Nicely played sir... Nicely played

I couldn't agree more. Taste is subjective.

wohoo 2unlimited!

But... 2Unlimited is crap, and toast with jam doesn't taste good... and germany dubs everything, which makes baby-jesus cry.

i agree with Björk, but i also think there's more to it. it's like what is art? for instance compare a 10 minute monotonous computerized drumbeat to a beautifully crafted dynamic masterpiece of emotion. it's a question of taste, but i think to the human ear some music will have more emotive content, it's still subject to taste though...

Wow, my very own snob dedication video. I'll have to check it out after work.

i agree with Björk, but i also think there's more to it. it's like what is art? for instance compare a 10 minute monotonous computerized drumbeat to a beautifully crafted dynamic masterpiece of emotion. it's a question of taste, but i think to the human ear some music will have more emotive content, it's still subject to taste though...
But that's not the point, we're not trying to say which has more integrity or worth, what we're saying is, why is a bad thing to like many different things? To suggest that one is only allowed to listen to or enjoy 'high art' pieces is utter crud. Let everyone enjoy what they want.

I wish for more 'good' music in the popular charts, but that doesn't make me attack people for liking what's currently on there. (Unless it's hateful, blatantly sexist or the like, but that's a different kettle of aquatic life)

I just disagree. there IS such thing as "good" music, and there is such thing as "crap" music. but there's some different issues getting mixed up here, so let me explain...

The comparison to filet mignon and bananas is pathetic. Man did not create bananas. Nobody had the choice of creating a totally new plant and decided on the banana. The banana is not art. You could even say the banana is a higher form of food than filet mignon, because god/evolution made it over a period of billions of years. That has nothing to do with 2unlimited making a pop song.

anyway. i could write a book about this but... consider this question:

is it possible to study music?

if you answer yes, then please stop with your postpostpostmodern "it's just my opinion" bullshit. There is a theory of music. It works. Pop sells because it uses the theory very well. Bad songs don't use the theory well. The theory is scientific. If you study it you will write "better" songs. Some people have better intuition, but you can study it.

Some writers, for example Elton John, churn out the same stuff over and over, and i personally can't stand it. But it is good music. I would prefer if he innovated more, and i vomit at the thought of having to endure one of his concerts, but i have to accept that he is a master songwriter. Not just because of his popularity and durability, although that's a pretty good indicator.

You are getting confused by genres. There is good pop and bad pop, good techno and bad techno, good classical music and bad classical music (but we kinda lost all the bad classical over time, because it was bad, so now it looks like all classical music was perfect)

You might not like these modern repetitive drum sounds, but your african ancestors did.

You might prefer Kylie to Celine Dion, but they both make good quality music. People use the words "bad" and "good" to encompass all things, but i would argue that there are fundamentals at work, and then your preference is a thin layer on top.

Peronally, I call Celine Dion "bad" but i am expressing an opinion on the way she does not innovate, she goes for the easy win, and i think innovation is essential because it's how we got to the great music we have today. But hey, not everyone wants to contribute, some people just want to cash in.

Bjork is right that if music makes you happy, you should listen to it and enjoy it and not worry about snobs.

BUT

She, and the commenters above, are wrong to dismiss the idea that you could actually educate yourself and improve your taste

Taste isn't a lucky dip of equally valid choices, it is a scale from bad taste to good taste.

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?

I am not just being technical here, music has many facets which take more than 15 seconds and an IQ of 56 to appreciate, and the music industry and media distort the supply of music, and governments don't seem interested in teaching music, so look at the crap we get.

In summary, i just can't stand it when people say it's all a matter of taste. It is not that simple.

it should be noted that bjork has never made a shitty song in her life ... so is she just saying that's it's an accident that she was born with the same tastes as millions of people? Or is there something fundamentally powerful in her music that makes people change their tastes... to move their tastes closer to hers, because they learnt something without even noticing. Does she just write whatever frequencies she feels like? Or does she use a piano with strings tightened to frequencies which are mysteriously "good" and accepted by billions of people?

Does anyone "prefer" the 6.34572/42 time signature?? No.

Would you accept that the reason you don't understand some music is because you are ignorant? You say you "don't like it" as if you've taken the time to study it and come to a knowledgeable conclusion. I guess you haven't.

You just say it's all about taste because you can't be bothered to learn anything.

^I don't know what all that means, but I'd like to eat bananas with Björk.

i would prefer if she sang a song, and then ate my banana.
You know what I mean, right? I'm not talking about just any banana, you know?

Yeah you know.

Anyway lazy people can just read the bits i bolded.

after talking with kronosposeidon i came up with this analogy, so you can skip my essay and just think about this:

Imagine saying: I just LIKE the theory of intelligent design, don't be such a snob with your evolution and your "evidence", it's all just a matter of taste.

But Mink you are still missing the point and being somewhat of a snob:

A person with good taste usually likes many genres, but chooses the particular songs and artists carefully. He/she usually plays an instrument or sings or has studied music or has had parents who constantly played good music in the house. Coincidence? Or education?
You are deciding what 'good' taste is... you're also being elitist by saying that those who have 'good' taste plays an instrument/sings and has studied... what bull.

There are people who have studied and play an instrument etc. etc. and yet have no emotional connection to music at all, who are lifeless and souless when it comes to music. Then there are those with NO musical training who can create the most amazing, soulful pieces of music ever.

Stop trying to suggest that those who have studied music are somehow 'better' or 'more qualified' to have an opinion on music... they just aren't.

And the statement of I just LIKE the theory of intelligent design, don't be such a snob with your evolution and your "evidence", it's all just a matter of taste. Is just pure drivel in this context, it has no baring at all. Musical taste isn't about 'evidence' or anything of the sort... music is what people ENJOY, what people LIKE, what people LOVE to listen to.

Creationism vs Evolution is a battle over the WAY THINGS WORK... music isn't, music is about feelings and emotions and the 'gut'... don't try and lower music appreciation to just another subject to be studied to death... that can kill an appreciation of music as much as promote it.

It is correct to be a snob. I am proud to be a snob.

Music has fundamentals just like physics or chemistry. Music is the study of the WAY MUSIC WORKS.

music is about feelings, yes, but the way the musician creates those feelings is called "using music theory" just like the way a physicist creates a nuke by "using physics".

Musicians are more qualified to appreciate music, just as a potato farmer is more qualified to grow potatoes. Both processes have spiritual sides, but you can't just plant potatoes in hydrochloric acid and say "i PREFER hydrochloric acid to soil".

however, i agree that it is not ALL technical, just as potato farming and physics are not ALL technical.

The best music can indeed be created by someone with no formal training, but it's LESS LIKELY. Also formal training can knock all the artistic "gut feeling" out of you if you have a bad teacher. But that doesn't prove that music is all a matter of taste.

Simply, there is good music and bad, and musicians have studied this and know this. If you are not a musician, I know it's hard to comprehend, just as the existence of black holes is hard for most people to comprehend.

If you are a musician then you know that the "good" feelings don't come at random according to your predefined (genetic?) tastes. Your tastes are interacting with the music in a rational way (if you turn your brain on).

If you just like to listen to whatever crap the commercial radio station plays, then you're not really listening, you're just putting up wallpaper.

i just realised what the issue is:
the philosophy of it is irrelevant (whether you think some music is greater than others), and there's no point giving examples of how they're equal like bjork does here.

the point is - don't dictate to other people what they should be listening to according to your taste. unless you want to be a dick.

http://youtu.be/3Nkb3g-yySs