there was an 'internet fight' at the bottom of it i was involved in :( hehe only a joke one though, haha i presume the thread was deleted as it had no musical relevance what so ever
They were said as if they were fact, but to be fair, if you want to make 'good taste' objective, then I'd beat many people on here hands-down.
I wouldn't claim superiority normally, but if taste is being spoken of in factual terms, my knowledge and love of the records that set up music as it is today, from the 40s up to the early 70s gives me a much better insight into music than Theo and Vikram's mate.
Being ultimately clued up on Sonic Youth's back-catalogue is all well and good, but my musical education is so much broader than yours and could be used to converse with so many more people than you.
Sure, there's my cheap fixes of Kasabian and The Vines here and there, but don't even compare our music tastes again. Few things would genuinely provoke such a response, but if you are actually under the impression your music tastes are objectively better than mine, you are sorely mistaken.
I just can't help but think that while something like Louis Armstrong's trumpet-intro to 'Summertime' would really get me going, despite the fact you're 33, things like 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' are the things you adore.
You can't blame me for feeling better about myself than you, when you suggest your taste is superior.
I believe my comment was somewhat facetious in any case.
I was thinking more of your rigid dislike of ATD-I and your belief that bands like The Vines, The Strokes or Oasis are like the saviours of rock and music or something. I'm not saying those bands are dreadful (I like a bunch of their songs), more that there are far better bands out there.
your taste seems to be established classics, a little unadventurous and a bit out of touch like the terrible jaggers who come on here convinced they are the saviours of music
they see mto have more interesting production as well as songs. There's a reason there are so many clsasics from that era, and that's because some damn fine music was made. the big W does seem to have a good appreciation for music...sometimes
However, conversely, if that term makes any sense; to ignore the incredible records of the last 20 years in one fell swoop as if they can be brushed off like ants compared to the giant monolyths of creativity set up in the drugsandlove era smacks of controversy for the sake of it. It's pretty bizarre to say "I listen to music that dates back before what you listen to, therefore it is better".
And as I've specified, the bizarre statement would only ever be used in response to the even more insane "my love of grunge and hardcore makes my tastes better than yours, because you love jazz/blues/r&b/beat/psychedelia".
I have a pretty bad knowledge of current bands so it's easy to feel the tide of public opinion flowing against me. In recent years, I've learned I can never claim my taste to be better than others though. As hard as it is to swallow and irritating too, there is just no way to say The Beatles are better than Crazy Frog, if somebody can't see it. I suppose the only logical way to decide on the best taste would be that which has given the most pleasure and insight to the most people for the longest period of time. So I suppose that's some sort of Islamic chanting, or classical music then.
that although this stuff is all well and good, you're just so relentlessly aggressive on here. This is one of the few times I've seen you on the back foot; most of the time you're the one laying into some band or other with claims of 'objective' shitness. You're very quick to accuse people of Emperor's-New-Clothes-ism (I just made that up) as I see it; I don't know if you think this is a reasonable comment or not.
I don't know, perhaps a little more thought and respect from both corners wouldn't go amiss?
In short, you're very quick to accuse people of only 'liking' music because it makes them look cool and obscure on here. And therefore implying that they don't -really- like that music; why they're just sheep following the pitchfork path.
Sorry, but I don't think ANYONE would use DiS as a vehicle to advertise their cool music taste.
My comments on other people's tastes are only ever responses to things like new users asking about the new Kasabian record getting shot down by people who think they are better than him, when the odds are mountained against the assailant.
I did go back and have a look at one of the Jay-Z article threads (as that's where I remembered it from) where people are arguing his merits, though, as I didn't want to be unfair or owt.
Your position throughout it is basically 'stop trying to look cool by defending this objectively awful music.'
I still think you have a very 'mojo top 100 albums of all time' taste in music, and some of the dubious newer stuff ou listen to throws your taste into doubt
Almost all the pre-70s blues/jazz/60s that Mojo covers are in my tastes.
I wouldn't shy away from that either. I'd say it has probably the closest relationship with my tastes with regard to any other centre of music journalism.
Believe me, I'd so much rather it be Mojo than Pitchfork.
the thing I was trying to get at was I dont understand taking such pride in your taste when it seems to be such 'established' taste, everyone knows the beatles (i'll suspend my true opinion on them for the sake of this discussion), the beach boys, louis armstrong etc. are great, it doesn't take much to agree and therefore even though they are great, citing them as signs of superior taste comes across mediocre and middle of the road.
im sure the bands that will be looked back upon in years to come as seminal will be the ones covered in pitchfork (not all of the obviously)
Dont let looking back make you miss the great stuff happening more recently
point is very valid, but I think we disagree on the reasons you should take pride in what you like.
You seem to be suggesting that its established that the mentioned artists are very good and so liking them is somehow less 'good' than liking stuff that the mainstream doesn't know / doesn't like / hasn't heard of.
I think the opposite. Someone who thinks their taste is superior because its less-well-known or well-loved, is wrong. History isn't cruel to music, its kind. The things that are praised and acknowledged by musicians and critics across the board are often there for a very good reason.
My love for older music goes into the laughably obscure. I'm currently hunting some 60s Italian film scores down. I don't talk about it on here because no-one else is into it (bar bobbygrindrod). But liking these scores is no less relevant than liking Sgt Pepper.
of labels like Voxx and Sympathy for the Record Industry - they and many others share the sounds and attitudes of much 60s beat/r&b/etc stuff. BUT they were releasing throughout the 80s and into the 90s! It's not so much a decade-based thing, now more than ever people (outside of mainstream chart-friendly music) decide what kind of sound and style they're after and can reproduce it very well.
what the fuck you're talking about, pal. your musical education is remarkably narrow. music did actually exist before the 1940s, and there are other countries with people, slightly more advanced, and dare i say it more humble, than your type, on them who make music too, some of it is not even boogie woogie 12bar shite. you would perhaps like it to be the case but the music of the world is not all rolling stones influenced stodge.
"I wouldn't claim superiority normally, but if taste is being spoken of in factual terms, my knowledge and love of the records that set up music as it is today, from the 40s up to the early 70s gives me a much better insight into music than Theo and Vikram's mate."
I think you dropped your handbag, darling.
Seriously, the world would be a better place if all wrightypoo threads were strangled at birth.
What? You caveat neearly every post with "The best taste on DiS"!
Taste is entirely subjective. I personally don't really care what anybody listens to. It makes for interesting discussions but ultimately I enjoy what I listen to, hence why I listen to it, and others enjoy what they listen to.
I find it a bit weird when people argue about music actually, as if something someone else says is going to affect my perception of what sounds good!
It had sent over sixteen good men to sleep.
Pah, I was enjoying it
More inane squabbling over internet avatars we don't know in real life, please
and one woman!
vvv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_hnylJ2scVU
ps.
wut?
wrightylew
doesn't even exist.
i know
there was an 'internet fight' at the bottom of it i was involved in :( hehe only a joke one though, haha i presume the thread was deleted as it had no musical relevance what so ever
tch!
Like a discussion of HAMFATTER has any musical relevance! LOL!!!1!!
haha is this
the dragons den band? i remeber flicking through the thread and that name is ringing bells in relation to that thread
It was made up of yawns
and the evaporated into infinty forevrrrrrr
One thing I will respond to from it
is the 'appalling music taste' comments.
They were said as if they were fact, but to be fair, if you want to make 'good taste' objective, then I'd beat many people on here hands-down.
I wouldn't claim superiority normally, but if taste is being spoken of in factual terms, my knowledge and love of the records that set up music as it is today, from the 40s up to the early 70s gives me a much better insight into music than Theo and Vikram's mate.
Being ultimately clued up on Sonic Youth's back-catalogue is all well and good, but my musical education is so much broader than yours and could be used to converse with so many more people than you.
Sure, there's my cheap fixes of Kasabian and The Vines here and there, but don't even compare our music tastes again. Few things would genuinely provoke such a response, but if you are actually under the impression your music tastes are objectively better than mine, you are sorely mistaken.
Everyone cheer up
I accused you of having bad taste in bands.
I stand by that. Of course taste is spoken of in factual terms: it's a subjective fact so how else can it be discussed?
Fair enough.
I just can't help but think that while something like Louis Armstrong's trumpet-intro to 'Summertime' would really get me going, despite the fact you're 33, things like 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' are the things you adore.
You can't blame me for feeling better about myself than you, when you suggest your taste is superior.
I'm not blaming you.
I believe my comment was somewhat facetious in any case.
I was thinking more of your rigid dislike of ATD-I and your belief that bands like The Vines, The Strokes or Oasis are like the saviours of rock and music or something. I'm not saying those bands are dreadful (I like a bunch of their songs), more that there are far better bands out there.
looking at your last fm
you seem to like your classics but not bands of equal importance and influence from the last couple of decades
I'm not interested in the 80s or the 90s.
Not one bit.
I also have vinyl and listen to millions of songs not on my computer/iPod.
thats a bit closed minded
your taste seems to be established classics, a little unadventurous and a bit out of touch like the terrible jaggers who come on here convinced they are the saviours of music
Its only close minded
because you're into it. If somebody said they aren't at all interested in 30s jazz, that'd be perfectly fine.
The sound of 80s and 90s records does nothing for me. I'm not saying they're bad. I just can't do with that reverb and echo.
The sound of the 60s does nothing for me
Seriously, I mean that...
That's fine.
Just don't blame me for lolling when you try to convince me your taste is better than mine.
PS. that's the collective / hypothetical 'you
..
i think everyone is being a bit unfair to wrightylew.
after all, he is not the only person on dis who likes his kind of music.
it's not to everyone's taste (especially not mine) but it makes people happy and it will probably change with age..
that's preposterous
How can one person's taste be better than another person's?
I love sixties and seventies records
they see mto have more interesting production as well as songs. There's a reason there are so many clsasics from that era, and that's because some damn fine music was made. the big W does seem to have a good appreciation for music...sometimes
However, conversely, if that term makes any sense; to ignore the incredible records of the last 20 years in one fell swoop as if they can be brushed off like ants compared to the giant monolyths of creativity set up in the drugsandlove era smacks of controversy for the sake of it. It's pretty bizarre to say "I listen to music that dates back before what you listen to, therefore it is better".
I agree almost entirely.
And as I've specified, the bizarre statement would only ever be used in response to the even more insane "my love of grunge and hardcore makes my tastes better than yours, because you love jazz/blues/r&b/beat/psychedelia".
You feel?
I feel like a natural woman
I have a pretty bad knowledge of current bands so it's easy to feel the tide of public opinion flowing against me. In recent years, I've learned I can never claim my taste to be better than others though. As hard as it is to swallow and irritating too, there is just no way to say The Beatles are better than Crazy Frog, if somebody can't see it. I suppose the only logical way to decide on the best taste would be that which has given the most pleasure and insight to the most people for the longest period of time. So I suppose that's some sort of Islamic chanting, or classical music then.
The only thing is
that although this stuff is all well and good, you're just so relentlessly aggressive on here. This is one of the few times I've seen you on the back foot; most of the time you're the one laying into some band or other with claims of 'objective' shitness. You're very quick to accuse people of Emperor's-New-Clothes-ism (I just made that up) as I see it; I don't know if you think this is a reasonable comment or not.
I don't know, perhaps a little more thought and respect from both corners wouldn't go amiss?
Only in special cases,
tending to be about metal.
I don't understand the Emperorblabla thing though.
Metal, hip hop, noise, ambient..
In short, you're very quick to accuse people of only 'liking' music because it makes them look cool and obscure on here. And therefore implying that they don't -really- like that music; why they're just sheep following the pitchfork path.
This is what gets people's backs up, I think.
Bullshit.
Sorry, but I don't think ANYONE would use DiS as a vehicle to advertise their cool music taste.
My comments on other people's tastes are only ever responses to things like new users asking about the new Kasabian record getting shot down by people who think they are better than him, when the odds are mountained against the assailant.
Okay
I did go back and have a look at one of the Jay-Z article threads (as that's where I remembered it from) where people are arguing his merits, though, as I didn't want to be unfair or owt.
Your position throughout it is basically 'stop trying to look cool by defending this objectively awful music.'
thats cool
I still think you have a very 'mojo top 100 albums of all time' taste in music, and some of the dubious newer stuff ou listen to throws your taste into doubt
You're probably right, too to be honest.
Almost all the pre-70s blues/jazz/60s that Mojo covers are in my tastes.
I wouldn't shy away from that either. I'd say it has probably the closest relationship with my tastes with regard to any other centre of music journalism.
Believe me, I'd so much rather it be Mojo than Pitchfork.
mojo is a pretty good magazine
the thing I was trying to get at was I dont understand taking such pride in your taste when it seems to be such 'established' taste, everyone knows the beatles (i'll suspend my true opinion on them for the sake of this discussion), the beach boys, louis armstrong etc. are great, it doesn't take much to agree and therefore even though they are great, citing them as signs of superior taste comes across mediocre and middle of the road.
im sure the bands that will be looked back upon in years to come as seminal will be the ones covered in pitchfork (not all of the obviously)
Dont let looking back make you miss the great stuff happening more recently
Your
point is very valid, but I think we disagree on the reasons you should take pride in what you like.
You seem to be suggesting that its established that the mentioned artists are very good and so liking them is somehow less 'good' than liking stuff that the mainstream doesn't know / doesn't like / hasn't heard of.
I think the opposite. Someone who thinks their taste is superior because its less-well-known or well-loved, is wrong. History isn't cruel to music, its kind. The things that are praised and acknowledged by musicians and critics across the board are often there for a very good reason.
My love for older music goes into the laughably obscure. I'm currently hunting some 60s Italian film scores down. I don't talk about it on here because no-one else is into it (bar bobbygrindrod). But liking these scores is no less relevant than liking Sgt Pepper.
You should investigate the ouput
of labels like Voxx and Sympathy for the Record Industry - they and many others share the sounds and attitudes of much 60s beat/r&b/etc stuff. BUT they were releasing throughout the 80s and into the 90s! It's not so much a decade-based thing, now more than ever people (outside of mainstream chart-friendly music) decide what kind of sound and style they're after and can reproduce it very well.
willdo!
...
i always fancy that the distinctive sound of most 60's music is based on reverb and 'echo'
pet sounds anyone?
you don't know
what the fuck you're talking about, pal. your musical education is remarkably narrow. music did actually exist before the 1940s, and there are other countries with people, slightly more advanced, and dare i say it more humble, than your type, on them who make music too, some of it is not even boogie woogie 12bar shite. you would perhaps like it to be the case but the music of the world is not all rolling stones influenced stodge.
he never claimed that music DIDN'T exist
before the 1940s you massive momo
Please, just, stop.
But,
I mean, just looking at your profile. Come on.
I can't even think of the words.
:)
Speechless? I do that a lot
wrightylew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLC73DB7jE8&feature=related
Oooh, get her
"I wouldn't claim superiority normally, but if taste is being spoken of in factual terms, my knowledge and love of the records that set up music as it is today, from the 40s up to the early 70s gives me a much better insight into music than Theo and Vikram's mate."
I think you dropped your handbag, darling.
Seriously, the world would be a better place if all wrightypoo threads were strangled at birth.
'I wouldn't claim superiority normally'
What? You caveat neearly every post with "The best taste on DiS"!
Taste is entirely subjective. I personally don't really care what anybody listens to. It makes for interesting discussions but ultimately I enjoy what I listen to, hence why I listen to it, and others enjoy what they listen to.
I find it a bit weird when people argue about music actually, as if something someone else says is going to affect my perception of what sounds good!
Its different/
Its part of my act.
The act of a git
Now THATS an act i wanna see
cool
I'm glad I was part of this. I'm a small player here. Well, even that's pushing it.
your eyesight must be shocking.
pardon
I'm not sure what you mean.
v
http://tinyurl.com/554j27
ah
Yes, I wear glasses. Well done for pointing that out, I'd never realised before.
I
wear glasses for college.
The difference is, they don't magnify my eyes by about 10 million times.
can
we see a photo of you, you handsome fucker?
sure!
http://a172.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/100/l_4cf5189967b6a7d9708b8173e77b06c3.jpg
Make sure your fuck-off telescopes don't cause a heart-attack after witnessing my infinite beauty, batty crease.
Erotic
Babypic:
http://paulmakes.itgo.com/where/india/portrait/images/cochin_ugly_baby.jpg
beautiful
witty, charming AND you've got a great taste in music. I love you.
That's one epic belly.