2) Not true about Dylan albums. Of course his songwriting is unsurpassed, but his songs and his singing sound great too -- in the studio. I was about 18 when I first started listening to Dylan on records and I thought he sounded great right off the bat. It was not an acquired taste. I like Howling Wolf too. I do agree that the Dyl…
2) Not true about Dylan albums. Of course his songwriting is unsurpassed, but his songs and his singing sound great too -- in the studio. I was about 18 when I first started listening to Dylan on records and I thought he sounded great right off the bat. It was not an acquired taste. I like Howling Wolf too. I do agree that the Dylan live performances -- as opposed to studio recordings -- I've seen and heard have mostly been not very good, except in the earliest days. I also agree that many of his later records don't sound good as his voice did suffer over time. But he still pulled out amazingly good surprises like Time Out of Mind and Love and Theft.
3) the best American genres are rock, blues, soul, funk, and gospel. House not so much compared to these.
Another problem with your position is it is quite likely that you, like the vast majority of people in this era, believe in relativism. There are no truths, everything is relative to something -- culture, conceptual scheme, etc. And your position on music follows from that relativism.
But relativism is incoherent. For example, your own categorical assertion that no music can be "better" suggests that in this case the relativism has been jettisoned and now you are dealing with right and wrong.
Of course none of this makes judging better or worse easy or infallible.
1) There is a cognitive component to music appreciation. In addition to idiosyncratic personal responses there is the processing of public information. Some of the variation in taste is attributable not to the idiosyncratic component alone but also to differences in cognitive skills which have an independent impact. So, for example, someone with a short attention span will have a hard time listening to music that requires attention like jazz or classical or the Grateful Dead. Or someone who has no appreciation for language and literature will have a hard time judging the quality of lyrics.
2) Likewise, someone who has little experience with a genre of music will make mistakes in judgment that are not attributable to idiosyncratic preference. Education and knowledge have an independent contribution.
3) Compare different stages of the same person, e.g. you or me, thus controlling for idiosyncratic taste. Like many people, I have had the experience of growing up and deciding that some of my earliest musical preferences were regrettable and based on ignorance. When I was in high school I liked Kiss and Foreigner. Now I don't. But it wasn't just a random change in preference. I have REASONS why my preferences change. I can look back, for example, at my juvenile preferences and judge that my current tastes are better than my juvenile tastes. I have progressed in my musical appreciation even by my own lights and while holding idiosyncratic factors constant.
1) true
2) Not true about Dylan albums. Of course his songwriting is unsurpassed, but his songs and his singing sound great too -- in the studio. I was about 18 when I first started listening to Dylan on records and I thought he sounded great right off the bat. It was not an acquired taste. I like Howling Wolf too. I do agree that the Dylan live performances -- as opposed to studio recordings -- I've seen and heard have mostly been not very good, except in the earliest days. I also agree that many of his later records don't sound good as his voice did suffer over time. But he still pulled out amazingly good surprises like Time Out of Mind and Love and Theft.
3) the best American genres are rock, blues, soul, funk, and gospel. House not so much compared to these.
There's no best anything, there's only what you like.
its not that simple, bro
ok, explain it to me.
Another problem with your position is it is quite likely that you, like the vast majority of people in this era, believe in relativism. There are no truths, everything is relative to something -- culture, conceptual scheme, etc. And your position on music follows from that relativism.
But relativism is incoherent. For example, your own categorical assertion that no music can be "better" suggests that in this case the relativism has been jettisoned and now you are dealing with right and wrong.
Of course none of this makes judging better or worse easy or infallible.
OK, briefly.
1) There is a cognitive component to music appreciation. In addition to idiosyncratic personal responses there is the processing of public information. Some of the variation in taste is attributable not to the idiosyncratic component alone but also to differences in cognitive skills which have an independent impact. So, for example, someone with a short attention span will have a hard time listening to music that requires attention like jazz or classical or the Grateful Dead. Or someone who has no appreciation for language and literature will have a hard time judging the quality of lyrics.
2) Likewise, someone who has little experience with a genre of music will make mistakes in judgment that are not attributable to idiosyncratic preference. Education and knowledge have an independent contribution.
3) Compare different stages of the same person, e.g. you or me, thus controlling for idiosyncratic taste. Like many people, I have had the experience of growing up and deciding that some of my earliest musical preferences were regrettable and based on ignorance. When I was in high school I liked Kiss and Foreigner. Now I don't. But it wasn't just a random change in preference. I have REASONS why my preferences change. I can look back, for example, at my juvenile preferences and judge that my current tastes are better than my juvenile tastes. I have progressed in my musical appreciation even by my own lights and while holding idiosyncratic factors constant.