The Curious Case of 'Taste'

[Anveeroy 57,691]

I do not consider myself a music-fanatic so I sometimes feel a little bit lost when music-enthusiasts dignify the term 'Taste'. I think the genius users of GagaDaily might help me to explore the world. 

In my opinion, Art is very subjective. One-piece can allure you, but maybe another individual doesn't feel any connection with that. Music can be interpreted in various ways. So, a person doesn't like a certain genre or a critically acclaimed album but why do we have this infectious need to force people to accept that particular creation as a masterpiece? Or sometimes an album which is not considered to be smart by the critics, but the fans pushed hard to make that as a groundbreaking creation. So, do you think some people act like 'intellectual bullies'? Or, if you don't agree with someone then personally attack plays a vital role to prove the person's 'OPINION'?

As a literature enthusiast, I might say 'You have to read Kafka, don't touch John Green's books'. But maybe that person doesn't get Kafka, that person only can relate to Green's books. I shouldn't do anything then. 

Sometimes, I do not get people. They form opinions but try to establish those as facts. A person might not enjoy Melodrama, a person might enjoy MDNA. 

I guess, the curious case of TASTE will be still a vague mystery to me or maybe I don't understand people. 

[Floppy 7,951]

I think it's mostly a joke people make when they disagree. Art is objective.

[NFRatwell 23,290]

I don’t think people mean it seriously, at-least on here. 

[Anveeroy 57,691]

3 minutes ago, Floppy said:

I think it's mostly a joke people make when they disagree. Art is objective.

I have added 'In my opinion.' 

1 minute ago, NFRockwell said:

I don’t think people mean it seriously, at-least on here. 

I hope so

[Killa 14,563]

Hmm i think we had this discussion before.

Anyway you can still evaluate kafka. 

A novel needs certain components to be successful, a structure, character development. Etc

Now if you prefer suspense over metaphors, for example.. I mean thats a preference. You might even have both. In the end its the balance. Ofc some romances are significative cause they talk about subject or are breakthrough on a genre, even if not so well written. 

Its subjective but can be appreciated under objective parameters. 

A song has words, melody and harmony. So, you may say that a good is one that satisfies this 3 components in a way that all comes together with one supporting the other. 

But on other hand, this just might not interest the public and the public are looking for a certain thing. 

Is it good what the majority likes? You should take consideration the two aspects?

Taste is a cultural phemonen. Every each era theres a preference over some aspects. 

Lets say now we like the 80s, but not all the 80s, mostly a less popular part of it, more sober and dark. 

Lets say, in the 18th century mozart was indeed kinda popular. But his magnum opus werent well received, when we listen to the boring junk that was popular you just dont get it. But paisiello was writting with the taste of the time. 

 

[Delusional 9,221]

7 minutes ago, Killa said:

Hmm i think we had this discussion before.

Anyway you can still evaluate kafka. 

A novel needs certain components to be successful, a structure, character development. Etc

Now if you prefer suspense over metaphors, for example.. I mean thats a preference. You might even have both. In the end its the balance. Ofc some romances are significative cause they talk about subject or are breakthrough on a genre, even if not so well written. 

Its subjective but can be appreciated under objective parameters. 

A song has words, melody and harmony. So, you may say that a good is one that satisfies this 3 components in a way that all comes together with one supporting the other. 

But on other hand, this just might not interest the public and the public are looking for a certain thing. 

Is it good what the majority likes? You should take consideration the two aspects?

Taste is a cultural phemonen. Every each era theres a preference over some aspects. 

Lets say now we like the 80s, but not all the 80s, mostly a less popular part of it, more sober and dark. 

Lets say, in the 18th century mozart was indeed kinda popular. But his magnum opus werent well received, when we listen to the boring junk that was popular you just dont get it. But paisiello was writting with the taste of the time. 

 

Nnnnn not you saying Mozart has a magnum opus I-

we love a good classical bop! 

[Killa 14,563]

1 minute ago, DeIusional said:

Nnnnn not you saying Mozart has a magnum opus I-

we love a good classical bop! 

It seems he liked changing ha wig. It seems he snatched himself

 

[Anveeroy 57,691]

25 minutes ago, Killa said:

Hmm i think we had this discussion before.

Anyway you can still evaluate kafka. 

A novel needs certain components to be successful, a structure, character development. Etc

Now if you prefer suspense over metaphors, for example.. I mean thats a preference. You might even have both. In the end its the balance. Ofc some romances are significative cause they talk about subject or are breakthrough on a genre, even if not so well written. 

Its subjective but can be appreciated under objective parameters. 

A song has words, melody and harmony. So, you may say that a good is one that satisfies this 3 components in a way that all comes together with one supporting the other. 

But on other hand, this just might not interest the public and the public are looking for a certain thing. 

Is it good what the majority likes? You should take consideration the two aspects?

Taste is a cultural phemonen. Every each era theres a preference over some aspects. 

Lets say now we like the 80s, but not all the 80s, mostly a less popular part of it, more sober and dark. 

Lets say, in the 18th century mozart was indeed kinda popular. But his magnum opus werent well received, when we listen to the boring junk that was popular you just dont get it. But paisiello was writting with the taste of the time. 

 

Beautifully explained!

I can find myself in Kafka write-ups. 'The Metamorphosis' can be interpreted in many ways, even though the absurdity wasn't appreciated by the people back in his time. 'Existentialism' had an epiphany through his works, so whenever I person dismisses him - I also can not be furious and create an intellectual division. Sometimes, its very hard to digest!

Just look at the Elizabethan period dramas. Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and Thomas Kyd's 'The Spanish Tragedy', two gems are unfortunately overshadowed by Shakespeare's works. I like Shakespeare, but Marlowe and Kyd fascinates me. 

My point is not to dismiss anyone's taste. Why we can't accept a person's opinion, and stop bully that person for a certain taste? 

[Killa 14,563]

3 minutes ago, Aarghya said:

Beautifully explained!

I can find myself in Kafka write-ups. 'The Metamorphosis' can be interpreted in many ways, even though the absurdity wasn't appreciated by the people back in his time. 'Existentialism' had an epiphany through he works, so whenever I person dismisses him - I also can not be furious and create an intellectual division. Sometimes, its very hard to digest!

Just look at the Elizabethan period dramas. Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus and Thomas Kyd's 'The Spanish Tragedy', two gems are unfortunately overshadowed by Shakespeare's works. I like Shakespeare, but Marlowe and Kyd fascinates me. 

My point is to not to dismiss anyone's taste. Why we can't accept a person's opinion, and stop bully that person for a certain taste? 

Tho i understand u, i think we can be objective. 

These are two different things youre tslking about. Cause many authors are overshadowed cause the impact was as great or theres simplification by historians that say its the shakespeare drama that influenced the next era, when the articles written by theorists over century after and the actual realuty arent so linear. But its a name that has weight until the romanticism.. 

But this is very different than evaluating/criticising stupid love, for ex. 

First, its a pop song by a pop songstress. Theres an expectation, pop music is supposed to be imediate. We expect a catchy song. Ofc some are catchy by just repeating others gets in your head because its a nice play of words or words that mean something to the audience and the wording and its rythm compliment the melody. 

Id say we could compare say so with stupid love for example. Tho two very different worlds and different purposes. 

The later is def more in the taste of this era, even tho its not the tyical sound of top 40. Has super simple lyrics but remain in your head. Has the tempo and right modulation that pleases the listener. 

It kinda renounces this idea that some pop producers may have created that chorus should be empty, substituted for instrumental drop etc

Hmm we are in a laying low kinda times. The chorus that do good have tendency to not be explosive anymore. Like only girl by rihanna. 

And sorry enough.. Too ling of post