[rant] Music is boring

[foosnark]

I don't think changing tastes are directly tied to age, in individual cases anyway. In the 20 years since I started having an income to spend on music, I've moved through classical, jazz, New Age, industrial, Celtic folk, Celtic rock, Finnish folk, darkwave, triphop, industrial-influenced rock, swing, darkambient, breakcore, glitch. Before that, I was listening to my dad's Tomita and Pink Floyd 8-tracks as well as occasionally taking interest in the pop-du-jour. The only one I've never lost any interest in is industrial. I haven't *completely* lost interest in any of them but some I just never spend any time or money on.

My trend in amount of money spent on music, though, has had much more to do with disposable income than any waxing or waning interest levels.

Kid on allowance: practically $0
Teen with job, living with parents: hella $
Young adult with bills: very little $
Better paid adult with roommates: a bit of $
No-better-paid married mid-30s: very little $, sold off a lot of my CDs

I'll buy new releases from favorite artists (SP, FLA, Tool etc.), and occasionally will mail-order stuff if I've heard it and like it, or if the review is just too tempting -- but most of my new music now comes from legal free downloads.

[respirator]

I detest relativism.

It's funny you say that, as I detest absolutism.

I don't think they're opposites... Relativism (all is allways good) is the same as absolutism (this is allways good).

...I am confused though, as your position seems to have changed often over the course of this thread. For example, Harry Partch is hardly what anyone would call mainstream or commercial, yet you earlier suggested it, too, was not very good.

Exactly. That's my point. I don't care about mainstream vs. alternative, now vs. then etc. I just think that most music is not doing it for me. (There are a few Partch-moments that are great though). But the conclusion must be age + blasé-ness. So I'll go hide in the corner - as usual

(BTW: Why haven't we done a collab yet?)

[emdot_ambient]

...Whatever you have detested for the longest time... go find some of it, the cream of the crop... get into it... analyse it.. you may find something you never saw before...

Or more likely you'll just realize why you hated it so much to begin with. I'm not going to try and sit through The Ring Cycle again just to try and find out what makes opera tick. Not gonna try it again with Mozart or Stravinsksy either. It seems like you're constantly assuming those of us bored with most music haven't done our homework.

True, I don't go out and listen to absolutely everything new anymore. There's just SO much out there and no good way of isolating what's "the cream of the crop" as you put it. Radio used to play that role, but not any more--at least not in the States. Here the broadcast media is in the pocket of the corporations running the music industry. It's all about marketing what the money dudes want to market, where it used to be a filter that would sift through the muck and find the real gems.

However, that being said, I listen to whatever my more interested friends throw my way and invariably--even when I hear new music that is actually good--invariably I can sit there and go . . . oh, that vocal comes from the Cocteau Twins, that guitar is a Zepplin rip off, that rhythm guitar is straight out of The Stooges, and here's someone who's been influenced by Can (or more likely, influenced by a band who was influenced by Can). I doubt most of what I hear is even consciously being ripped from old music. We've been swamped for so many years in the same musical paradigms that it's very possible to rehash music from two decades before without even being aware you're doing it. Bands influenced by Can or Eno's rock stuff, or The Stooges or The Velvet Underground will spawn a second generation of bands, who then influence yet another group of bands and before you know it, you find bands repeating old forms without even being aware of it. Anyone who's old enough to have heard the originals will recognize what they hear . . . but youthful listeners will believe what they're hearing is new and fresh . . .

. . . thus, there really is nothing new under the sun except what we have forgotten.

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now.

[shamann]

(BTW: Why haven't we done a collab yet?)

I don't know. PM or email me if you have any ideas you'd like to try out. I don't do a lot of collabs mostly as I've never really sorted out the logistics who does which part, what software to use etc. But I'm open to trying something out.

[emdot_ambient]

Oh, and someone said it seemed we bored few were interested in novelty. It may just be a difference in definition, but I don't agree with that. I'm looking for creativity and inspiration. Yeah, I want something new. But not for novelty's sake, but for the joy of discovering a new outlook, a new possibility--not just because I want something new.

Hmm, let's say I'm looking for a new way of thinking about music, one that can direct whole new directions, not just something one off and unique that inspires nothing else new.

See, to me Al Yankovic was novelty while The Flying Lizards were innovative. The Bubblemen were novelty while The Residents were innovative. Tiny Tim was novelty, Slap Happy was innovative.

[emdot_ambient]

I detest relativism.

It's funny you say that, as I detest absolutism.

I don't think they're opposites... Relativism (all is allways good) is the same as absolutism (this is allways good).

That's not the definitions as I think of them. To me Relativism is "what's good to me may be crap to you, and visa-versa." Whereas Absolutism (in terms of quality) is "No matter what you think or say [insert artist, work or style here] is good."

The fact is, I can think a song is good and at the same time you can believe it's crap. There's no contradiction there. Both things are true. THAT'S relativism. It's not saying all things are always good, but that something can be both good and bad at the same time.

I'm an uber-relativist, because what I consider to be good can shift in a moment. I sat through a John Cage concert once. And during the most grating violin screeching parts, I forced myself to listen to the noise and appreciate it as music. It worked for a few seconds but it was too much of a conscious effort, so then I went back to thinking of it as noise. Nothing changed about the music, only my perception of it.

Tull and Yes have been bandied about in this thread. I used to love everything by both these bands. Now I like only Tull's first four albums, and not every song on those. Yes I've basically boiled down to one album plus a few odd songs. Nothing changed about the music, only the way I listen to it.

I can't see how anyone can defend absolutism, as there is no quantifiable proof that any piece of art is good or bad. It simply cannot be moved out of the subjective realm . . . therefore, my definition of relativism has to be what I believe in.

But you may have a different opinion . . . it's all relative

[respirator]

... To me Relativism is "what's good to me may be crap to you, and visa-versa." Whereas Absolutism (in terms of quality) is "No matter what you think or say [insert artist, work or style here] is good."...

Ah, but then you're talking about taste. Taste is subjective, quality is not. Or rather taste should be subjective and quality should be at least to some degree constant and objective. It's perfectly allright to dislike something - even something of the highest quality, but we're in trouble if we allow everything to be equal. Of course quality is always up for discussion as no one owns the truth - but it's out there. Taste can't really be discussed

[Kingston]

Seems like the boredom could have something to do the fact some of you have far too refined musical tastes. You've honed and spit-shined it for +25 years already and it's no surprise you find it extremely difficult to find that niche or style of expression again. The one that tickles you just right.

Yes, you say you're looking for innovation and brilliance. Yet, you might be forgetting the decades of other aquired parameters regarding your cultivated-to-absolution musical taste.

We're dealing with brain physiology here, so some kinds of exercises to open up those "stagnated thought patterns" might be just what the doctor ordered. You know, cleaning up the tables a bit. Break some of that refinement and cultivation that has you so biased.

[eduardo_b]

Tull and Yes have been bandied about in this thread. I used to love everything by both these bands. Now I like only Tull's first four albums, and not every song on those. Yes I've basically boiled down to one album plus a few odd songs. Nothing changed about the music, only the way I listen to it.

I have gone through the same process with Yes, Tull, Stones and others, and what I noticed is that it's often the first one, two or whatever albums that I still listen to. Exceptions are Pink Floyd -- their later albums were as good or even better than their earlier work -- and the Who. It's probably unreasonable to expect any artist to be consistently great (a subjective perception) as their catalog of work expands, although some have come much closer than others (Tom Petty, Dave Matthews?).

I think your comment about how we listen to music differently over time is both true by itself and also part of how we perceive the range of music by bands and artists. And they also experience growth and change, so their music can reflect this in ways that we either like or find disappointing. We end up culling out what we don't care for and cherishing what's left.

I just bought the new Liz Phair album, and noticed that it's closer to her earlier work, but not as dark. But also not quite as pop as her last album, which had critics saying she sold out by trying to be more commercial. She has been unapologetic about these changes, leaveing listeners to decide to like or not like her work spanning a decade.

Maybe the older we get, the more demanding we become about the music we listen to.

[emdot_ambient]

Seems like the boredom could have something to do the fact some of you have far too refined musical tastes.

I do have a highly diacritical mind

I've always wondered if it wouldn't make life more enjoyable with less demanding tastes. "Oh, look, Freinds is on the telly. Oh boy! But, how can I choose between that and the latest reality TV show? Oh, decisions, decisions . . ."

Life must be sweet in the land of the easily amused.

[emdot_ambient]

...Taste is subjective, quality is not...

That's debatable but in large part I probably agree with that. No doubt Mozart wrote quality music, whether I enjoy it or not. But there are always times when quality and taste are indistinquishable and highly subjective. Quantifying quality in music would be practically impossible and probably useless. I can conceive of a Rock & Roll song being written, performed and recorded with the utmost quality . . . and yet it still ending up being dead boring. A lot of people, no doubt, would find the song wonderful because of its quality, and more power to them. There's no shame in quality, but it's also true that you don't need the spark of originality to achieve quality.

I'm bored with the footwear, too, BTW. And in that department, I'll go for quality over taste any day

[aciddose]

music is boring? come on.

when is eatting ever boring if you're hungry?

when is sex ever boring?

if you find it boring you must be doing it wrong. get her that french maid outfit, when she owns your ass with bitch slaps and says "you perv! why dont you wear it!", put it on. it isnt about what you're actually doing, its about having fun while you're doing it.

or maybe lets all go catholic.. whee, hurray...... ....
matches up to having 'refined musical tastes'. refined philosophical tastes. you cant ever pick the "right" one, because such a thing doesnt exist!

[emdot_ambient]

music is boring? come on.
when is eatting ever boring if you're hungry?
when is sex ever boring?

Bad metaphors. I can't live without eating and don't want to live without sex.

To quote This Is Spinal Tap: "As long as there's sex and drugs . . . I suppose I can do without Rock And Roll."

[Wopelka]

music is boring? come on.
when is eatting ever boring if you're hungry?
when is sex ever boring?

Bad metaphors. I can't live without eating and don't want to live without sex.

this is the point, i reckon. can you live without music? i couldn't.