[DJShadow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not at all true. Sometimes a person grows as much as the album does, and only then does it have an effect. There have been too many amazing artists and albums that I have disliked at first (through tenth) listen for me to agree with a statement like yours. Great art is often difficult to understand at first.

Absolutely. Theres no reason for why you shouldn't work at an album for you realise its brilliance and liking it.

 

[jinp6301]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think its partly your expectations. You can't put on a cd and say 'This Will Change My Life." In fact, most great music doesnt work that way. I can think of a few occasions where music hits me immediately, but often it takes awhile. One example that is constantly mentioned as a GREAT album is Wilco's 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot.' Alot of people who I know and respect kept raving about its brilliance. I listened to it once or twice and put it away, unimpressed. Picked it back a few weeks later with the same results. And then again. But somewhere in my 15th or so listen it started clicking. Now, I do not hesitate to say it is easily one of the top ten albums of the last decade. Just because you don't get the music does not make it overhyped. Of course people do pretend to like music to sound cool, but that has no reflection on the quality of music. I think Frank Zappa is a good example of that. Many people like him because he is weird, and they tell people they like him, but they never ever actually listen to him. Does that mean he is overhyped? Maybe. But he is still completely brilliant.

x3 for the wilco

but not all wilco albums are like this IMO. AM, Being There and Summerteeth are much more accessible then YHF, but none are as good as YHF as well

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rempert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find your line of reasoning to be fairly puzzling. It's good that you want sincere album suggestions. But, why should you exclude such a suggestion on the basis that the album also happens to be very popular or considered groundbreaking within a certain niche? Maybe Nirvana isn't the greatest rock band ever, but how do you know if you like their music until you have heard it? It is no less likely that will like Nirvana than you liking some random band some random person suggests... In truth, it is probably more likely since the overhyped artists get hyped for a reason in the first place. And that applies also to the underground/indie/local artists who end up generating a large following... their following exists for a reason so there must be something to it. Perhaps the problem here is the concept of "essential" albums. Such albums are "essential" to understanding the development of a genre and the culture surrounding it. That does not mean every fan of the genre will enjoy said album, as such tastes are so personal. But still, if you are going to dole out cash on an unheard album based on someone's recommendation, I'm guessing your odds of getting one you like are as good or better with the so called "essentials" than with something that is only liked by this one person.

Well I mentioned in my OP that 9 times out of 10 I do not like albums that have been over hyped. Don't get me wrong, there are a good number of hyped up albums in my collection (De-loused, Relationship Of Command, Anything by Bjork) that I do enjoy and I feel have lived up to (if not exceeded) the hype. But you won't find, in my collection, any of the hundreds of albums that I bought because of people saying "This album is brilliant! You have to get it!" What really gets me is that the hyped up albums should at least sound somewhat good. I don't listen to it expecting it to change my life, just sound good. Lately it's all boring crap.

As for what you say about artist having a large following... so does Brittney Spears and Akon. Just because a lot of people listen to them doesn't say anything about the actual music itself.

I agree with you somewhat about the "essential albums", that it is a bit of a problem. That's what I meant about "The List" people read off of (I know I'm guilty of doing it for music genres I don't know so well). Personally I don't listen to music to understand how a genre came about or understand the culture. I listen to music to for my personal pleasure, not a history lesson. Essential list are helpful when your trying to get into the genre, but normally it's just bland cookie cutter music from that genre, there's usually much better stuff out there.

 

[Spyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJShadow /img/forum/go_quote.gif Absolutely. Theres no reason for why you shouldn't work at an album for you realise its brilliance and liking it.

X2...I find this to be the case with a lot of complex jazz releases. The first several listens may sound like a convoluted mess but it eventually may all fit together like a glove.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif As for what you say about artist having a large following... so does Brittney Spears and Akon. Just because a lot of people listen to them doesn't say anything about the actual music itself.

There is a world of difference between tons of knowledgeable and passionate music fans liking an artist, and 14 year old girls with 25 songs on their ipods liking an artist.

If you don't like any of the 'classic' or 'essential', thats fine. The only advice is: just keep listening. You are clearly still young, so you have alot of listening to do, and your tastes will change.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is a world of difference between tons of knowledgeable and passionate music fans liking an artist, and 14 year old girls with 25 songs on their ipods liking an artist. If you don't like any of the 'classic' or 'essential', thats fine. The only advice is: just keep listening. You are clearly still young, so you have alot of listening to do, and your tastes will change.

Even though I think most the music from the MTV generation is crap I don't feel that those people are any less passionate or knowledgeable about their music of choice. That's a very snobbish point of view if you truly believe that.

Using the "your clearly young" crap is just insulting. When someone pulls that card out I lose a lot of respect from their opinion. Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean you have to try and belittle me. I also wasn't looking for your advise. Just putting out my opinion. Just because I don't like "the classics" or "essentials" doesn't mean I should try to force them on myself. Music should feel natural and not like a chore. Sure with age my music preference will change. That's a given. Perhaps when you grow up your preference will change as well.

 

[Kilane]

My friends all fall into two categories, both of which agitate me greatly.

1. The "indier than thou" attitude. If it's possible that a band got popular, it OBVIOUSLY wasn't due to talent or anything unless they'd heard of them first.

2. The "if it isn't on the radio it can't be good" crowd. This one is pretty self explanatory.

It makes as little sense to dismiss EVERYTHING on even Top 40 radio as it does to disregard all the stuff not on the radio. The glorious benefit of having radio is that normally everything that isn't classic rock has a fairly short window (a few months) and then it's off the radio for the most part again.

I tend to fall between the two of these and can empathize with each.

Also, yes... it's foolish to try to force yourself to like music, but my absolute favorite records are those that I start thinking "Why on earth would anyone like this?". It's really all downhill from there.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even though I think most the music from the MTV generation is crap I don't feel that those people are any less passionate or knowledgeable about their music of choice. That's a very snobbish point of view if you truly believe that.

They are absolutely less knowledgeable. That is inarguable. I'll let you argue less passionate, but if you spend anytime talking to a huge Britney or Akon (and believe me, I have) it is clear they want something different from music than most music fans.

Quote:

Using the "your clearly young" crap is just insulting. When someone pulls that card out I lose a lot of respect from their opinion. Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean you have to try and belittle me.

It wasn't meant as an insult at all. I am just saying that over the years people's tastes and opinions change. The 'all the classics are wrong' attitude is often a case of point of view and experience. I am not saying you will suddenly 'understand' something or that you are simply young and immature. I am just saying that certain things and certain perspectives are often not appreciated by all people at all times in their lives.


Quote:

Just because I don't like "the classics" or "essentials" doesn't mean I should try to force them on myself.

Maybe. Maybe not. But one should understand why something is held in the regard it is if they are serious about understanding and appreciating an art. You have been vague about what you dislike, so its hard to make specific comments. But let just say someone says they do not get Velvet Underground and they think VU sucks. Fine. But before you are sure they suck, you should try to be sure why so many others like them.

Quote:

Music should feel natural and not like a chore.

Sure. But just because it is a chore now, doesn't mean it will always be. And just because it is a chore for you, doesn't mean it is 'overhyped.'

 

[MdRex]

that shows how diverse we are (and how snobbish we can be about our own musical taste) and when people don't like what we like, we conclude that their taste isn't mature enough to appreciate what we like.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even though I think most the music from the MTV generation is crap I don't feel that those people are any less passionate or knowledgeable about their music of choice. That's a very snobbish point of view if you truly believe that.

there's a world of difference between
'knowledgable and passionate about music' and
'knowledgable and passionate about their music of choice' - IF the latter only spans a narrow range.
the latter is called 'fanboyism' and often (though not always) issues hype.

it's not necessarily an age thing, but experience tends to widen the perspective.

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are absolutely less knowledgeable. That is inarguable. I'll let you argue less passionate, but if you spend anytime talking to a huge Britney or Akon (and believe me, I have) it is clear they want something different from music than most music fans. It wasn't meant as an insult at all. I am just saying that over the years people's tastes and opinions change. The 'all the classics are wrong' attitude is often a case of point of view and experience. I am not saying you will suddenly 'understand' something or that you are simply young and immature. I am just saying that certain things and certain perspectives are often not appreciated by all people at all times in their lives. Maybe. Maybe not. But one should understand why something is held in the regard it is if they are serious about understanding and appreciating an art. You have been vague about what you dislike, so its hard to make specific comments. But let just say someone says they do not get Velvet Underground and they think VU sucks. Fine. But before you are sure they suck, you should try to be sure why so many others like them. Sure. But just because it is a chore now, doesn't mean it will always be. And just because it is a chore for you, doesn't mean it is 'overhyped.'

There are kids that are 12 that when you ask them who "The Greats" are they'll spit you out the usual list. So honestly it has nothing to do with age imo. It's either preferences or they just don't know any better.

Take the Beatles for example. I know why people like them, god knows you can't get a Beatles fan to shut up about why they love the Beatles. They aren't anything special imo. Knowing why people like them doesn't help me appreciate the music or like it. I just don't like it and I think it's way to over hyped. Does understanding why people like Akon help you appreciate or like the music? Do you think that 10 years down the road you'll learn to appreciate artist like that? I hold the Beatles in the same place I hold Mariah Carey (I mentioned it somewhere earlier in the thread).

Music isn't a chore to me because I don't try to force music I think is crap down my throat, just for the sake of gaining respect from people who probably know less about music than me (cause who knows my taste and what I like better than myself?). I have a healthy balance of listening to music that's familiar to me and exploring new stuff. If I come across something I don't like then I just don't like it. I move on plain and simple. Maybe later I'll revisit it but more often I won't.

Out of curiosity what's your definition of over hyped? To me it's music that's hyped up and doesn't deliver because it's just plain bad. Music is subjective and a hyped up album may sound good to you and to me be crap to me. So honestly who are you to say if an album is over hyped to me?

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digitalbath3737 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Take the Beatles for example. I know why people like them, god knows you can't get a Beatles fan to shut up about why they love the Beatles. They aren't anything special imo.

Ah, there we go. There are few absolutes in life, but one of those is the Beatles. To say 'they are nothing special' means that by necessity you like a key amount of maturity or understanding of the basic components of music. If you continue to like music, and you continue to seek to grow as a person, you will become a Beatles fan. Go ahead, roll those eyes and get all mad.

If you think they are nothing but throwaway pop music like Mariah Carey or Akon then there is absolutely no doubt that you do not understand their music.

This isn't just some arrogant personal opinions, there are millions of reasons and billions of people that can go in depth on the musical reasons for the Beatles genius and their importance. There isn't an album you own that wasn't influenced by the Beatles (at least albums that have been produced since 1965 or so.)



Quote:

Knowing why people like them doesn't help me appreciate the music or like it. I just don't like it and I think it's way to over hyped. Does understanding why people like Akon help you appreciate or like the music?

No. Because his music sucks. But I do know why it sucks. You don;t have to enjoy everything. I know why Bach is amazing, but I still rarely listen to his music. Is he overhyped because I don't like them? Of course not. Are the Beatles overhyped because you don't like them? Of course not.


Quote:

Music isn't a chore to me because I don't try to force music I think is crap down my throat, just for the sake of gaining respect from people who probably know less about music than me

1. The music you think is crap today might not always be the music you think is crap.

2. Nobody suggested to listen to music just to have others respect you, and less people than you might think like 'indie bands' to seem cool. Keep listening to the 'greats' because people who love and know music love it as well, and maybe eventually you might too.

I, as well as many many others, could give you a list a mile long of bands that we heard others say were good for years before we ever to the time and effort to listen to them. Bands like Radiohead, Tool, and even the Beatles were, for me, at one time unlistenable. Its a big world, and there is too much great stuff to be angry about some band's popularity.


Quote:

Out of curiosity what's your definition of over hyped? To me it's music that's hyped up and doesn't deliver because it's just plain bad. Music is subjective and a hyped up album may sound good to you and to me be crap to me. So honestly who are you to say if an album is over hyped to me?

I don't know if I have an opinion as far as overhyped. I know there are quite a bit of artists who are considered great for the wrong reasons, or are considered great because people are not aware of how much they are stealing from their influences. But for the most part, genuinely crappy music is bashed and rarely overhyped. Akon for example certainly doesn't receive much hype from people who actually matter.

If you think music is subjective, who are you to determine whether something is overhyped though?

 

[Sordel]

Interesting thread.

I think we've all bought albums on the basis that they're supposed to be special, and just haven't heard what the fuss is all about. Examples for me include Clapton's Layla and just about everything that I've heard by Dylan. On other occasions, however, I've bought something, not "got" it, and then come back to it much later to find that the music was just waiting for me to catch up.

I was completely unmoved by Live/Dead when I first heard it, but after a few years I was ready and really understood why it was highly rated. With Springsteen, I had failure after failure, starting with The River, but eventually I had enough musical context to see why it was good. These weren't cases of my convincing myself through intensive listening.

If you don't use the "hype" of ages (i.e. critical opinion established by repeated recognition over years) you are forced back upon the hype of today (i.e. usually a record company throwing a lot of money at getting someone established); of the two routes, the former is clearly the more likely to identify something of enduring value. Yes, I know that it's exciting to find something that you think that you have found all by yourself, but don't we fool ourselves? I think that I "discovered" Sufjan Stevens, but all that meant is that I took a punt on the basis of a good review in one magazine. It isn't like I actually "did" anything at all.

Oh, and The Beatles really are special, and I'm going to have to side with the other old gits here and say that if anyone doesn't see that, then they probably are not far enough along in their personal music journey to have reached the point where this is self-evident. We all start at different points with music, and Digital may have travelled very extensively in music that I've never heard, but being unimpressed by Sgt. Pepper when you get there is like denying that the Grand Canyon is one hell of a big hole.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. The music you think is crap today might not always be the music you think is crap.

The truest statement of the thread. And the reverse is also true. Music you think is good today, you might think is crap in the future. Tastes in music change with experience.

In some ways, I'm like the OP, I listen to music for enjoyment, not to work at it. I don't listen to an album 15 times without liking it. Usually, its 1 or 2 times before putting it away for a few years. I'm not a musician or a musicologist so understanding the music from that end is not important to me.
But I love music and am constantly trying new to me music. As a teenager, I didn't like jazz or classical music at all. In my 20s, I started to listen to a few albums of each, essentially Top 40 classical and jazz. Now in my 40s, jazz and classical is 3/4 of my music collection.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Quote:

If you think music is subjective, who are you to determine whether something is overhyped though?

a good point. if you abandon all in search of a completely relativist critique of music, then you're only left with your personal opinions and beliefs, and often time they won't play well with others. as we've seen in this thread. the individual can certainly decide what he/she likes and doesn't like, but at the same time he has to accept that nothing he says can or should be taken seriously by others if it's all just completely up to the individual. this is somewhat self defeating if you ask me, and although it may be attractive in order to insulate one's opinions from scrutiny, i think it is ultimately an unsatisfying position to have because of its inability to meet others on common ground. it makes discussions and arguments impossible, too.

which brings us to some sort of medium, i suppose: the ability to recognize well made music but, in light of its independent value, still dislike it. the OP doesn't like the beatles, but also amends to that that they are throw-away trash, more or less. the former is a true statement, the latter is, by most accounts, wrong. i don't think there is some ultimate standard of good and bad by which to judge music, so prevailing opinions and somewhat objectively considering the contribution the music has made to the overall genre(s) is how we can evaluate things more accurately. it is sometimes difficult to acknowledge something as being "good but not for me", but it is probably the more honest approach most of the time. i don't think everything has inherent value, like the aforementioned Akon and others, but most do in some sense, if you're willing to give it the benefit of the doubt...which doesn't seem so unreasonable if you ask me.