|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 04, 2026 09:43 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So? Black Sabbath’s importance is not absolutely subjective. Creating a genre, you may get dislike from the older generation or conservatives. How does that disprove good and bad tastes exist.
That's not what I wrote. Professional critics are supposed to be knowledgable - refined; experts. If they say something is bad or bad taste, according to you this would be semi-objectively true. Hindsight has made Black Sabbath SIGNIFICANT (it doesn't change what the music is). Critics - Bangs and Christgau - wrote about their first album:
Quote:
Black Sabbath received generally negative reviews from contemporary critics. Rolling Stone's Lester Bangs described the band as, "just like Cream! But worse", and he dismissed the album as "a shuck – despite the murky songtitles and some inane lyrics that sound like Vanilla Fudge paying doggerel tribute to Aleister Crowley, the album has nothing to do with spiritualism, the occult, or anything much except stiff recitations of Cream clichés". Robert Christgau, writing for The Village Voice, panned the album as "bullsnow necromancy". He later described it as a reflection of "the worst of the counterculture", including "drug-impaired reaction time" and "long solos".
Those reviews ooze "bad taste music". In spite of this it would seem that Black Sabath sparked a lot of CREATIVITY. They inspired many artists - which wouldn't have been the case if the critics have been right and if those musicians would have listened to them.
Quote:
It’s you who keeps replying to every factual example and reasoning with the fix motto “it’s all subjective,” so, I dont know how you expect me to support facts themselves with facts. Some music is more sophisticated than others, not only in terms of technicality and structure but in terms of maturity. Although harder to measure, some are more genuine than others, some are more creative and idealistic and some are more commercial and formulaistic. The decisions about these are not sorely based on personal preference.
So? I wouldn't dispute that, not at all - but where comes TASTE into the equation here?
Quote:
How is this for a fact, we all stop listening to children songs at a certain age and children dont start listening to more mature stuff until a certain age. Because the difference in appeal is not as subjective as, say, each individual’s favorite color.
That's not true. It's not a fact. Case in point: I was living in a house with my 4 years and 3 months older cousin and she started listening to the radion and pop music in 1965. I spent a lot of time listening to that as well becausse I very much liked it and I was 7 in 1965 and got 8 and of that year. My cousin got a record player for 45 rpm singles and she had a lot of money to spend because once she was 13 she worked in the kiosk of my aunt and earned some. So we listened to a lot of singles. So it's not "a certain age", it depends on exposedness to things. If you are exposed to more complex music that changes. There is this 10-year-old bass-playing girl on youtube who's the duaghter of a known bass player - and she can play a lot. She also knows what she likes. I suppose children of classical music guys won't be different. Still, their specific tastes will differ.
Quote:
Let’s take your other example, making a very simple yet catchy melody requires real talent and yes, I think it can be harder than composing a mediocre symphony. McCartney has that gift for instance. Imagine I said something like “I dont like McCartney making atonal music, his style of songwriting doesnt fit in well with that genre.” Would that be something absolutely subjective. Of course not. Me not liking it, yes, but the reasoning is not. Hip hop wouldnt go well with Bossa Nova, because the structural differences would clash too much. They are not as (easily) compatible as, say, folk and rock. This is not sorely based on individual preference.
I have no idea how McCartney making atonal music would sound. I'd find your statement rather pretentuous, because it's such a generalization. If he WANTED to make something like that, someone liking atonal music in general might like his examples as well. I mean, Helter Skelter is McCartney trying to be lound heavy and he certainly succeeds. Likewise I wouldn't generalize on HipHop and Bossa Nova. The overarcing issue here is, that you'd rate someone trying "bad taste". Before something is really tried with gusto you can't generalize, so I wouldn't accept that.
Also, this shouldn't distract from the fact that you said classical music on electric instruments is crap (bad taste), and I think that devaluates your point completely.
Quote:
One can like seafood and one can like Indian. But saying one can put ketchup and marshmallows on a smoked salmon because it’s all subjective is not that.
You can do exactly that, try it and then you will see how it tastes and whether you like it or not. If you just say, uh, bad taste, you just will never know, ALTHOUGH you COULD actually try out. I mean, it's TASTE - we are not talking about EXPERIENCE as such (say, putting your hand on something very hot to see whether you will like that or not - still, even in THIS case, there are those who0 don't feel pain, which would be invaluable to know). So that example is also not working for you. Quote:
And we respect a gurme’s taste more than someone who only eats junks food. One gurme can specialize in street food while the other can specialize in seafood, that is not the point here. And there is “Fusion” also in cuisines but not all of them merge with equal ease too, do they.
Well, we don't, actually. Take Pizza. The way I see it, there are two different kinds of pizza, those with a thick crust, Neapolitan style, and the really thin large ones without an especially thick crust ( I don't know what kind of style it is). I absolutely know which style I prefer over the other, so I wouldn't care what any gourmet might tell me about that; I might take advice about stuff I absolutely don't know anything about - but you STILL know what you'l like when you try it. Just because a gourmet opines, it doesn't mean your taste concurs. And your taste isn't bad if you don't. After all, it's YOUR taste, and that taste is as good as everyone else's. After all, the gourmet doesn't know wnything about MAY taste, not more than the fast food guy. And fast food-guy wouldn't help much either: if he gave his opinion on which burger from which outfit was best, you'd still have to try them all, because his tastes might differ a lot from yours.
It wouldn't help, though, if he said something along the lines of, Burgers from X are bad tast3e burgers because putting that mnany onions on them is bad taste.
EDIT: I overlooked something:
Quote:
Now just like that, how well two different traditions of music merge into each other (and remember, we are reserving an open mind for an exceptional genius who will shock us with his unique merge) is also not completely subjective. Your reply about the drums in Machine Gun is once again, completely irrelevant because I am not suggesting drums cant be melodic, I am a Gene Krupa lover. I am saying, in the classical tradition, the space between the sounds is crucial and rock beat doesnt fit in with that. And although there is a degree of subjectivity in that value judgement, it’s not the same as saying “I dont like this song because it reminds me of my ex” or “I just cant stand rap music.”
I don't know why you bring that up. The line nof discussion went from Classical music using drums as well, you saying, yeah, but differently than in rock music, when I mentioned that the drumnmer in Yes had Jazz roots and you said ANY style of drumming except a few jazzy ones would be what amounts to bad taste in music with classical elements like that from Yes. I think that's utter nonsense.
|
|
purerogue3
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2026 10:39 PM |
|
|
You have to be damn open minded to be trying new games at 67 or 68 if that is a fact
I don't argue with obviously younger (retards) 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2026 10:50 PM |
|
|
What kind of games do you mean? I play new computer games, I also play new board games a lot. Actual boardgame we play currently is SETI. Actual PC game I play is Conquest of Eo (I got a new expansion in Steam's winter sale).
Music discussion? 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 04, 2026 11:40 PM |
|
|
1- Having good taste doesnt mean you have super-sight or you are infallible?!? As I already mentioned, they can be conservative about specific things. Yet, that doesnt mean not liking anything out of the hat may only be caused by conservativism and close-mindedness.
Also as I mentioned before, people with different good tastes exist and they can have different expectations. Doesnt mean identifying something as bad taste is sorely based on utter subjective preference either.
2- Where does taste come into equation? On one hand, taste is shaped by truely subjective things. The generation and culture you are born into, the music played in your house when you were a kid, your priorities (whether you like to dance or dream while listening to music), your memories etc. But on the other hand, taste is also something that can develop and evolve. So all those things that you say you dont dispute, taste is also about learning to differentiate them better. The more time and experience you invest in things you listen to, the more subtle your awareness becomes. Hence, the point about children growing out of children songs and listening to deeper stuff as time goes by. Now, of course there are special children, that’s beside the point. Popular hits on the radio are not exactly beyond a child’s depth btw, but even when it comes to heavier stuff, for instance I loved Children of Sanchez as a little kid but I got hooked by the catchy intro, I didnt listen to it as I did in my 20’s, focusing on the improvisation of the solos and so on… But what’s not based on individual subjective preference is the PATTERN. That most kids have a tendency to like very simple children songs we’ll be bored of and that we grow out of it as our tastes evolve similarly in this “growing out of it” part. Showing me a kid who likes Bach dont change that.
3- I’m not calling someone trying it “bad taste.” It’s a fictional situation, I’m making it up to clarify the analogous situation. He tried, he failed and I am giving my reason about why I think he failed: His strong suit was catchy simple melodies and he went atonal. So, I’m not “guessing” as you suggest. I am analyzing. With Yes, I am analyzing why it’s not very appealing to me: The depth and warmth of acoustic instruments, the subtle nuances which are crucial in the classical tradition dont translate well into a rock kit,while Rock loses its simple and raw groove on the other hand. But I didnt call that crap. Progresssive rock using classical tradition is not my favorite cup of tea but I dont think it’s complete garbage. What I really find tastless and cheap is the metal guys “shredding” Vivaldi and so on, now that is really bad taste. They feel like a cheap production. But even that stuff can have a few examples which are fun. I just wouldnt take it seriously like an actual classical performance. Like, I listen carefully to enjoy the difference of interpretation between Wilhelm Kempff and Lang Lang for instance, I wouldnt do that with a garage band playing Appassionata with drums in the back.
4- I dont understand this “try first” objection. Once again, I am not guessing I wont like Yes. But of course, gurme or not, as their tastes improve, people can also make educated guesses about what will go well together and what will not, based on not only subjective preference but also structural compatibility. Reserving the chance to be surprised by creative geniuses, there is nothing wrong with estimating Hip-Hop and Bossa Nova usually wont blend in well together. My objection is that you reduce that estimation to utter subjective preference as in “my favorite color is blue.” It’s closer to “I dont think honey would be well-matched with chicken salad.”
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 12:30 AM |
|
|
Your problem is that "good taste" isn't even defined. When you ash Wiki you are directed to "Aesthetic taste". And there it says:
Quote:
In aesthetics, the concept of taste has been the interest of philosophers such as Plato, Hume, and Kant. It is defined by the ability to make valid judgments about an object's aesthetic value. However, these judgments are deficient in objectivity, creating the 'paradox of taste'. The term 'taste' is used because these judgments are similarly made when one physically tastes food.
So with this in mind I don't see that you have ANY point here.
About your dislike of Yes: I'm not trying to tell you thatYes is great - or that Yes is good taste or whatever. I fully accept that you don't like it. But your rationalization of why you don't like it is rationalized; you could also say it's LEARNED. You've rationalized that acoustic instruments sound deep and warm and that that's necessary for the nuances of classical music and that therefore electric is inferior. But you forget, that we are not talking about classical music, but about prog rock music that's partly based on classical motives or incorporates them (to create something different). So you might say, you disseminate the piece, and when you detect an idea based on a classical motive you say, "yeah well, that electrical organ sounds crap, we'd need a church organ here and since we don't have one that's, umm, bad taste.
It's INTELLECTUA and it's not taking into account that it may not be about the nuances in the calssical ideas but about thze nuances of classical ideas in a modern environment.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 01:49 AM |
|
|
JJ, I really dont need Wiki to tell me what taste is, and I did define the many things that constitute it, including the subjective components. I know what taste is NOT and it is not, as I already stated, objective as in “external reality studied by the positive sciences.” Nothing normative is. But if I tell you for instance, that the system in Europe is better than the system in Afganistan, you wouldnt object by saying “not according to Taliban, it’s all subjective.” You want to get philosophically technical, nothing that exists only in your consciousness, including the concept of “better” is objective reality. You can say “preferring music to traffic noise” is subjective in that regard.
Value judgements, not being statements about external reality though, doesnt necessarily mean that all value judgements are equally valid. Subjectivity may impose absolute relativity or it may not. When it comes to tastes related with intellectual output, as in all art, it doesnt. You tone “it is something you learned” as if it is some kind of an indoctrination. Learning things also means understanding more about them through your own experience, though.
Yes is not classical music no, but it doesnt need to be for someone to be able to give a judgement value on how well-matched is the fashion in which they use the tradition.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 10:36 AM |
|
|
First of all, ART isn't an intellectual output - or maybe I understand you wrong. The intellect has a part in it, but art is also deeply emotional.
And then you obviously still don't get it, when you come up with a comparison that involves political systems. With anything you can ask questions to compare things, whether it's being a political system or a piece of art. But those questions don't involve taste. With a political system - or a government - you may ask, for example, how many people come to harm, how free is the press, what about human rights, how's the economy doing for the people, how is medical care and so on, and then summarize your findings to a conclusion - probably ending things with, "I wouldn't want to live in Afghanistan, but if I was a woman it was hell on earth" or something like that.
With art, though, it's way more difficult, because the consumption or enjoyment of it - the contact and the influence a person will let it have on their life - is completely voluntary and subjective. You can go through life with minimal contact or you can dive completely into it one way or the other. That makes it difficult to find objective questions to ask to determine, say, "the worth" of art in a quality sense. With a political system you can ask, cui bono: in the end you look to who benefits how, what system creates the most for a maximum of people.
If you ask that in art - it's entertainment because that's a real benefit. So with Stephen King entertaining one hell of a lot of people in the whole world you might call him one of the world's greatest artists - but that's not what this discussion is about: you want to tell me about something over and above this, about the QUALITY of stuff. So you might take King's Pet Sematary, for instance, and compare it with The Tommyknockers and say, well, the first is awesome while the second is hogwash - and that's something we all have experienced. If there is big artistic output there is better and there is worse stuff. Has to do with originality and wealth of ideas and the consequence of setting them up and other things that are more difficult to describe - plus personal taste of course. But in the end, talking about, say, The Rolling Stones, we'd probably agree to say they really were starting to roll with the release of Beggar's Banquet, the next couple of albums being their peak, and then slowly started to fade into making good or less good records, but not really excellent ones - but we compare the works of the same artists here, and we would probably still disagree about what was, ultimately, their absolute peak and their worst effort, and I don't see any way to objectively determine that.
Now, what YOU are telling me is, something AKIN TO: I dislike folk played electric, because folk played electric doesn't sound the way it should, so it's bad taste. Therefore I have very good reason to dislike this - it's no personal quirk of mine, oh, no, it's OBVIOUS that this is a no-no (and every knowledgable person who really dives into it will agree with me).
And it's that I disagree completely with.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 11:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:00, 05 Jan 2026.
|
When I say intellectual output, I dont mean highly intellectual or academic. If you prefer bananas to strawberries, that’s just subjective taste. When you’re comparing cakes though, and you say something like “you shouldnt melt butter on such high tempature, it loses its flavor,” there is intellect involved about how to make it better, so although hypothetically someone can say “I prefer the butter completely burned, I want to feel like I’m biting coal, I love it,” we are no longer in a realm of absolute relativity. Calling cake tasting like coal “bad taste” is not an absurd thing to do.
What you so passionately insist on not grasping is that I’m not saying “X shouldnt be played like this because it is against the tradition.” That would be simply conservativism, sticking to tradition for its own sake. I’m saying this particular combo doesnt give ideal results. Jazz and classical can merge better for instance, Bach from Jacques Loussier, I like it, rock combined with funk, awesome, folk and progressive rock, guuud, rock and classical, more of a Bossa Nova combined with hip-hop kind of situation. Not only because a rock kit or the backbeat isnt ideal for the nuance classical tradition requires, but also because the groove that comes from rhythm and blues origins is sacrificed for it. Now, this is a value judgment and subjective to a degree, but it’s not preferring bananas to strawberries, it’s interpretting a cooking style which combines two different cuisines. It’s like saying, “the spice is what makes Indian food unique but when you put it on a pizza, it completely kills the taste of the tomato sauce.” You dont have to agree, of course, but replying with “according to who, it’s all subjective” is really not saying much.
Folk/blues combined with electric guitar and bass/drums gave very good results, so it flourished, folk/blues combined with synth pop, not so much. There are a lot of combos that didnt catch on you know, they are dusty in the addict, so going all Dylan at Newport on me is kind of a misfire. I am the Dylan fan, not you.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 12:33 PM |
|
|
But Yes ISN'T a fusion of Rock and Classical. Ekseption was, more than not. The Nice worked with lots of classical elements - organ-based - as were ELP later. Yes, less so. But even those just built on that. With the exception of Ekseption (at least to my knowledge) NOONE tried to "rockify" classical music, as in playing authentic classical stuff with a 4/4 backbeat. There is one song (a Wakeman solo) by Yes which is Brahms. The Nice have a few of them. ELP follow that partly.
But it's PROGRESSIVE ROCK, not Classical music with a 4/4 backbeat. It's way more complex than that. And it works well, but it takes a lot of skill because it is a complex sound. That's part of what makes progessive rock less accessible than pop music. Just because a lick sounds somewhat "classical" it's not a lost cause.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 01:03 PM |
|
|
Let me put it this way, the kind of bad taste regarding classical music and rock fusions I talk about can be most transparently heard in the music of Yngwie Malmsteen.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 04:16 PM |
|
|
Malmsteen has been pretty influential and at least Grammy-nominated. That you don't like that kind of music is one thing. That you accuse everyone liking that music of having bad taste is something else entirely. It seems arrogant to me. It's not a competition betweens music styles and in the end everyone must listen to the winner or something. There is room for everything.
|
|
Yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 08:09 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2026 08:55 PM |
|
|
|
Play is pretty interesting, but longish. Needs time to get going, but things are really different depending on what kind of guy you play. Lots of short quests. Resource givers deplete. But you cannot just give it a quick go, small scenario or whatever.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
