that people have different subjective values, so the argument doesn't really go anywhere.

When it comes to music, some people are highly analytical while others are more experiential. Some people simply gravitate to a song with a strong beat, because of how it makes them feel viscerally. Others might gravitate to songs that bring them back to a particular time and place in their lives (seems like a common sentiment in this thread). Some want to hear music that makes them think about intellectual topics. Some really analytical types are interested in the technical form.

If we could CAT scan ourselves while listening, we'd see our brain flashing with dopamine when we stumble across our personal triggers. Being triggered by one thing isn't better than being triggered by the other, it's simply a different experience of what feels good. It's like sex. The world is full of flavors, and there's no accounting for all the factors that go into forming our tastes. We just like what we like, and sometimes our tastes can change for no discernable reason other than growing up and out of a phase.

Of course we can always defend our judgments in logical language, but at the end of the day there's no objective framework for these things. Someone who likes a song simply for the catchy beat has no absolute reason to care whether it's derivative or vapid. They don't share base assumptions that would allow an academic argument to even take place. Part of the reason science and technology move steadily forward, while the arts just kind of swirl around like eddies in a stream.

I would argue that simply expressing, sharing and connecting with different subjective values sufficiently goes somewhere worthwhile-- you don't need to be able to agree on some universal conclusion about what's better for that discussion/framing to be worth noting (and honestly I'm not even sure if I agree that it goes nowhere to begin with-- I often change my perception of things after having exchanges with people who have a different experience than I do). I would also argue that I think there usually is a meaningful reason for changes in what we appreciate, even if it may be elusive or non-verbalized-- I don't think it's just some arbitrary whim. I also don't really agree that anyone can like anything to any imaginable degree. There's also what a piece of thing is capable of providing, which we can have suspicions of and can be discussed and explored in a where there's smoke there's fire way.

If person A genuinely experienced the thrill of a roller-coaster and person B genuinely experienced a lifetime of love, romance, and family, while they might both feel that they had a more valuable experience and it's technically unknowable who's right, I doubt that it's possible for the former to match up to the latter just out of differences in preferences alone. That's kind of how I feel about the whole vapid thing (maybe not so much derivative). There's a limit to what you can conceive of something doing and what it actually can do, IMO.

 

[Shareefruck]

As I said, I think her music sucks. Most people think my music sucks ass or that I don't really enjoy what I'm listening to and just do it so I can look "weird" or whatever. I work with teenagers and they have a blast telling me everything I listen to is pure shit (even The Beatles), I think the exact opposite but I keep it to myself because I understand that most of them still define themselves by what they consume (music as much as clothes). I don't think I'm right. I don't think that by linking to their brains, I'd discover that I'm right and I feel the only idea really is pretentious.

I love films, I know cinema and I've studied it to some far extent, my favorite director is Raoul Ruiz and I think his work is the most interesting and complex and that very few come close to his mastery both on narrative and "filmic" levels. Still, come and tell me you think Frank Henelotter is a better director and I'll have a blast with you. And we can find ways to make Frankenhooker a pretty complex and interesting film, worth a thesis in gender studies.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about in the latter paragraph so I can't comment on that, but I've never been able to agree with that perception of how things work, personally. I'm not saying that you or I or anyone else has to think that they're right about any given thing that they think, but I do think there does exist a right or wrong that we can guess at. I have problems with both the idea of treating things TOO objectively and the idea of treating things TOO subjectively, personally. I can't imagine that I'll ever lean fully on either side.

 

[Elvis P]

The older I get the more important music is to me. Some people only have white men in their top four albums. Hopefully they'll discover music someday.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The older I get the more important music is to me. Some people only have white men in their top four albums. Hopefully they'll discover music someday.

What? I'm pretty sure I only have white men in my top-4 albums... please make me discover music!
(how pretentious is that........)

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, that's a ridiculous way to judge open-mindedness.

 

[beowulf]

If anything there's not enough time in the day to listen to everything worth listening to. I keep tabs on a large assortment of favorites and favorables, and spend a lot of time exploring new bands or older bands I may not have been exposed to in the past.

I think certain genres lend to this better than others. If I listened to radio music made for the masses I'd probably not be interested any longer either.

Same here like fairly recently I listened to a few Mastodon songs on You Tube and I really liked them so I've since bought two albums and will look for more song/albums I like from them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would argue that simply expressing, sharing and connecting with different subjective values is the argument sufficiently going somewhere worthwhile-- you don't need to be able to agree on some universal conclusion about what's better for that discussion/framing to be worth noting (and honestly I'm not even sure if I agree that it goes nowhere to begin with-- I often change my perception of things after having exchanges with people who have a different experience than I do).

For sure. Conversation for conversation's sake is a universal. It's what we're doing here, right now. It's just a matter of recognizing that there's about as much value in arguing over the merits of music as arguing over the merits of a hockey player. At the end of the day, we talk about it because we're amused by the experience of talking about it. If we start feeling like there's something objectively important at the end of that rainbow, we need a reality check.

I would also argue that I think there usually is a meaningful reason for changes in what we appreciate, even if it may be elusive or non-verbalized-- I don't think it's just some arbitrary whim.

Often yes... but often no. Sometimes we just have enough of a thing that we don't want to experience it any more. There's not necessarily anything meaningful behind a drift in personal interests. It's just how life goes.

I also don't really agree that anyone can like anything to any imaginable degree.

If I implied that, I definitely didn't mean to. Anyone can't like anything, because personal tastes are the predominant factor. And there's no accounting for that... taste isn't an objective measurement, it's the sum total of a whole bunch of visible and invisible factors that roll together into an unpredictable and highly mutable psychological profile.

I'm just saying there are a bunch of pots and a bunch of lids. It's hopeless to try and figure out which lids are the best, because a lid might be utterly useless to one pot and perfect for another.

If person A genuinely experienced the thrill of a roller-coaster and person B genuinely experienced a lifetime of love, romance, and family, while they might both feel that they had a more valuable experience and it's technically unknowable who's right, I doubt that it's possible for the former to match up to the latter just out of differences in preferences alone. That's kind of how I feel about the whole vapid or derivative thing. There's a limit to what you can conceive of something doing and what it actually can do, IMO.

Even at that, though... people go through phases of wanting thrills versus stability. Their desires and preferences are going to hinge on their perspectives at the moment you ask the question.

This goes back to music and other art -- it's not at all uncommon for musical tastes to mellow dramatically as a person goes through phases of life. A Jimi Hendrix solo (typically) hits differently for a 20-year-old than it does for a 70-year old, even if you're talking about the exact same person at different ages (and not just because of the passage of musical trends). Because, of course, this "exact same person" isn't actually the exact same person at the two life stages.

 

[Shareefruck]

For sure. Conversation for conversation's sake is a universal. It's what we're doing here, right now. It's just a matter of recognizing that there's about as much value in arguing over the merits of music as arguing over the merits of a hockey player. At the end of the day, we talk about it because we're amused by the experience of talking about it. If we start feeling like there's something objectively important at the end of that rainbow, we need a reality check.



Often yes... but often no. Sometimes we just have enough of a thing that we don't want to experience it any more. There's not necessarily anything meaningful behind a drift in personal interests. It's just how life goes.



If I implied that, I definitely didn't mean to. Anyone can't like anything, because personal tastes are the predominant factor. And there's no accounting for that... taste isn't an objective measurement, it's the sum total of a whole bunch of visible and invisible factors that roll together into an unpredictable and highly mutable psychological profile.

I'm just saying there are a bunch of pots and a bunch of lids. It's hopeless to try and figure out which lids are the best, because a lid might be utterly useless to one pot and perfect for another.



Even at that, though... people go through phases of wanting thrills versus stability. Their desires and preferences are going to hinge on their perspectives at the moment you ask the question.

This goes back to music and other art -- it's not at all uncommon for musical tastes to mellow dramatically as a person goes through phases of life. A Jimi Hendrix solo (typically) hits differently for a 20-year-old than it does for a 70-year old, even if you're talking about the exact same person at different ages (and not just because of the passage of musical trends). Because, of course, this "exact same person" isn't actually the exact same person at the two life stages.

I wasn't making a point about thrills vs. mellowness/stability though, I was making a point about shallow vapidness vs. nuanced depth. When both are optimally successful, I don't think it's possible for the former to reach the heights of the latter, personally, regardless of taste. It's possible for nuanced depth to miss or be rejected/ignored, sure, but their ceilings are night and day, in my opinion and it doesn't really just come down to which your tastes prefer, in my view.

Need a reality check if you think there's something objectively important about the conversation or about the art itself? I don't really agree with that being the case for the latter, although valuable would be a better word than important, IMO.

I don't agree or relate with your view of the drift in personal interests. I personally think that the compulsions that we sometimes have which are at the mercy of something like that are usually trivial, can't truly be THAT meaningful/substantial, even to ourselves, and are easy enough to identify and dismiss if you know to stop and look for them/think about it. To me, they're just compulsions that ultimately amount to nothing, and can barely even be considered a part of our tastes to begin with.

Also, this might be an unpopular opinion, but I generally feel that tastes mostly improve in one direction, and that the different versions of ourselves at different points in our lives aren't equally valid but different. Sure, you can go on weird detours that veer wildly off course, but all of that informs and folds into your future more refined and meaningful opinions, IMO. I'd definitely consider the child and teenage version of myself to be flat out more wrong/misguided about what he liked/appreciated than I am now, with the benefit of hindsight, and I expect the same trend to continue, personally, at least until we start to cognitively deteriorate. That's probably going to be a fundamental disconnect that we have.

 

[East Coast Icestyle]

This year has two of my favourite musical releases of the decade. I've always used.music both motivational and therapeutically and as I'm getting older that only increases.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I wasn't making a point about thrills vs. mellowness/stability though, I was making a point about shallow vapidness vs. nuanced depth. When both are optimally successful, I don't think it's possible for the former to reach the heights of the latter, personally, regardless of taste. It's possible for nuanced depth to miss or be rejected/ignored, sure, but their ceilings are night and day, in my opinion and it doesn't really just come down to which your tastes prefer, in my view.

The thing is, I agree with you on this. But at the same time, my opinion isn't particularly meaningful unless it's shared with people who have (or could be convinced to have) the same basic perspective.

I'm sure there's some unbelievably nuanced and powerful music being made in Tajikistan which will realistically never be in my power to grasp, so if you played that music for me right now I'd listen politely and wait for it to end so I could get on with my day. That song might be "better" than Party in the USA in an academic sense, but it's not "better" to @tarheelhockey for whom only one of these songs is at all accessible.

I'm sure you'd agree that be would be objectively wrong of me, knowing nothing about the mind-meltingly incredible music scene in Tajikistan, to say something like "there's no good new music out there". But it would also be wrong of me to say "Tajik contemporary music soars to greater heights than Miley Cyrus' seminal 2012 album, regardless of taste". Either judgment would come from a perspective entirely rooted in my own personal context. All I can really speak to is what I like about the things that I know about. Which, getting back to topic, means I'm going to start running into issues finding enjoyable new music if the perspective I gained during my formative years is now increasingly out-of-kilter with the perspective of people currently making popular music.

I don't agree or relate with your view of the drift in personal interests. I personally think that the compulsions that we sometimes have which are at the mercy of something like that are usually trivial, can't truly be THAT meaningful/substantial, even to ourselves, and are easy enough to identify and dismiss if you know to stop and look for them/think about it. To me, they're just compulsions that ultimately amount to nothing, and can barely even be considered a part of our tastes to begin with.

I guess we just disagree. I can certainly think of music that I absolutely loved as a teenager which isn't even on my playlist anymore, not because it was bad music and not because I'm getting worse at listening -- but because I simply moved on to listening to other styles as I got older. The life experiences that nudged me down different paths mainly consisted of flipping through radio channels and landing on something else I liked, or losing a CD so I stopped listening to it.

Also, this might be an unpopular opinion, but I generally feel that tastes mostly improve in one direction, and that the different versions of ourselves at different points in our lives aren't equally valid but different. Sure, you can go on weird detours that veer wildly off course, but all of that informs and folds into your future more refined and meaningful opinions, IMO. I'd definitely consider the child and teenage version of myself to be flat out more wrong/misguided about what he liked/appreciated than I am now, with the benefit of hindsight, and I expect the same trend to continue, personally, at least until we start to cognitively deteriorate. That's probably going to be a fundamental disconnect that we have.

I agree that our opinions tend to get more refined and meaningful as we get older, and bring a wider perspective to bear. I guess I don't really object to viewing that as "improvement", though I don't think there's any real framework to anchor what that word means in this context. It's like saying my current self is an improvement over my 20 year old self. That really depends on what we're choosing as the parameters of value, and there's plenty of dispute about what makes a "good person".

 

[Shareefruck]

The thing is, I agree with you on this. But at the same time, my opinion isn't particularly meaningful unless it's shared with people who have (or could be convinced to have) the same basic perspective.

I'm sure there's some unbelievably nuanced and powerful music being made in Tajikistan which will realistically never be in my power to grasp, so if you played that music for me right now I'd listen politely and wait for it to end so I could get on with my day. That song might be "better" than Party in the USA in an academic sense, but it's not "better" to @tarheelhockey for whom only one of these songs is at all accessible.

I'm sure you'd agree that be would be objectively wrong of me, knowing nothing about the mind-meltingly incredible music scene in Tajikistan, to say something like "there's no good new music out there". But it would also be wrong of me to say "Tajik contemporary music soars to greater heights than Miley Cyrus' seminal 2012 album, regardless of taste". Either judgment would come from a perspective entirely rooted in my own personal context. All I can really speak to is what I like about the things that I know about. Which, getting back to topic, means I'm going to start running into issues finding enjoyable new music if the perspective I gained during my formative years is now increasingly out-of-kilter with the perspective of people currently making popular music.




I guess we just disagree. I can certainly think of music that I absolutely loved as a teenager which isn't even on my playlist anymore, not because it was bad music and not because I'm getting worse at listening -- but because I simply moved on to listening to other styles as I got older. The life experiences that nudged me down different paths mainly consisted of flipping through radio channels and landing on something else I liked, or losing a CD so I stopped listening to it.



I agree that our opinions tend to get more refined and meaningful as we get older, and bring a wider perspective to bear. I guess I don't really object to viewing that as "improvement", though I don't think there's any real framework to anchor what that word means in this context. It's like saying my current self is an improvement over my 20 year old self. That really depends on what we're choosing as the parameters of value, and there's plenty of dispute about what makes a "good person".

Yes, but because these limitations are known to everyone, I think that a lot of it is implied and ought to be understood when someone says "I just don't think the decade's been very good." It should be presumed that a statement like that is made with the caveat that no-one can be aware of and grasp all the music that is out there regardless of how inaccessible it is to them, and that the assessment is based on a reasonable but not exhaustive level of due diligence. If it's easier than ever to find new music and you spend a lot more time looking for it than you do old music, and none of the potential biases that could affect this are consistently observable in a way that is fair and actually makes any sense, but you still value music before your time more than the current era, that's a pretty reasonable rationale for thinking that newer music just isn't as good as older music (because all of the unavoidable blind-spots that you have for new music could just as easily apply to old music), tentatively anyways.

Aside from that, I disagree that what you become used to in your formative years is even necessarily all that relevant in this discussion. People adjust to out of kilter new approaches to music that completely change their understanding of how music works, as an adult, all the time. If you feel your own biases from your formative years creeping up on you, that's one thing, but that doesn't mean that's a necessary thing that prevents anyone from reasonably having the sentiment that newer music isn't as good. Like, personally, I'm saying that I don't think anything from the 2010s is as good as Lick My Decals Off Baby by Captain Beefheart or Confield by Autechre, so I doubt I feel that way because these preferences came from my formative years-- both of those are arguably as off kilter and foreign as most modern music gets.

Also, I don't see why it would need to be shared by others to be a meaningful expression, personally. An opinion is just that-- an opinion.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I guess we just disagree. I can certainly think of music that I absolutely loved as a teenager which isn't even on my playlist anymore, not because it was bad music and not because I'm getting worse at listening -- but because I simply moved on to listening to other styles as I got older. The life experiences that nudged me down different paths mainly consisted of flipping through radio channels and landing on something else I liked, or losing a CD so I stopped listening to it.

Even strictly from your own personal perspective, if you were to listen to it again and dislike it, don't you think it would be fair to call it bad music? I'm sure I'm not alone on this but to me a large part of quality or even genius is the replay value of a work of art. My appreciation for a piece grows the more I listen to it. I like a song like Ceremony 'more' now than I did when I first heard it years ago and I was blown away then too. Much like my favorite novels and short stories or movies, I fall in love with them even more on a subsequent re-read or re-watch.

 

[Stylizer1]

Oh, the 80s had a lot of lowpoints, like Stock/Aitken/Waterman and the advent of boy bands, but it also had highlights in metal, hardrock, indie and punk. I just don't see that today. It's either hyperproduced, cast or buskers today. There is a decent act every now and then as well, but the genres I like simply don't produce a lot anymore. And what they call indie these days bears little similarity to what I consider indie.

Most genres are melding into one another

 

[holy]

Music's the medium that let's you know what's really going on in culture compared to other forms. If anything it's interesting to follow to see the cultural landscape shift. To a certain degree I can see film and tv doing the same, but no where near the level it's evident in music.

People on this forum really dislike modern hip hop but it's like watching a live version of a show like The Wire. I don't know if I'll ever lose interest in that respect to music.

 

[Stylizer1]

Music's the medium that let's you know what's really going on in culture compared to other forms. If anything it's interesting to follow to see the cultural landscape shift. To a certain degree I can see film and tv doing the same, but no where near the level it's evident in music.

People on this forum really dislike modern hip hop but it's like watching a live version of a show like The Wire. I don't know if I'll ever lose interest in that respect to music.

Glorifying self destructive behaviour is different than being introspective. Hip Hop has no culture anymore. Rap music is pop.

Rappers used to talk about the drug game, now they are addicts. lol

 

[holy]

Glorifying self destructive behaviour is different than being introspective. Hip Hop has no culture anymore. Rap music is pop.

Hip hop is culture these days. I'm not saying it's a good thing, it just is what it is.

And the interest for me is why is this level of self destruction existent. No one's ever gonna attempt to fix any of these problems if they take your route of just shitting on people's reality.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Oh ffs.

Anyways, I feel like if I didn't know how to find music on the internet and know sites like RYM and stuff then I'd probably end up as one of those boomers that listens to the same old mostly pre-90s stuff and probably would listen to it less and less at that point.

As it stands, I find usually an album or two a week and then go through it a handful to a dozen times till I move on to the next.

 

[Stylizer1]

Hip hop is culture these days. I'm not saying it's a good thing, it just is what it is.

And the interest for me is why is this level of self destruction existent. No one's ever gonna attempt to fix any of these problems if they take your route of just shitting on people's reality.

Rap is something you do, Hip Hop is something you live.

Minorities have always started from the bottom. What this for of rap music does is keep people there. Hip Hop used to have more guiding priciples that enveloped communities and gave people power of self.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

There's almost too much new good music afaic... it's like there's a firehose effect... I can't seem to absorb it the same way. I don't think I can even work anymore without music on. I probably have it on 10-12 hours a day. And with a virtually infinite supply at my fingertips, I'm trying something new basically every day. But in that way it doesn't seem to resonate as deeply with me as newly discovered music did when I was younger. Even if I like it. It still doesn't become a part of me the same way.

I'm sure there are many different contributing factors. I started buying my own music in 1980. And then it was a totally different world for discovery. I lived on a farm, and the rare trip in to the city was a time to maybe find one or two metal albums in the paltry selection in the nearest town's record store, and that was it until next month, so when I found something I liked, it would absolutely become a part of me. The discovery was definitely exciting, the anticipation, being completely consumed... whereas now I KNOW that within 10 seconds I can find 20 new albums I'll like that I've never heard before, and it's just... it's not the same. The discovery is effortless, the sheer quantity is daunting, and even in some ways the technical musicianship and production values and things like that are a little daunting as well... like I can find a total unknown local metal band who can play with proficiency and put out an album that probably sounds about as good as the all-time favorites of my younger years, albeit which I have no reason whatsoever to get as attached to.

So now I'll listen to something new, and it might sound good, and I might say, that sort of sounds like a cross between Judas Priest and Death Angel (?!), and... then I may never listen to it again because there are 20 more new recommendations queued up right behind it. Or even the new music that I do actually find a deeper connection to and come back to repeatedly - like Gojira or Cattle Decapitation today - I guess they still don't quite sink in to the same extent as my favorites did when I was younger.

There's also an element of "gap-filling" to my modern discoveries. Because I didn't live in a big city until I was older and had only sporadic access to the music style I liked when I was growing up, I do get to back now with YouTube and Spotify and WikiPedia discographies and find a lot of bands or albums that I just completely missed out on at the time. But it's kind of the same thing... even if they would have been 100% up my alley as a teenager, they don't have the same enduring impact on me today.

Or... another element is probably the vocals/lyrical content. A lot of the music I like best now... the MUSIC that I like best... might have unintelligible vocals. At least at a first few passes. I know my parents would tell me back in the day that they couldn't make out anything from all that screeching... like even for Iron Maiden or Metallica, right? But that's a whole different level from some of the extreme vocals of today. And getting to know the lyrics and stories and having that mental imagery alongside the music might have helped build a connection better for me too. Whereas now I'd have to work a little harder to dig those things out, and I'm listening more passively, and I don't invest the same number of reps in doing so, hence I don't develop quite the same intimacy with the music. Admiring the musicianship and enjoying the sounds created by the instruments and the compositions is one thing, but without the same connection to the lyrics and the imagery they conjure, it's also another distancing factor, sometimes.

 

[kihei]

I think I ave grown out of listening to some stuff that never did make much sense to me. Haven't played Coltrane's Ascension in years and year and doubt I ever will again.

 

[Grub]

You simply got old. Ever heard of the phrase “my generation of music is better.”

Part of the reason you don’t listen to new songs, it’s really for the younger generation, most songs talk about love, breakups or nowadays getting drunk, exes.

Just remember when you were young, most hits during your time basically talked about the same subjects, but you could relate to them since you were young, love was everything, partying and getting drunk was cool.

Now imagine you being your age, listening to the radio about getting drunk, partying till its morning, losing love, naw man that is for young people.

Fact is you got old. It will be the same for today’s kids when they get old to.

You listen to songs in the 50’s and now.. they all still have the same premise.. young love, living life to the fullest... you will be attached to songs that were part of your generation’s youth, you will never be able to relate to music now, it’s simply not your generation.

Give my youth back and i’m sure i’ll love the songs now. Ahh to be young again.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Even strictly from your own personal perspective, if you were to listen to it again and dislike it, don't you think it would be fair to call it bad music? I'm sure I'm not alone on this but to me a large part of quality or even genius is the replay value of a work of art. My appreciation for a piece grows the more I listen to it. I like a song like Ceremony 'more' now than I did when I first heard it years ago and I was blown away then too. Much like my favorite novels and short stories or movies, I fall in love with them even more on a subsequent re-read or re-watch.

I mean, there is definitely music out there that I would label as just plain terrible. But if I came across someone who disagreed, I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Whatever criticism I could level at their taste, could also be leveled at my taste from someone else’s point of view. Whatever the strength of my convictions about what makes a Better Song, nothing holds my opinion up against someone who simply doesn’t see it that way.

 

[holy]

Oh ffs.

You okay?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You simply got old.

Yeah...

Haven't played Coltrane's Ascension in years

What about this guy? Now this guy's really old. ;-)