I've had enough of the elitism (Rant)

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I hope this doesn't cross some sort of line, the rules are rather ambiguous.

There's a very popular genre of music talked about frequently in communities such as this one that deal with pop culture (in the sense of gaming, sci fi, fantasy, tabletop, etc.) I'm not going to name it because I don't want to get the issue muddied and have people assume I just don't like that style of music, nor do I want anyone here to feel attacked (especially given that this behaviour hasn't happened to me on this board yet.) Suffice it to say that, with some exceptions, the fans of this genre have been frequently, deeply, unutterably unpleasant.

I understand why. I know what motivates this fanatical zero-sum devotion to certain things and I would be lying if I said that I didn't feel like that about a lot of the things I like. But we are adults, after all, and the difference between a healthy level of fanaticism and childishness is how we express that devotion and to whom. But a large proponent of this genre's fans feel that the way they prop up the style of music that they like is by tearing others down. I hear it without end about how pop music or dance music or hip hop music isn't "real" or "legitimate" and that these people are persecuted outsiders for deigning to like a genre with "musical merits". As a fan of pop, dance and hip hop I'm just going to say that I'm utterly, utterly sick of it. I can safely say I've never seen pop fans or hip hop fans go out of their way to delegitimise and undermine this, or any other, style of music.

Nor have I seen them so rabidly attempt to "convert" others. The number of times I have had fans of this genre attempt to "educate" me has become incredibly wearying. I can certainly support someone's attempts to share their passion with other people. I quite like it, in fact. But when it turns nasty and aggressive after it doesn't work I have to draw the line. Especially do not make insinuations about other people's taste level or musical education (not that that matters) when they don't enjoy what you enjoy. It's certainly disappointing when people dislike or are indifferent to something you like, but why do so many of these people handle it so poorly? Rather ironic that they can't take criticism when they are so willing to give it out.

What's happened now is that I actually now pointedly want nothing to do with this music, rather ironically. Why should I when so many of its fans cannot explain its merits to me without being poisonous or vindictive? There have been scant rare examples of this genre being explained to me politely and respectfully and those people do this style of music a great, and much needed, credit. But I find them to be a disappointing minority in favour of people who attempt to sell it to me by shaming me and guilting me, by denigrating my taste level and making assumptions about some "objective" level of quality inherent to certain styles and not others.

I do feel there's a place for an open and respectful dialogue on the merits of certain styles of music. I like a good discussion as much as anybody. But this is too much. I have reached my breaking point. As a fan of tabletop games and high fantasy I have had my fill of people who share these hobbies with me insulting, degrading and undermining the music I choose to listen to. The people who are content to enjoy this music and express that in helpful, constructive ways are obviously exempt from this criticism. But I really do feel you shouldn't tolerate this behaviour as it just reflects poorly on you and on something you love.

Rant over. I love y'all. Kisses and hugs.

[DomaDoma]

A disturbing number of people between the age of twelve and thirty have their musical preference confused with the very fiber of their identity. What distinguishes the fans of this subgenre from the top-40 fans they denigrate is simply that they've consciously sussed out options, and this gives them a mystery-cult feeling of conscious enlightenment, rising above the dronelike hordes. If it touches on the question of "who am I, fundamentally" AND makes you feel deeply superior, with no inherent checks on such egotism, it tends to be a toxic blend.

For anyone who does have this issue, regardless of the actual musical genre they like: don't just consume there. Do something - and not for the sake of a paycheck. Do it for the love of it, or that failing, the heck of it. Oh, and do it offline: virtually anything done on the Internet strikes your brain the same way consumption does. It'll tether your identity to something of real meaning.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

What distinguishes the fans of this subgenre from the top-40 fans they denigrate is simply that they've consciously sussed out options

Perhaps this is a pedantic point to make, and I do agree with everything else you've said, but I don't think that's true of all of them. I listen to top 40 quite a bit and enjoy it, but I'm also quite the music nerd and have explored fairly extensively. I'm part of several distinct online communities of people who are just the same.

It's probably a fair stereotype to make, but you know... just wanted to point it out.

[DomaDoma]

Top 40 isn't my bag - I was raised on cassettes of sea chanties and songs of the American Revolution and I've not gotten much less weird since - but I have seen enough nerdy critics of pop music to say with confidence that you can, in fact, be a music nerd and a top-40 fan at the same time. No worries.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Top 40 isn't my bag - I was raised on cassettes of sea chanties and songs of the American Revolution and I've not gotten much less weird since - but I have seen enough nerdy critics of pop music to say with confidence that you can, in fact, be a music nerd and a top-40 fan at the same time. No worries.

I mean, it was an offtopic statement but I just needed to make it clear.

The movement is called "poptimism" just for anyone reading this.

[The Glyphstone]

Having recently seen Deadpool, I'm assuming the genre in question that spawned this thread is dubstep. Probably not, but it amuses me.:smallcool:

[JoshL]

Elitism is silly. I don't know why people feel the need to decide their thing is "the best" and all others are inferior. And even more so, getting snobby about what parts of their thing counts as "real". It's not isolated to a single genre. I've heard people arguing about what is or isn't real country, metal, folk, goth, punk, hip-hop, ANY electronic subgenre, etc. As if they could somehow be the sole arbiter of what counts for a genre.

Personally, I like a little bit of everything. I believe there is no style or genre that is inherently bad (except crunkcore) and even that bands I hate probably have a couple songs that I'd like if I dug through their catalogue (except the Spin Doctors). It's just a matter of if I have the time/desire to dig through the music to gain an appreciation (and those exceptions, of course, are not really exceptions. I'm sure I'd like some Spin Doctors songs...but not as much as I like NOT liking the Spin Doctors!)

And a further, and related rant, it gets my goat when people confuse quality with taste. As it happens, I know a lot about music theory, structures and performance, probably more than most. I have an informed opinion about whether a piece of music is well composed or performed, but that does not, nor should it mean I'm going to like it. I dislike a lot of music that I think is really good. I also like a lot of music that I think is pretty bad. And I'd also rather spend time thinking about the things I like rather than the things I don't. I hate it when people feel ashamed or guilty about liking a thing, when there is nothing better in this world than liking something! If you want to follow listening to Barber's Adaggio for Strings with Scatman John's "Scatman's World", then you should! And don't let anyone make you feel bad about doing so!

All that said, I do have some unfortunate habits that are really me being a clueless nerd, but come across as an elitist sometimes. I will babble on about bands no one has heard of, but assume they have because I feel like I'm the last one to hear about something. Someone will talk about a band, and I'll start asking about other bands that are related in my head, and that sometime comes across like I don't care about the band they like, I just want to tell them what else to listen to. Absolutely not what I mean, and I'm trying to not do these things so much. And when I'm talking about concerts, I'm never trying to "one up" someone, just excited and wish I could have shared those experiences. I'm only ever bragging about shows I play. :smallwink:

Anyway, tl;dr, music is the best and liking music is even better. Anyone who tells you what to like or not to like can, and should be ignored.

[The Extinguisher]

This thread is the best, thank you.

I think youre pretty spot on here, with the caveat that this is everywhere. Music is such an integral part of the human experience, so it makes sense people will have strong opinions about it. Its definitely a stronger phenomenon in communities like this, because gaming/nerd culture in general is a culture of elitism so it compounds on that, but its by no means the worst. The punk community is terrible for this, rallying hard against the smallest indication of "selling out"

Not to mention that so much of musical preference is tied up in class and race and gender issues that it can get real bad real quick when people dismiss whole genres out of hand in favour of their own. Looking at you, "everything but rap and country" folks

[Elanasaurus]

A disturbing number of people between the age of twelve and thirty have their musical preference confused with the very fiber of their identity. And nothing's wrong with that, right? Many people who devoted their lives to a musical genre went on to create some rather good stuff.
:elan:

[DomaDoma]

I'm talking strictly about identity as a fan of some type of music. Being a music fan isn't quite as bad as being a major-league sports fan as far as likelihood of emulation goes, but it's up there. And "I listen to alt-rock" is much, much more likely to be thought of as an answer to the question "who am I" than "I root for the Packers."

(...Though apparently soccer is different. I don't believe any strain of music fanaticism to be capable of starting a war in Central America. Juggalos included.)

[An Enemy Spy]

And nothing's wrong with that, right? Many people who devoted their lives to a musical genre went on to create some rather good stuff.
:elan:

There's nothing wrong with being devoted to something, the problem comes with using that to hold yourself above other people who don't share your interests and viewing people who enjoy similar but different things as The Enemy. The dynamic with sports is a little different to music because competition is hardwired into the product. If I want the Seahawks to win the Super Bowl, then that means I simultaneously want thirty one other teams to fail. Their defeat is my victory. However, it's also a symbiotic relationship. I may want the Seahawks to beat the other teams, but if the other teams didn't exist than my team would have no reason to either because it can't exist in a vacuum. Without the competition the whole thing ceases to be. Whereas with other media like music I can like a whole multitude of groups without any conflicts of interest because they exist by themselves. There is no reason to view another band as your opponent other than to feel like you've made the better choice in music. And that's where snobbery comes in.

That said just because team sports are inherently competitive doesn't mean you should be a jerk to people just because they like players of the same game to wear different colors than your guys do. You can have friendly rivalry without treating other human beings like trash. I've seen a lot talk from Geek Culture about how people that aren't into this stuff are dumber than us or lack imagination because they prefer stories set in the real world or can't appreciate complex themes and it really upsets me. If you use your interests as a way to belittle other people then you're just a bully. Snobbery is bullying.

[Elanasaurus]

There's nothing wrong with being devoted to something, the problem comes with using that to hold yourself above other people who don't share your interests and viewing people who enjoy similar but different things as The Enemy.Oh. Gotcha.

I'm talking strictly about identity as a fan of some type of music. Being a music fan isn't quite as bad as being a major-league sports fan as far as likelihood of emulation goes, but it's up there. And "I listen to alt-rock" is much, much more likely to be thought of as an answer to the question "who am I" than "I root for the Packers."Oh now I get it. Guess I should've read the next sentence in your post before replying.
:elan:

[dps]

The movement is called "poptimism" just for anyone reading this.

Never had heard of it before; had to look it up. From the Wikipedia article, it seems to be mostly a music critic thing, which doesn't surprise me--I'd be hard pressed to come up with any other group of people who are as arrogant and self-important while still being as totally irrelevant to anyone else as music critics.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Never had heard of it before; had to look it up. From the Wikipedia article, it seems to be mostly a music critic thing, which doesn't surprise me--I'd be hard pressed to come up with any other group of people who are as arrogant and self-important while still being as totally irrelevant to anyone else as music critics.

So I'm arrogant and self-important?

Good to know.

[GloatingSwine]

It's important to remember there are only actually three genres of music.

Music you like
Music you don't like
and Music you haven't heard yet.

Any other set of distinctions you might try and draw are simply born from an irrelevant drive to categorise which becomes so granular and specific it utterly fails to inform.

[PersonMan]

Any other set of distinctions you might try and draw are simply born from an irrelevant drive to categorise which becomes so granular and specific it utterly fails to inform.

I disagree. Having ways to categorize things is good, even if it can lead to silly distinctions when it goes too far. Sure, the differences between some small subgenres of music can seem basically irrelevant, but having them is still a good thing for the people to whom they are relevant.

And at the very least, being able to respond to "I like this band, are there others who make music like theirs?" with "This is the name of the genre of music they make, this is the name of the subgenre, that should get plenty of results" rather than "I dunno, I think this other band is similar?" is a step up, in my opinion.

[GloatingSwine]

I disagree. Having ways to categorize things is good, even if it can lead to silly distinctions when it goes too far. Sure, the differences between some small subgenres of music can seem basically irrelevant, but having them is still a good thing for the people to whom they are relevant.

And at the very least, being able to respond to "I like this band, are there others who make music like theirs?" with "This is the name of the genre of music they make, this is the name of the subgenre, that should get plenty of results" rather than "I dunno, I think this other band is similar?" is a step up, in my opinion.

That presumes that bands stay within a definable genre for their entire career.

Which is actually rarer than you think.

Musical genres are constantly in conversation and influencing each other, and are largely all derived from the same roots anyway.

It's not really a useful way to categorise music.

[Elanasaurus]

It's not really a useful way to categorise music.Better than nothing.
:elan:

[dps]

So I'm arrogant and self-important?

Good to know.

Are you a group of people?

[AuthorGirl]

*reads the title and tag*

This is gonna be about metalheads.

*reads the first paragraph*

Oh, this is definitely about metalheads.

*continues reading*

Yup, metalheads.

I love the sound of symphonic metal, but its fans can be toxic in a way I haven't seen anywhere else . . . and you just described that toxicity very well.

[MikelaC1]

This doesnt just apply to music. It exists in movies, in literature, in sports, in politics...even in vacationing. Just a function of the way the human brain works.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Are you a group of people?

I agree with that group of people.

[DomaDoma]

I could not tell you one metal subgenre from the next, or, for that matter, from certain genres of rock. But, no, insofar as I'm actually interested in songs, categorization is great. But it does tend to be drawn along musical rather than lyrical lines. "Narrative songs", as a category that includes "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves", "The Mariner's Revenge" AND "The Buckskin Bag of Gold"... that doesn't really appear to exist, and that's a pity.

[PersonMan]

That presumes that bands stay within a definable genre for their entire career.

I don't think that's necessary, but if it is an issue, referring to the genre of individual songs or albums seems like a solution.


It's not really a useful way to categorise music.

In addition to the "better than nothing" aspect - I'd stay it's definitely useful. Yes, genres aren't set in stone, perfectly clear, and when you "zoom in" enough you'll find it breaks down into a mess of subgenres and individual pieces of music...but it's still incredibly practical to be able to say "Oh, you like Song X? Genre Y is where you will most likely find songs similar to it that you will also enjoy".

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I feel like we're getting away from the topic with this bit about the finer points of genre categorisation.

Since the entire premise of this thread implicates people who self-identify as a fan of a particular genre, whether or not the genre actually exists is an immaterial point. To these people it does, they are card-carrying fans of it. They are enthusiasts for this particular, broad umbrella term. That's how they describe themselves. That perception motivates their behaviour, regardless of how rooted said perception is in "the truth".

[Feytalist]

I'd say there is a certain amount of truth in that kind of perception, whether we like it or not. I mean, I'd call myself a metalhead - in the proper circumstances anyway. Music is a large part of my life, and it would be foolish to think it doesn't influence my own perceptions or those of others.

So if you like a certain type of music or media, enough so to go to gigs or festivals or meetups or whatever, and your particular genre isn't deemed mainstream (whatever that might be at the current point), it can very often breed a type of exclusionism. And that can lead to resentment from both sides. And as so often happens, it can push people into this type of very outspoken fanaticism - "fan" is short for fanatic, after all. 'Course, the vast majority of fans will just quietly go on with their lives without raising a fuss... it's very much a vocal minority type of situation.

OP specifically mentions being a fan of pop music. It would be odd to see such a vocal defense of that, because... what would be the point, really? It's ubiquitous already. It's broadcast from our radios, movies, adverts, shopping centres... It's mainstream in the biggest way.

I mean, you see this kind of behaviour everywhere. The stereotypical sports fan, for instance, is the one in his team colours, be-face painted, screaming in your face. That's not to say that every fan of sports is like that, or even the majority. It's just the most visible. To take offence at the entire sport because of those kinds of people seems... juvenile? But it is a gut reaction, I suppose.

[snowblizz]

So if you like a certain type of music or media, enough so to go to gigs or festivals or meetups or whatever, and your particular genre isn't deemed mainstream (whatever that might be at the current point), it can very often breed a type of exclusionism.

OP specifically mentions being a fan of pop music. It would be odd to see such a vocal defense of that, because... what would be the point, really? It's ubiquitous already. It's broadcast from our radios, movies, adverts, shopping centres... It's mainstream in the biggest way.

Exactly. And anyone who expresses appreciation of the "mainstream" is sort of indirectly saying "I don't approve of your specific interest" eliciting a gutreaction.

Whether it is deserved or not.

[Knaight]

That presumes that bands stay within a definable genre for their entire career.

Which is actually rarer than you think.

Musical genres are constantly in conversation and influencing each other, and are largely all derived from the same roots anyway.

It's not really a useful way to categorise music.

It's not a perfect system, but some blurriness at the edges doesn't mean the whole system should be thrown out. As for music having the same roots, the whole idea of developing a taxonomy for a system defined by divergence from a common root is pretty well established as useful. See: taxonomy, as applied to species - a category that also has all sorts of blurriness.


Exactly. And anyone who expresses appreciation of the "mainstream" is sort of indirectly saying "I don't approve of your specific interest" eliciting a gutreaction.
Expressing appreciation of the mainstream hardly indirectly says that they don't approve of the specific interest - as is established by several people in this thread who like both.

Beyond that, several of the specific points of hostility aren't directed at the "mainstream". Hostility from metal fans to rap and hip hop fans predates rap and hip hop getting anywhere near the mainstream, and even now metal is hardly less mainstream.

Plus, for all metal has been inferred as the genre being discussed here (quite quickly at that) it's not like most of the same things couldn't be said for rock, which enjoyed decades of undisputed dominance and had a fanbase overtly hostile to any other genre that attained any small measure of success (e.g. disco).

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

OP specifically mentions being a fan of pop music. It would be odd to see such a vocal defense of that, because... what would be the point, really? It's ubiquitous already. It's broadcast from our radios, movies, adverts, shopping centres... It's mainstream in the biggest way.

People in the very communities I discussed make it a point of pride to be anti-mainstream and will proudly boast of their distaste for pop, sports, mainstream media, reality TV. Any perceived other that the "plebs" enjoy.

I make it a point of pride because it's something I'm proud of and because I refuse to be bullied or silenced simply because a small group of people arbitrarily decided that popularity was in inverse proportion to quality. I enjoy pop music and would like to discuss it if the opportunity arises. It's the same courtesy I extend to fans of classical, jazz, metal, crunk. Anything.

Fans of lesser known genres don't have more of a "right" to self-identify as fans of pop.


Exactly. And anyone who expresses appreciation of the "mainstream" is sort of indirectly saying "I don't approve of your specific interest"

No, they're not. They're expressing appreciation of the mainstream for the same reason people express appreciation for anything. That leap in logic is contrived by the listener.

In both your cases, I'm not entirely sure why my expression of being a pop fan is so controversial. This is rather a microscopic version of what I was talking about in the original post. I've now been put into a position where I have to defend my right to express an appreciation for something. That's not right, guys. Come on.

[thompur]

Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk
It's still rock and roll to me. :smallsmile:

[Beleriphon]

All y'all are wrong anyways. Good music died with Julius Caesar. :smallwink:

[DomaDoma]

All the surviving Roman music I've heard is either ambient-music-to-eat-by or the music that was presumably played for triumphal parades, and the latter is about as grating on the ears as medieval Chinese court music. So, while not being oblivious to that winky face, got to say that the earliest really good music I've heard comes from medieval Europe.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

All the surviving Roman music I've heard is either ambient-music-to-eat-by or the music that was presumably played for triumphal parades, and the latter is about as grating on the ears as medieval Chinese court music. So, while not being oblivious to that winky face, got to say that the earliest really good music I've heard comes from medieval Europe.

With the exception of Christian liturgical music or ars nova, I just can't relate to the music of pre-industrial societies. My experiences are just far too different from theirs to grasp it as it was intended.

[snowblizz]

No, they're not. They're expressing appreciation of the mainstream for the same reason people express appreciation for anything. That leap in logic is contrived by the listener.
You aren't interested in hearing why such a reaction may exist? You just want everyone to agree that you are right and everyone else is at fault? Tough luck.

The ironic part is your reaction is exactly the same one the people you are complaining at are having for exactly the same reasons.


Expressing appreciation of the mainstream hardly indirectly says that they don't approve of the specific interest - as is established by several people in this thread who like both.

Both of you make the same fundamental error of communication. You can't control the reaction of the receiver, what they hear is based on reality as they perceive it. It's terribly unfair but that's how it is (and text online is about the worst there is at conveying meaning). That doesn't automatically mean they are wrong for not hearing what you are saying either. It's meaningless to say "they can't possibly be understand me like that" because yea they can, and from their pov it will be the only appropriate way.

I'm clearing not very good at communicating this.

Yes, am reading a book on communication, it's a bit pop-psycologish, but it has some god points. And I'm only a couple chapters in so far.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

You aren't interested in hearing why such a reaction may exist? You just want everyone to agree that you are right and everyone else is at fault? Tough luck.

Conversations don't end when you decide it. If you make a statement, said statement might be contradicted or contextualised or responded to in any number of ways. I'd be more willing to elaborate on that but you're being very rude and that doesn't incentivise me to engage with you.

[The Fury]

*reads the title and tag*

This is gonna be about metalheads.

*reads the first paragraph*

Oh, this is definitely about metalheads.

*continues reading*

Yup, metalheads.

I love the sound of symphonic metal, but its fans can be toxic in a way I haven't seen anywhere else . . . and you just described that toxicity very well.

I don't know, I've been lectured on my musical tastes by both Industrial fans and Metal fans. But yeah, Metal seems like the more likely of the two. Which is a bummer to admit because that's the one I actually like. At least I still occasionally meet Metalheads that have an actual sense of humor. They're all right.

The point of contention in most of the lectures I've gotten seems to be Metal's use of more technically proficient musicianship versus Punk Rock's more simplistic three chords and Hip-Hop's reliance on catchy beats. The substance of the arguement seems to be simple=bad. Needless to say, I was not convinced.

Maybe I just hate having one type of thing described as "superior" or "inferior" just because it's different. So hey, if you get more enjoyment out of your Top 40 Pop music than you do The White Album, Ride the Lightning, or whatever else, it's your boat, you float it.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Maybe I just hate having one type of thing described as "superior" or "inferior" just because it's different. So hey, if you get more enjoyment out of your Top 40 Pop music than you do The White Album, Ride the Lightning, or whatever else, it's your boat, you float it.

Both The White Album and Ride the Lightning charted in the top 40. The White Album at number one.

[The Fury]

Both The White Album and Ride the Lightning charted in the top 40. The White Album at number one.

Yeah, they were just the first generally accepted "good" albums that aren't modern chart-topping Pop music that I could think of. It's possible that I didn't understand what folks meant by "Top 40," if that's the case, my bad.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Yeah, they were just the first generally accepted "good" albums that aren't modern chart-topping Pop music that I could think of. It's possible that I didn't understand what folks meant by "Top 40," if that's the case, my bad.

Ride the Lighting I'll let you off the hook for. It's thrash metal and, popular or not, there's very little ambiguity on that front.

But I definitely think The Beatles self-titled album falls into the terrain of "top 40 pop music". It is both top 40 and pop music, after all.

[The Fury]

Ride the Lighting I'll let you off the hook for. It's thrash metal and, popular or not, there's very little ambiguity on that front.

But I definitely think The Beatles self-titled album falls into the terrain of "top 40 pop music". It is both top 40 and pop music, after all.

I'll give you that. For some reason I thought Top 40 referred to 40 most popular songs released in the current year. Which in hindsight does sound like a pretty silly thing to conclude.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I'll give you that. For some reason I thought Top 40 referred to 40 most popular songs released in the current year. Which in hindsight does sound like a pretty silly thing to conclude.

Ride the Lightning becomes pop quite easily (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNUWKpRmHJU), it should be noted.

[The Extinguisher]

I'll give you that. For some reason I thought Top 40 referred to 40 most popular songs released in the current year. Which in hindsight does sound like a pretty silly thing to conclude.

There is a significant portion of the music discourse that this is true for. The kind of people use Top 40 like an epithet tend to use it that way. The White Album is a great example. Despite being the ur-example of pop culture phenomenon, The Beatles are often used a 'superior' option to 'Top 40' music. The idea that what was popular in the past is Good but what's popular now is Bad is pretty common.

Cant wait for hipsters in 2040 talking about how good No Strings Attached is

[ben-zayb]

Conversations don't end when you decide it. If you make a statement, said statement might be contradicted or contextualised or responded to in any number of ways. I'd be more willing to elaborate on that but you're being very rude and that doesn't incentivise me to engage with you.

Not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, but I think what Snowblizz is saying points to what some people feel/think of mainstream.

I don't think Snowblizz is trying to start a discourse or argue on behalf of those people about whether they are right to feel/think of mainstream that way, but instead just merely telling you the fact that such a perception of mainstream is the reality for some people

[Knaight]

Both of you make the same fundamental error of communication. You can't control the reaction of the receiver, what they hear is based on reality as they perceive it. It's terribly unfair but that's how it is (and text online is about the worst there is at conveying meaning). That doesn't automatically mean they are wrong for not hearing what you are saying either. It's meaningless to say "they can't possibly be understand me like that" because yea they can, and from their pov it will be the only appropriate way.

I'm clearing not very good at communicating this.

I'm not saying that the receiver doesn't hear that message, as based on reality as they perceive it. I'm saying that they hear that message and perceive that reality because they haven't taken the time to make some basic observations, think about how those observations tie into their hypothesis, realize that there's a clear contradiction, and fix their understanding.

They can understand that statement like that all they want, but there's a point past which it's just willful ignorance, and that's on the listener.

[DomaDoma]

Despite being the ur-example of pop culture phenomenon, The Beatles are often used a 'superior' option to 'Top 40' music. The idea that what was popular in the past is Good but what's popular now is Bad is pretty common.

I like them better, but that might have to do with my established partiality to acoustic. "When I'm 64" might be a sweet song on a topic that today's monomaniacally youthful pop music won't touch; "Nowhere Man" is a philosophical piece few artists of today can match; but "why don't we do it in the road" is about exactly on par with pick-your-disquieting-sex-anthem of today, and safe to say that they were way more into hallucinogens than any current artist - Snoop Dogg included, when you account for the strength of the hallucinogen.

Now, Paul Simon with or without Garfunkel - that is a level of lyrical quality we are just not hitting in popular music this decade. Or anyway, not according to my embarrassingly gap-ridden knowledge of popular music. I would be delighted to meet their successor if one is available.

[snowblizz]

Not sure if I'm understanding it correctly, but I think what Snowblizz is saying points to what some people feel/think of mainstream.

I don't think Snowblizz is trying to start a discourse or argue on behalf of those people about whether they are right to feel/think of mainstream that way, but instead just merely telling you the fact that such a perception of mainstream is the reality for some people
You are absolutely correct, that's what I was saying. +1 for me for at least getting someone to undersand :smallbiggrin:


I'm not saying that the receiver doesn't hear that message, as based on reality as they perceive it. I'm saying that they hear that message and perceive that reality because they haven't taken the time to make some basic observations, think about how those observations tie into their hypothesis, realize that there's a clear contradiction, and fix their understanding.

They can understand that statement like that all they want, but there's a point past which it's just willful ignorance, and that's on the listener.
You are correct, at some point we get to where there's not going to be any understanding whatsoever. But let's not start at that point at least.

You said they can't possibly see something that way. I contend that they very well can. What they are and what the "right" and "wrong" is I can't enter into. Partly because the OP is so vague this could be about anything as far as I'm concerned. Apparently everyone has decided it's about music.

If you go into a country&western bar in Texas and say "I like rap" that's not a general statement without further meaning. It will be seen as a statement against everyone in there listening to country and western (ie both kinds of music). Context will matter, here we are largerly discussing without any near as I can tell.

Or if you go to a Star Trek convention and loudly declare how you are really a fan of Star Wars. (Because every thread needs to develove into Star Wars around here apparently)

[2D8HP]

...Cant wait for hipsters in 2040 talking about how good No Strings Attached is


Oh just let hipsters have their elitism, what else do they have?


...Or if you go to a Star Trek convention and loudly declare how you are really a fan of Star Wars. (Because every thread needs to devolve into Star Wars around here apparently)


'cept the George Lucas thread, which devolved into a Tolkien thread.

[JoshL]

Partly because the OP is so vague this could be about anything as far as I'm concerned. Apparently everyone has decided it's about music.

The OP says it is about music; read it again, it's not vague at all.

To use your covention metaphor, it's like being at a Star Trek convention, because you like Star Trek. Someone asks you what else you like, and you say Star Wars, because you like that too. The person then berates you for liking Star Wars. That's the sort of elitism we're talking about here. It's not the same as unsolicitedly declaring your love of rap in the country bar, just to be confrontational (exempting, for the moment, hick-hop/country rap stuff, because of course it exists, and some of it is not bad).

If you do that, you are right, it's on you. But if you are talking about your mutual love of country, and they ask you what else you like, that's on them. As is any "that's not REAL country" bs.

[truemane]

The OP is/was talking about music, but this phenomenon is seemingly nearly universal in the human experience. We're tribal creatures and many of us mix up our choices in things we like with who we are as people. And many of us mistake our opinions for facts and judge other people accordingly.

It's as true for music as it is for cinema, fiction, sports, alternative sexual communities, religion, politics, and just about anywhere else where someone can make a decision that feels very important to them.

You can get the same reaction by popping into a room full of movie nerds and saying that Battleship Potemkin is a better film than Citizen Kane, or that Chaplin is a better silent clown that Keaton, or that Mizoguchi is a better director than Kurosawa.

Or going to a BDSM party and complimenting 50 Shades of Gray. Or going to a book club and opining that Margaret Atwood is too shrill to be an effective storyteller. Or into a sports bar and saying rugby is The Smart Man's Soccer.

Or, I mean really, you could anywhere on the internet and just randomly state that using 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' is a perfectly valid example of the evolution of language, and the thread would only end when moderators burned it to the ground.

And it's not so much that any of these opinions are right or wrong, it's that people see their stances as somehow proof that they are better people. Part of a given tribe that's better/smarter/more refined/more real/whatever than other tribes. And so attacking their opinions means attacking them.

Under experimental conditions, In-Group/Out-Group biases start showing up almost instantaneously even with randomly assigned groups. I'm not a big believer in Human Nature, and I'm knee-jerk skeptical about Evolutionary Psychology, but this phenomenon does seem buried pretty deeply in the way we move through the world.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

The OP says it is about music; read it again, it's not vague at all.

To use your covention metaphor, it's like being at a Star Trek convention, because you like Star Trek. Someone asks you what else you like, and you say Star Wars, because you like that too. The person then berates you for liking Star Wars. That's the sort of elitism we're talking about here. It's not the same as unsolicitedly declaring your love of rap in the country bar, just to be confrontational (exempting, for the moment, hick-hop/country rap stuff, because of course it exists, and some of it is not bad).

If you do that, you are right, it's on you. But if you are talking about your mutual love of country, and they ask you what else you like, that's on them. As is any "that's not REAL country" bs.

It's that and it's also on public forums such as this or IRC or discord where the conversation has naturally arrived to talking about pop music I've noticed a proclivity for people to then volunteer their quite pointed and aggressive opinions on the subject. Not merely saying that they dislike it, which is of course valid, but to then attempt to shame the entire room by undermining the legitimacy of it as an artform. Obviously, I don't volunteer this information if the situation does not call for it. I'm not about insert myself into a conversation about oranges and say "Apples are way better, though." The aggressors are entirely fans of this particular genre. Without fail. I have yet to see a fan of another genre behave this way.

For example (I have to stress this is just an example, I see this behaviour all over the internet) I am a regular part of a once-IRC-now-Discord community which isn't about music but whose userbase has largely demonstrated a preference for dance-pop, house, hip hop, disco, electro and other genres in that pantheon. Often times there are people, usually new people, who join and become very adversarial about this and would much rather we not listen to that style of music because it's "not real" or some other spiteful gibberish. They insert this rhetoric into an otherwise pleasant conversation without being provoked first.

[truemane]

The aggressors are entirely fans of this particular genre. Without fail. I have yet to see a fan of another genre behave this way.

I don't want to invalidate or belittle your experience, as it wounds pervasive and powerful, but to be fair I've seen fans of pretty much everything and everyone act this way at some point or another.

Feeling superior to other humans is a hell of a drug. And we're none of us immune. If music isn't your monkey, it's just something else.

My monkey, for example, is feeling superior to people who use their opinions about things to feel superior. I'm not kidding. I fall into that trap all the time. I'm doing it right now.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I don't want to invalidate or belittle your experience, as it wounds pervasive and powerful, but to be fair I've seen fans of pretty much everything and everyone act this way at some point or another.

Feeling superior to other humans is a hell of a drug. And we're none of us immune. If music isn't your monkey, it's just something else.

My monkey, for example, is feeling superior to people who use their opinions about things to feel superior. I'm not kidding. I fall into that trap all the time. I'm doing it right now.

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that in the entirety of human experience elitism of this sort was only expressed by fans of this one style of music.

What I meant was in online communities where anonymity allows for a more consequence-free environment, on the topic of music I've found that fans of this genre are the instigators. But that's just in my experience. I have heard from people who like this genre that they act out like this sometimes because it is only recently that this style of music achieved mainstream prominence and that they had felt very marginalised throughout the 80s and 90s by fans of other genres.

And I'm of the mind that every human being has a very inflated sense of their own opinion. I would be lying if I said there weren't certain fashions, genres of music, types of film that people enjoyed that I, on some primal level, feel that there's no objective worth in. But part of being an adult is being able to supercede that subconscious part of you and to intellectualise it as "Well, no, that's just your opinion". Part of being an adult is not to respond to decades of feeling marginalised by making others feel marginalised.

[DomaDoma]

would be lying if I said there weren't certain fashions, genres of music, types of film that people enjoyed that I, on some primal level, feel that there's no objective worth in. But part of being an adult is being able to supercede that subconscious part of you and to intellectualise it as "Well, no, that's just your opinion".


Once, the mountains held within in their silvered walls a forest so high and so gracefully forgotten that it rode above the troubles of the world as easily as the blinding white clouds that sometimes catch on jagged peaks and musically unfurl.
[...]
Perhaps you have felt the presence of such places when, in a darkened concert hall, the music makes the moon rise, perfectly fresh and bright, as though the roof has opened up above you, or when the trees shudder in a sudden wind and the sun unexpectedly lights the undersides of their rustling leaves. They do exist, although they are so hard to find that it is tempting to believe they are illusions. But all places cannot be exactly the same. Some are slightly better than others; some are much better; some are vastly better. Were the world uniform, you would not be able to distinguish a pin from a needle. But you can, of course. And what about a pin and a hippopotamus? And that is just the beginning. As for those who would deny the existence of forests hidden in a crown of mountains, of sheltered places, of charged landscapes that can put together broken hearts, or at least keep them from being shattered into pieces, ask them about hippopotamuses and pins.

You see, it is possible to affirm the existence of objective aesthetic worth without making anyone feel like a dirty dog. The thing is to aim upward in love, not downward in derision.

[2D8HP]

So I'm arrogant and self-important?

Good to know.


I wouldn't say so, you still seem to have some remnants of humility, and I think you need a lot more practice before you may claim arrogance and self-importance, to do so follow my example (I've had a lot of STUNNING HUMILITY!!! to overcome).

Remember:
Feeling shame holds you back, so ditch it.


Hot funk, cool punk, even if it's old junk
It's still rock and roll to me. :smallsmile:


My go to Karaoke song! :smile:


Ride the Lightning becomes pop quite easily (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNUWKpRmHJU), it should be noted.


Finally a link to a song! :biggrin:

Now is there more philosophizing to be done or are we finally going to turn this into the "examples of groovy pop songs" thread yet?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23EWrWSGbk4

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Now is there more philosophizing to be done or are we finally going to turn this into the "examples of groovy pop songs" thread yet?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23EWrWSGbk4

That would be served better in its own thread, I think. I don't want to condone derailing.

If there were a dedicated PopITP thread like there appears to be one for metal I would post in there all the damn time.

[2D8HP]

If there were a dedicated PopITP thread like there appears to be one for metal I would post in there all the damn time.


There's the wide ranging

Music sharing thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508372-Music-sharing-thread&goto=newpost)

the OP is long gone, but its kicked to life every now and then, and as far as I'm concerned the more contributors the better!

And of course you can start a PopITP thread if you want a tighter focus.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

There's the wide ranging

Music sharing thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508372-Music-sharing-thread&goto=newpost)

the OP is long gone, but its kicked to life every now and then, and as far as I'm concerned the more contributors the better!

And of course you can start a PopITP thread if you want a tighter focus.

I've been reluctant to do either because I don't think there are enough people here who share my preferences that I would get a response.

[The Extinguisher]

I like them better, but that might have to do with my established partiality to acoustic. "When I'm 64" might be a sweet song on a topic that today's monomaniacally youthful pop music won't touch; "Nowhere Man" is a philosophical piece few artists of today can match; but "why don't we do it in the road" is about exactly on par with pick-your-disquieting-sex-anthem of today, and safe to say that they were way more into hallucinogens than any current artist - Snoop Dogg included, when you account for the strength of the hallucinogen.

Now, Paul Simon with or without Garfunkel - that is a level of lyrical quality we are just not hitting in popular music this decade. Or anyway, not according to my embarrassingly gap-ridden knowledge of popular music. I would be delighted to meet their successor if one is available.

........

This is exactly the thing i was talking about in that post

Youre allowed to have your preferences, but its super unfair to claim that older stuff is *better* than whats new.

[DomaDoma]

Some artistic ages are better than others. (Or you'd offer a counterexample to the Paul Simon thing.) But lest it be seen as targeting only the current generation of popular music... I don't think anyone here is particularly partial to the Perry Como era of songs-George-Orwell-made-fun-of, right?

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Some artistic ages are better than others.

That's an opinion. It isn't a fact. Certainly I won't take away your preference for the music of the 60s, but there's nothing inherent in it that makes it better.


(Or you'd offer a counterexample to the Paul Simon thing.)

I don't see the point. People look for different things in lyrics. I don't care for Simon & Garfunkel's lyricism, personally. I much prefer the lyrics of someone like Solange. You may not agree.

I'd love to have a discussion about their respective merits and what we see in them, but only outside of the context of "here are some examples of music that I'm using to validate a culturally and sonically diverse era of music".

I don't want to link music with stakes like that. It never goes anywhere good.


But lest it be seen as targeting only the current generation of popular music... I don't think anyone here is particularly partial to the Perry Como era of songs-George-Orwell-made-fun-of, right?

They might be. That's the point. Why assume people agree with you? Just because an opinion is popularly held doesn't make it universal.

[DomaDoma]

I don't want to link music with stakes like that. It never goes anywhere good.


Then you are saying that no music is objectively better than any other, but some discourses on music are objectively better than others. What exactly is the distinction between the two arguments?

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Then you are saying that no music is objectively better than any other, but some discourses on music are objectively better than others. What exactly is the distinction between the two arguments?

I'm not saying that at all.

I literally said "I'd love to talk about that sometime" but you still misunderstood me.

I must suck at communication, because even when I see these curveballs coming and write my posts around them people still find a way to do it.

I just didn't want to get into a long-winded tangent about lyrics in this thread, dude.

[DomaDoma]

I wasn't talking about cultural or sonic diversity one way or the other - just beauty and poetry - so I was more confused by that part than anything else. Anyway, it's "what we see in them" you theoretically wanted to talk about, not "what is there." Read: subjectivity.

Here's something relatively controlled which you'd probably be dispassionate about, for demonstration's sake: which (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-d-ptSVQI) of these (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jBLyIQvNf0) is a better Dies Irae?

Slam dunk, right?

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

I wasn't talking about cultural or sonic diversity one way or the other - just beauty and poetry - so I was more confused by that part than anything else. Anyway, it's "what we see in them" you theoretically wanted to talk about, not "what is there." Read: subjectivity.

Here's something relatively controlled which you'd probably be dispassionate about, for demonstration's sake: which (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-d-ptSVQI) of these (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-d-ptSVQI) is a better Dies Irae?

Slam dunk, right?

They're the same link.

[DomaDoma]

Fixed now. Sorry 'bout that!

[Mikemical]

I was expecting this thread to be a variation of the "Katanas are underpowered in D&D" meme rant.

My disappointment is unmeasurable.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Fixed now. Sorry 'bout that!

Anyway, I have no idea. I'm already fairly disinterested in classical. Asking me to figure out the details from one to the other is a tall order.

What point are you trying to make?

[DomaDoma]

"Disinterested" was meant to mean "impartial". But I guess the missing link is that "Dies Irae" means "song about the apocalypse". Because the kind of music it's trying to be is indeed crucial to making sense of any of this. Comparing "Night On Bald Mountain" against "Burn" from Hamilton is a wasted effort. Comparing "Burn" with "Before He Cheats" would mean something. (Not nearly so much of a slam dunk as the previous, mind. But I'll go with "Burn" because it's more like a real love was betrayed.)

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

"Disinterested" was meant to mean "impartial". But I guess the missing link is that "Dies Irae" means "song about the apocalypse". Because the kind of music it's trying to be is indeed crucial to making sense of any of this. Comparing "Night On Bald Mountain" against "Burn" from Hamilton is a wasted effort. Comparing "Burn" with "Before He Cheats" would mean something. (Not nearly so much of a slam dunk as the previous, mind. But I'll go with "Burn" because it's more like a real love was betrayed.)

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[DomaDoma]

Okay, I guess Mokele-mbembe has shut off. Can I get votes from the crowd here?

Heck, let's make it songs on grody topics only, just to give me all possible distance.

Catty songs about abusive soon-to-be-former girlfriends, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfkJCyqCBc) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5olfnVeYfgg).

Songs of teenage jealousy fantasies, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJ8ixlfKUs) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-VMmPRE4Y).

Songs about exploiting one's T&A, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWKDLGF6v9o), B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8F2AaC0Bo) and C (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IltwqAMjw).

Songs that are basically just one long sexual innuendo, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfNsz9Z3jYE) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=penXkW99v7A).

Songs of unmitigated existential despair, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuKIUMwFyLY) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-sxI-Ji5o). (Caveat: people who are megafans of either of these bands are better off not answering this one.)

[dps]

Now, Paul Simon with or without Garfunkel - that is a level of lyrical quality we are just not hitting in popular music this decade. Or anyway, not according to my embarrassingly gap-ridden knowledge of popular music. I would be delighted to meet their successor if one is available.

You do realize that Paul Simon is still alive and has released 2 albums this decade, right? :smallconfused:

[The Extinguisher]

Okay, I guess Mokele-mbembe has shut off. Can I get votes from the crowd here?

Heck, let's make it songs on grody topics only, just to give me all possible distance.

Catty songs about abusive soon-to-be-former girlfriends, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkfkJCyqCBc) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5olfnVeYfgg).

Songs of teenage jealousy fantasies, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJ8ixlfKUs) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U-VMmPRE4Y).

Songs about exploiting one's T&A, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWKDLGF6v9o), B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp8F2AaC0Bo) and C (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3IltwqAMjw).

Songs that are basically just one long sexual innuendo, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfNsz9Z3jYE) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=penXkW99v7A).

Songs of unmitigated existential despair, A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuKIUMwFyLY) and B (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl-sxI-Ji5o). (Caveat: people who are megafans of either of these bands are better off not answering this one.)

I have no idea how you think voting between two songs that you have cherry picked will be able to show just how much 'better' older music is compared to modern music. This game is not fair to play.

But you continue to proof my point on music elitism, so go off i guess

[DomaDoma]

If you'd actually clicked on the songs, you'd notice that they are often contemporary with one another. (Actually, in retrospect I should have picked "Judy's Turn to Cry" as the clearly-inferior teen-jealousy song specifically to fend off the old-timer accusation.) Anyway, yes, they are indeed cherry-picked. I am picking the most clear-cut examples of good songs versus bad ones to prove the point that songs, indeed, have objective differences in quality. Which is what is in question here.

[georgie_leech]

That is, taste is often subjective, but we can still usually look at whether a given idea or theme was executed better.

[DomaDoma]

Yeah. That's a good way to put it. Whether folk, as a whole, is better than metal, as a whole, is so multi-faceted a question as to be patently ridiculous. But comparing "Battle of Evermore" to the folk song about the Battle of Pelennor Fields I have to assume exists? That can be done, no problem.

ETA: Where differences in quality do track, absolutely, with the times, it's usually easily explicable, but fascinating all the same. For instance: songs about death at a young age decrease in frequency and increase in egotism with the decline of the likelihood of actually dying young. Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT25niTg2IM) the (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHkKsxpduY) 1860s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6jGSSAqsQ). Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTjQgkHzbTk) the 1950s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UKf65NOzM). Here's the 2010s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NJqUN9TClM). As I say, easily explicable: people are readier to sing, and refine sentiments, about experiences that are actually close to hand. Similarly, breakups themselves have gotten more egotistical as they've risen in frequency (a tautological correlation if ever there was one), but that still leaves room for Bruno Mars to ponder what he did wrong (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1txjtqnTe2s), where Stephen Foster, whose character flaws were much more obvious, could only mourn (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-SbWVE2umU).

Though you'll note a blip in my chronology: people seemed none too keen on singing about death during either of the World Wars. Songs I've heard dating from the First World War were just about entirely about cultural and political concerns (but also American, so I may well be missing the meat of it here.) And songs of the Second World War preferred to look back to the beginning of the war or forward to the end, rather than to the possibility of dying in the middle. Not sure what that says, exactly, but it's worth probing into.

[2D8HP]

songs of the Second World War preferred to look back to the beginning of the war or forward to the end, rather than to the possibility of dying in the middle. Not sure what that says, exactly, but it's worth probing into.


My grandfather never listened to the phonograph much when I knew him (he mostly read "pulp western" novels for his leisure), but my grandmother (who married my grandfather at 16, and was seperated from him for most of the war) did, and she gave me a good idea of the songs that were popular during the war:

Sing! SIng! Sing! (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r2S1I_ien6A) - an immediate prewar dance instrumental that became a "hit" during the war.


Drum Boogie (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_QmwiwgYE) - an immediate prewar dance song, that was also a wartime "hit"


I'll be seeing you (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_AlylMhav7w) - a song about missing and imagining an absent lover.
.

We'll meet again (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKMji2688M) - a song about being seperated from a loved one and promising to re-unite.


Pistol Packin' Mama (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b39ALX4neIk) - a jaunty upbeat dance song that's also sorta a plea for disarmament, and at the same time a celebration of a "tough dame".


It's not hard to guess why the songs were popular, and it's heartbreaking.