Awesome Entwistle video
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
jwr2
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
Per the taste vs. preference musings of a day or two ago, and the proposition that was put forth that taste is a relative thing, here’s why it’s not.
When you go into an art museum, you see all kinds of work. Some of it you may like, some of it you may not. But this is not taste, this is preference.
Because, even if you’re at the Louvre and looking at perhaps the largest art collection in the world, you’re still only seeing at a comparatively microscopic fraction of all the art that’s ever produced, and it’s been culled by the most informed minds in the art world.
But when you go from art museum to art museum, you find similarities in the way the work is presented. If it’s a modern art museum, you’ll see a lot of white space between the works, and they are displayed uniformly. This is because the people who manage the museum have good taste.
Thus, taste and preference are two different things. Yes, like ignorance and intelligence, the two can be easy to confuse. That does not mean the lines that separate them do not exist. They are two different things entirely.
And taste is not a relative thing. If it was, one art museum would have displays as described above and another would look like the set of Sanford and Son.
Rock, by the way, has a museum. Entwhistle’s band is in it, Geddy’s is excluded from it.
When you go into an art museum, you see all kinds of work. Some of it you may like, some of it you may not. But this is not taste, this is preference.
Because, even if you’re at the Louvre and looking at perhaps the largest art collection in the world, you’re still only seeing at a comparatively microscopic fraction of all the art that’s ever produced, and it’s been culled by the most informed minds in the art world.
But when you go from art museum to art museum, you find similarities in the way the work is presented. If it’s a modern art museum, you’ll see a lot of white space between the works, and they are displayed uniformly. This is because the people who manage the museum have good taste.
Thus, taste and preference are two different things. Yes, like ignorance and intelligence, the two can be easy to confuse. That does not mean the lines that separate them do not exist. They are two different things entirely.
And taste is not a relative thing. If it was, one art museum would have displays as described above and another would look like the set of Sanford and Son.
Rock, by the way, has a museum. Entwhistle’s band is in it, Geddy’s is excluded from it.
This is off the record
Sorry Glenn, I don't agree. Conformity of opinion does not necessarily define taste. If it did, U2, who you appear to dislike, would have to be considered one of the most tasteful bands in the world, which would rather scotch your argument. If you have to be "educated" or "informed" in some way before you make this decision, then Rush, who you also appear to dislike, would have to be considered tasteful by virtue of the many well-studied musicians who consider them to be excellent musicians.
"This is because the people who manage the museum have good taste".
Really? If this is the case, and some sort of "informed decision" (whatever that may be) automatically arrives at good taste, how do you explain my point re architecture? And what are "the most informed minds in the art world?" Why should they automatically be seen to have good taste? It's perfectly easy for an educated man to draw the wrong conclusions from his study. This has happened throughout history. A further point; what was considered good taste in the 70s was not the same as the 80s, or 90s, or now. Which suggests that "good taste" is a fluid thing.
To be honest, it would appear to me that you think you have good taste and that others who disagree are wrong. So far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong) you have yet to give an example of what you consider to be musical "good taste", whether song or part or musician, or an explanation of why this is so.
And as for your last point, are Rush consciously excluded from it, or are they just not in it? The two things are not the same. And even if they were consciously excluded, what does that prove?
One last thought; a Christian bases his faith on the teachings of the Bible. A Muslim bases his on the Koran (particular spelling chosen for ease of reference). Which is right? Try asking a Buddhist, or a Hindu.....
"This is because the people who manage the museum have good taste".
Really? If this is the case, and some sort of "informed decision" (whatever that may be) automatically arrives at good taste, how do you explain my point re architecture? And what are "the most informed minds in the art world?" Why should they automatically be seen to have good taste? It's perfectly easy for an educated man to draw the wrong conclusions from his study. This has happened throughout history. A further point; what was considered good taste in the 70s was not the same as the 80s, or 90s, or now. Which suggests that "good taste" is a fluid thing.
To be honest, it would appear to me that you think you have good taste and that others who disagree are wrong. So far as I'm aware (and I could be wrong) you have yet to give an example of what you consider to be musical "good taste", whether song or part or musician, or an explanation of why this is so.
And as for your last point, are Rush consciously excluded from it, or are they just not in it? The two things are not the same. And even if they were consciously excluded, what does that prove?
One last thought; a Christian bases his faith on the teachings of the Bible. A Muslim bases his on the Koran (particular spelling chosen for ease of reference). Which is right? Try asking a Buddhist, or a Hindu.....
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
jwr2
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>Conformity of opinion does not necessarily define taste.<<
You're splitting hairs with "does not necessarily," and that indicates you think in cases it can. Therefore, taste is not a relative thing. Your honor, I rest my case.
Howard Stern does not stop at bad taste. He's angry, mean spirited, and depressing.
>>Some things are obviously (universally) in bad taste.<<
Proving taste is not relative. To your list I add:
Excessive cosmetic surgery, multi-colored leather jackets with an 8 ball graphic on the back, big hair, Hummers, chain-link design license plate frames, baseball caps worn off of the baseball field (goes double if there’s a logo of a heavy equipment maker or beer brand prominently displayed on it), sweat pants worn outside of the gym or home, pinky rings, sweaters with overly-busy designs, attire on which logos of professional sports teams affixed, Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer, reality TV, Las Vegas, Miami, Paris as in Hilton and male bass players with pony tails who sing like Munchkins.
You're splitting hairs with "does not necessarily," and that indicates you think in cases it can. Therefore, taste is not a relative thing. Your honor, I rest my case.
Howard Stern does not stop at bad taste. He's angry, mean spirited, and depressing.
>>Some things are obviously (universally) in bad taste.<<
Proving taste is not relative. To your list I add:
Excessive cosmetic surgery, multi-colored leather jackets with an 8 ball graphic on the back, big hair, Hummers, chain-link design license plate frames, baseball caps worn off of the baseball field (goes double if there’s a logo of a heavy equipment maker or beer brand prominently displayed on it), sweat pants worn outside of the gym or home, pinky rings, sweaters with overly-busy designs, attire on which logos of professional sports teams affixed, Geraldo Rivera, Jerry Springer, reality TV, Las Vegas, Miami, Paris as in Hilton and male bass players with pony tails who sing like Munchkins.
This is off the record
Sorry Glenn, still don't agree. I've already rested my case. And I still think that you are saying that bad taste is obviously what YOU consider to be bad taste. Give me a reason why a baseball cap worn off the baseball field is in bad taste. As I said before, I certainly don't consider myself the sole arbiter of good taste in the world. That's lucky, because it would seem that the position has already been filled....
By the way, you still haven't provided us with an example of what you consider good musical taste, or an explanation of why.
Oh, and my last thought on my previous post was supposed to be a comment on seeing things from other people's perspective and displaying tolerance, the thing I hold most dear. I stupidly thought it would be considered as such. Silly me....maybe this Forum is the wrong place for me after all.
By the way, you still haven't provided us with an example of what you consider good musical taste, or an explanation of why.
Oh, and my last thought on my previous post was supposed to be a comment on seeing things from other people's perspective and displaying tolerance, the thing I hold most dear. I stupidly thought it would be considered as such. Silly me....maybe this Forum is the wrong place for me after all.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
Shaun, if I came off as pompous, I apologize. But I don't see where either of us in this debate reached the point of expressing intolerance for another's views. I certainly think everyone should have complete freedom to play, say and like whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I think if anything I wrote had breached the line of intolerance, someone else would have pointed it out here. I also don't remember being requested to provide an example of good musical taste, as the question was simply good vs. bad taste. Is there such a thing? I'm in a Rickenbacker forum and the Who thread. So it's a safe bet than more often than not, I tend to like bands that play Rickenbackers, and like the Who, though there's some gratuitous wankery on Live at Leeds. Lastly, let's just say I agree with Charly about wearing baseball caps off of the baseball field being in bad taste because, well, they're baseball caps (remember Gomer Pyle?)
This is off the record
-
atomic_punk
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5093
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:00 am
- Contact:
"Rock, by the way, has a museum. Entwhistle’s band is in it, Geddy’s is excluded from it."
Proves absolutely nothing. Rush have been nominated for several Grammys. Never won, but they keep getting nominated (in fact, just a couple years ago, too). They have won Juno awards, which are basically Canadian Grammys. They've been inducted into the Order of Canada, basically as knights, the first musicians ever to have been done so. If the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame counts, those things must count as well, and in that case, there is far more positive recognition than negative. And if taste is not relative, then there must be some sort of definitive scale of taste that is independent people's opinions (because opinions vary vastly from person to person), and if that's the case, then the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame means absolutely nothing, as do Grammys, etc. Either way, sorry.
You can't just say outright that some music is in bad taste and some music is and claim that somehow that is the definitive answer.
And if you didn't want to single out Rush specifically as being complete and utter ****, why this?: "male bass players with pony tails who sing like Munchkins." Basically, you hate that music and anything that resembles it, so apparently it's terrible. Right.
Also, I don't think people are fans of Howard Stern's "bad taste" . . . I think they're fans of him because he's rude, willing to say pretty much anything, and obsessed with pornography. That might be what you call his "bad taste", but I see those as just characteristics.
And why is "**** Christ" in bad taste? Because it's a crucifix submerged in urine? If that's in bad taste, then so is every religious image that anyone might find derogatory (frankly, if you read about the artist's own comments on the piece, it was actually quite pro-Christianity, or Christian-sympathetic, not against it). I am not offended by "**** Christ". And just because people say it's in bad taste does not somehow mean that I have bad taste because I am not averse to it.
Listing things that are "universally in bad taste" is not proof, because obviously NOT EVERYONE thinks they are in bad taste. SIMPLY THE FACT THAT NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON WHAT IS IN BAD TASTE INDICATES THAT BAD TASTE IS NOT UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZABLE. It's called logic. Probably every baseball fan that I know wears a baseball cap outside of baseball games at least ocassionally. They don't find ANYTHING wrong with that, and neither do I. Wearing a baseball cap is obviously not in universally bad taste then, because these people do not think it is bad taste (they would if it were universal). I like bassists with ponytails (he doesn't have one anymore) who sing like Munchkins, and so do the millions of others who buy Rush records. It CAN'T be universally bad taste because otherwise all these people would recognize that it was and probably not buy the album. I really doubt that every Rush fan goes to the store and goes, "I know it's in bad taste, but I'm still going to buy their album!"
Proves absolutely nothing. Rush have been nominated for several Grammys. Never won, but they keep getting nominated (in fact, just a couple years ago, too). They have won Juno awards, which are basically Canadian Grammys. They've been inducted into the Order of Canada, basically as knights, the first musicians ever to have been done so. If the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame counts, those things must count as well, and in that case, there is far more positive recognition than negative. And if taste is not relative, then there must be some sort of definitive scale of taste that is independent people's opinions (because opinions vary vastly from person to person), and if that's the case, then the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame means absolutely nothing, as do Grammys, etc. Either way, sorry.
You can't just say outright that some music is in bad taste and some music is and claim that somehow that is the definitive answer.
And if you didn't want to single out Rush specifically as being complete and utter ****, why this?: "male bass players with pony tails who sing like Munchkins." Basically, you hate that music and anything that resembles it, so apparently it's terrible. Right.
Also, I don't think people are fans of Howard Stern's "bad taste" . . . I think they're fans of him because he's rude, willing to say pretty much anything, and obsessed with pornography. That might be what you call his "bad taste", but I see those as just characteristics.
And why is "**** Christ" in bad taste? Because it's a crucifix submerged in urine? If that's in bad taste, then so is every religious image that anyone might find derogatory (frankly, if you read about the artist's own comments on the piece, it was actually quite pro-Christianity, or Christian-sympathetic, not against it). I am not offended by "**** Christ". And just because people say it's in bad taste does not somehow mean that I have bad taste because I am not averse to it.
Listing things that are "universally in bad taste" is not proof, because obviously NOT EVERYONE thinks they are in bad taste. SIMPLY THE FACT THAT NOT EVERYONE AGREES ON WHAT IS IN BAD TASTE INDICATES THAT BAD TASTE IS NOT UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZABLE. It's called logic. Probably every baseball fan that I know wears a baseball cap outside of baseball games at least ocassionally. They don't find ANYTHING wrong with that, and neither do I. Wearing a baseball cap is obviously not in universally bad taste then, because these people do not think it is bad taste (they would if it were universal). I like bassists with ponytails (he doesn't have one anymore) who sing like Munchkins, and so do the millions of others who buy Rush records. It CAN'T be universally bad taste because otherwise all these people would recognize that it was and probably not buy the album. I really doubt that every Rush fan goes to the store and goes, "I know it's in bad taste, but I'm still going to buy their album!"
-
sabbath_of_bass
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:16 pm
- Contact:
I dont see what pony tails has to do with their music.... I mean we are talking about the music being bad taste and not Geddy himself right? Cause personally.... I couldnt care less what hes wearing. Or his hair style. And as far as the music... bad taste or not.... stop dissing on the guy. Apperantly hes good. I mean... hasnt he won a couple bassist of the year awards or something like that. And doesnt just about every bassist you talk to know of him. And If you listn to the stuff he plays while singing... Im sorry. Good or bad taste. I have to respect him.
As for taste... If you ask me... taste is different where ever you go. Its something based on social standings culture and trends and probly a ton of other things.
As for taste... If you ask me... taste is different where ever you go. Its something based on social standings culture and trends and probly a ton of other things.