How eclectic are your tastes?

dreamcoil · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:47 pm

corrections wrote:

dreamcoil wrote:

pauldrach - i don't think my own opinion is that important personally, especially in regards to everyone else's listening habits

then why did you give it?

the exact same reason you bolded and quoted me out on it, i.e - pedantry and the need to express

George · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 4168

dreamcoil wrote:

thank you, batman. very strong point. tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things.

how do you figure? as far as i'm aware, they canonize things at least as much as in the west. in fact, they tend to be much more conservative and tend to adhere to tradition much more than in the west.

batman · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:17 pm

George wrote:

but, batman, the idea of a "serious music listener" (the record collector nerd, someone who spends hours every day listening to music, etc.) is a very recent phenomenon, too...

yeah but I also think it's a recent phenomenon that a distinction would even have to be made. Everything I've read on the musical experience in age before recorded music* suggests that music was a much more innate part of everyone's life. Nearly everyone sang and way more people played instruments. Today you can say your life revolves around music without even having a basic grasp of an instrument or some kind of knowledge of how it works. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I just get bothered when people claim to have some deep understanding and connection to music that others don't have because they listen to everything from [western contemporary recording artist] to [western contemporary recording artist] and other people are confined to the likes of [western contemporary recording artist] and [western contemporary recording artist].

*and in areas where recorded music is not as popular as music as a social experience

batman · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:23 pm

George wrote:

dreamcoil wrote:

thank you, batman. very strong point. tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things.

how do you figure? as far as i'm aware, they canonize things at least as much as in the west. in fact, they tend to be much more conservative and tend to adhere to tradition much more than in the west.

I agree with this. I don't really have a problem with the idea of a western canon, I just have no idea what it would include. Probably not Daydream Nation.

dreamcoil · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:36 pm

George wrote:

dreamcoil wrote:

thank you, batman. very strong point. tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things.

how do you figure? as far as i'm aware, they canonize things at least as much as in the west. in fact, they tend to be much more conservative and tend to adhere to tradition much more than in the west.

in terms of music, not much, it's a lot varied in the subcontinent and the middle east - two places i'm very familiar with. and by canonical, i don't mean in terms of experimentation, but in terms of 'standards'. india, for example, has 28 states, and pretty much every one has their own musical idols and heroes. there are definitely certain figures nationally regarded as geniuses, but it seems a bit more scattered and slightly less clearer as you explore. same with the middle east.

dreamcoil · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:38 pm

batman wrote:

George wrote:

dreamcoil wrote:

thank you, batman. very strong point. tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things.

how do you figure? as far as i'm aware, they canonize things at least as much as in the west. in fact, they tend to be much more conservative and tend to adhere to tradition much more than in the west.

I agree with this. I don't really have a problem with the idea of a western canon, I just have no idea what it would include. Probably not Daydream Nation.

funnily enough, daydream nation is officially canonised!

http://theresalduncan.typepad.com/witos ... h_mas.html

George · **Joined:** Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:43 am **Posts:** 4168

dreamcoil wrote:

George wrote:

dreamcoil wrote:

thank you, batman. very strong point. tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things.

how do you figure? as far as i'm aware, they canonize things at least as much as in the west. in fact, they tend to be much more conservative and tend to adhere to tradition much more than in the west.

in terms of music, not much, it's a lot varied in the subcontinent and the middle east - two places i'm very familiar with. and by canonical, i don't mean in terms of experimentation, but in terms of 'standards'. india, for example, has 28 states, and pretty much every one has their own musical idols and heroes. there are definitely certain figures nationally regarded as geniuses, but it seems a bit more scattered and slightly less clearer as you explore. same with the middle east.

but that reflects larger differences in cultures... the western society tends to be much more organized in that regard... and so there is more hierarchy, more canons, etc... just look at the church for comparison... the idea of a powerful hierarchical canonical behemoth like the catholic church (or eastern orthodox, to a lesser degree, etc.) is absurd in india... as far as i'm aware, hinduism lacks centralized ecclesiastical structure (as do buddhism and other religions)... so what you're saying has more to do with other overarching cultural traits.
but, i think within those little regions that you mentioned, there is strong adherence to tradition... and strong adherence to canons... in the west it may exhibit itself as the cult of certain personalities... in the east it's more of a respect for status quo and continuance of tradition... please don't tell me the system of ragas isn't canonical... i would argue it's every bit as canonical and dominant as the german and viennese schools over european classical music or of something like the beatles in pop/rock...
my point is the "fetish" for hierarchies and tradition (a more general concept than canon) is not a purely western phenomenon. in fact, it has much deeper and stronger roots in the east.

Yousha · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:17 pm

Quote:

but at some point - when you really love music - the sounds, the making of the sounds, the stories, people involved, the cultural significance of things, the counter culture - you realise that you are lost in terms of treading new ground and no amount of friends and music buddies can really help you out now. you're on your own, and that's where the journey gets really interesting. we would be mostly lost, but you know, the internet. these are the best of times.

YES ! most definitely true. in recent times, i've heard stuff I could never dream of listening to just about a couple of months ago. An open mind and appreciation goes a long way. It is also almost always best to be searching out music on your own, without consulting others. Just read up, listen, and so on.

Quinnsy Lohan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:09 am

Guys, pretty sure you missed what score I got.

joe c · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:35 am **Posts:** 2914

batman wrote:

joe c wrote:

I feel like there are certain albums you must listen to before you can stake your claim as a serious music listener.

And lemme guess, they're all from the 20th century and were made in either America or the UK?

Was music an important part of people's lives before the advent of recorded music?

Well, 20th century yeah but that doesn't mean the music I would put in the canon was not written before 1900 or so.

Sodacake · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:10 am

Quinnsy Lohan wrote:

Guys, pretty sure you missed what score I got.

My nigga. I didn't think one could score that high listening to only Agalloch.

pauldrach · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:04 pm

dreamcoil wrote:

tell me paul, why this fetishism with the western canon? if you look across other cultures in the world, south american, east asian, indian subcontinental or whatever it is, people are usually wary and reluctant of the idea of canonising things. yet music is lifeblood to them just as it is to us, or any other member of the human race. i think there's a fault on our part here.

I never mentioned a "western" canon, but maybe you're right and the concept of canonizing certain musical works and recordings as we know it is a strictly western concept (apart from sacred music where you definitely have canonized music or musical structures).

dreamcoil wrote:

not really, because this implies that there is always that one album or only one artist undertaking those developments or evolving the sounds. which very rarely is the case, mostly rock journo myth. delve into other contemporary artists of the era and you'll often see ideas forming and evolving steadily over a course of time, label, zeitgest and place, just like any other artform.

Actually it doesn't imply that. It only implies that there are certain artists who spearhead certain musical developments. It certainly takes more than one album to trace down the roots of a musical idea. Musical works are usually canonized for a reason. They may have introduced new concepts to the musical discourse, or may have defined a certain style by being particularly popular or widely considered to be excellent. The bulk of canonized music certainly includes a larger percentage of good or interesting music than uncanonized music does. The canon makes discussion about music much easier and can help you to get introduced to uncanonized music that is similar to your favorites from the canon. Of course the canon is not all there is, and as soon as you've got a good overview, you should definitely start exploring uncanonized works as well, but in the beginning the canon can be a very helpful tool.

But generally you may be right. The canon probably is not essential for understanding music and even less so for appreciating it.

dreamcoil wrote:

besides, i don't have a problem discussing the beatles, stones zep, who and pink floyd once in a while, all legendary bands and very popular. but really - you're going to tell me that music ancestry, evolution, development and stylistic variance was at its apex with these acts or all of the above was the most significant in the 60's/70's? fuck that. no one needs to hear any of these bands unless they have a genuine interest in them. it's by conforming to these standards that we have near identical music fans in taste and character. same top 10 lists, same favourite artists and what not. again, not a bad thing, but at some point - when you really love music - the sounds, the making of the sounds, the stories, people involved, the cultural significance of things, the counter culture - you realise that you are lost in terms of treading new ground and no amount of friends and music buddies can really help you out now. you're on your own, and that's where the journey gets really interesting. we would be mostly lost, but you know, the internet. these are the best of times.

I completely agree and nowhere in my posts did I ever try to suggest that the music of the 1960's and '70's was superior in any way to the music of other decades/eras, which is a pretty ridiculous idea. I don't know where you got that from.

batman · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:10 pm

joe c wrote:

batman wrote:

joe c wrote:

I feel like there are certain albums you must listen to before you can stake your claim as a serious music listener.

And lemme guess, they're all from the 20th century and were made in either America or the UK?

Was music an important part of people's lives before the advent of recorded music?

Well, 20th century yeah but that doesn't mean the music I would put in the canon was not written before 1900 or so.

Hmm, well, what's in the canon then? In your estimation

joe c · **Joined:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:35 am **Posts:** 2914

Give me a day or two to answer that. I'm inclined to say that there are different canons for every genre of music. In fact, let me just state that my position on the matter is that I respect people who listen to whatever they want with no regards to any canon but I am glad that canons exist. I think it is good they exist for the same reason it is good literary canons exist.

batman · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:07 am

Cool, yeah that's a much better position than your earlier one. I was quick to pounce on that earlier comment because I've heard some variation of it so many times on the site.

How eclectic are your tastes?

Who is online