Guns & Roses?

[Dubversion]

i missed this bit before, till someone quoted it.

My point is that we all conform to what is out there, because what is out there is developed for our tastes..

That is about the most wrongheaded thing i've read since the last time i read something really wrongheaded, maybe even longer.

Yes, our tastes are shaped by the world around us and our background. No, that does not mean we ALL conform to what is out there.

Otherwise, Einstein, how come you get people who like blockbuster movies and others who like movies about an Iranian gentleman collecting bottletops?

Or fans of Take That breathing the same air as fans of GG Allin.

Do you actually read your own posts or just vomit them onto the page and press submit...

 

[milesy]

i love girls aloud and scott walker

 

[killer b]

i don't mind guns and roses... couldn't abide them at the time, but have come to love some of their songs. november rain is

don't think i could ever actually listen to an album though. it's all a bit screechy.

 

[Dubversion]

i love girls aloud and scott walker

but you can't - that would confuse the market researchers who tell us all what to conform to.

 

[Iam]

i love girls aloud and scott walker

Anti-conformist!!

 

[Flashman]

i love girls aloud and scott walker

Me too.

 

[muser]

yes, well done. It's to gauge opinion. By gauging percentages of people who hold certain views or tastes. Which has NOTHING to do with your earlier claim that the existence of market research proves that taste is to some extent objective.

Seriously, it's you that's punching above your weight. You'd have been eaten alive in a middle school debating society. Give it up, you're a halfwit.

You wouldn't need market researchers if tastes were completely subjective. How am I being eaten alive, you agree with my last statement. Any fool can see what my point is (well maybe not any fool), but getting back to GnR. On hindsight and with my limited knowledge of the band and prevailing trends at the time. I believe GnR went quickly mainstream and allowed for alot of alternative bands to follow. The late 80's and early 90's was the best time since the 60's to be young. Ozzy osbourne and joe perry said that GnR were 'the next rolling stones'. Source: wikipedia.

 

[muser]

i missed this bit before, till someone quoted it.



That is about the most wrongheaded thing i've read since the last time i read something really wrongheaded, maybe even longer.

Yes, our tastes are shaped by the world around us and our background. No, that does not mean we ALL conform to what is out there.

Otherwise, Einstein, how come you get people who like blockbuster movies and others who like movies about an Iranian gentleman collecting bottletops?

Or fans of Take That breathing the same air as fans of GG Allin.

Do you actually read your own posts or just vomit them onto the page and press submit...

Dub have you ever done anything original, something that no one has ever done before?

 

[milesy]

You wouldn't need market researchers if tastes were completely subjective.

why not?

 

[muser]

You must work in marketing if you believe that that's all there is to it. Actually, if you did work in marketing and believed that then you'd be pretty bad at it, because if giving the public what they already know and like was all there is to it, then there'd be no innovation and nothing new would ever see the light of day. Tastes and trends come from a variety of sources, some of which are produced intentionally, but others emerge not by design but for a variety of other (sometimes seemingly inexplicable) reasons.

I agree. thank you, eloquently put.

 

[tarannau]

He's not agreeing with you Muser, nor is Dr Furface's (well reasoned) summary consistent with your drivel-like logic on this thread.

Are you being this obtuse for a bet?

 

[Belushi]

Muser is great value, we haven't anyone so boneheaded on here for ages

 

[milesy]

You wouldn't need market researchers if tastes were completely subjective.

taste is subjective.

one person buys their furniture from habitat, clothes from prada and drinks grey goose vodka.

the other person borrows thei furniture from their landlord, gets their clothes from peacocks and drinks merrydown.

who would the market researchers decide to target for a new "wallpaper*" (*the stuff that surrounds you) type magazine? or are they not needed anymore, with taste being subjective?

 

[Dubversion]

I agree. thank you, eloquently put.

he's contradicting you, you knuckledragging simpleton

 

[dilute micro]

You wouldn't need market researchers if tastes were completely subjective.

This is true.

 

[milesy]

why is it true? tastes are subjective, and yet we still have market researchers and people employed to try and predict what might be in fashion in 6 months time... and how can taste be objective?!?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Violentpanda, how do you differentiate between good and bad taste? You personally. Can you tell me why American beauty and GnR aren't in good taste. I made the statement that they were.

No you didn't.
Your statement was somewhat more definitive than that.

you promptly disagreed (or appear to disagree) so the onus is on you prove me wrong.

Actually, if you had the comprehension of English that the average inarticulate meths-frinker has, you'd know I haven't contended that "American Beauty and GnR aren't in good taste" at all.
What I did was challenge your statement (which you haven't followed your own criteria and actually proven) that GnR and American Beauty (to quote you directly) "epitomise good taste" (my emphasis).
I don't disagree that some people may find either or both "tasteful", but I doubt many (except yourself, obviously) would claim them to be the epitome, the very apex of "good taste".
After all, "good taste", whatever else denotes it, is usually based around aesthetic appeal. While you could plausibly claim that the cinematography in American Beauty, while derivative, was aesthetically pleasing, I doubt you could ascribe a broad-ranging (rather than narrowly-focused) aesthetic appeal to GnR.

 

[muser]

I was being superflous, allow me artist license. If something is in 'good taste' it is generally accepted by a broad swathe of academics (within the field), as being good. It appeals, has desirable qualities, inspires, praiseworthy. If something could be said to elicit these emotions\feelings then it denote good taste.

 

[muser]

why is it true? tastes are subjective, and yet we still have market researchers and people employed to try and predict what might be in fashion in 6 months time... and how can taste be objective?!?

I know for a fact that dub didn't give you permission to post. I'm going to tell on you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To a degree it is subjective, but not completely. Why would we have market researchers if it was completely subjective.

Of course not, nothing can be "wholly subjective", human nature is such that a "baseline" appeal (usually cultural) to a particular stimuli is always present and can be appealed to.

The market research companies are hired by, for example, music and film companies who want to know how to "shape" their products for the widest possible appeal.
Therefore most marketed products are aimed at the widest possible market within the product's genre
That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that the product will "score" with the demographic it is aimed at, hence for example, American Beauty's relative failure with the "art house" crowd it was originally aimed at, but success with a broader audience with subjectively lower aesthetic standards and expectations.

In other words, while marketing attempts to mould "taste" it generally only partially succeeds

My point is that we all conform to what is out there, because what is out there is developed for our tastes.

Yes, but it's only partial because we also tend to react against cultural artefacts that are too nakedly aimed at us. marketing treads a very thin line between transcient success and total failure, hence the constant "churning" of culture, the re-packaging, re-issuing and re-popularising of older cultural forms beside the packaging, issuing and popularising of new forms. If you can tie your "new" product to a successful old product you stand a greater chance of inserting your product into consumer consciousness.

I can't write this post objectively as I feel passionately that I'm right, hence I'm biase, albeit to my own reasoning.

"Right" is relative.

Lets have a proper argument without the name calling. If you agree with what I said, say yes or no with reasons why you disagree, and then further the argument with another proposal.

So now not only do you want to set the terms relative to "taste", but you want to set the terms of debate?

Oh dear.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're a moron and life's too short to argue with morons.

Not if the moron is an opinionated egotist backing a wrong'un.

 

[muser]

he's contradicting you, you knuckledragging simpleton

Reread his post dub. He is basically saying that taste are subjective and objective. I haven't dismissed the fact that taste is subjective. If he doesn't agree with me, it doesn't prevent me from agreeing with an articulate, well thought out post.

 

[dilute micro]

why is it true? tastes are subjective, and yet we still have market researchers and people employed to try and predict what might be in fashion in 6 months time... and how can taste be objective?!?

Because the subjectivity only goes so far. People are for some reason or another predisposed to appreciate one thing over another. That might be a result of a particular culture's affect on that population. Regardless of how it comes to be, it's just a fact that out of a population some aspect of art (politics etc..) will be seen favorably by a % of that population. When that % is large enough then marketers act on that favorable response and exploit it to their profit.

However, clever marketers can create the response they want. Check out things marketed to young teens. The marketers don't always go out and look what the girls are wearing and then tell their company to make lots of these. They influence the girls that this thing is cool, everybody's wearing it, you need it, go buy one.

 

[tarannau]

I was being superflous, allow me artist license. If something is in 'good taste' it is generally accepted by a broad swathe of academics (within the field), as being good. It appeals, has desirable qualities, inspires, praiseworthy. If something could be said to elicit these emotions\feelings then it denote good taste.

What are you gibbering about? Didn't this start out about Guns and Roses - what 'broad swathe' of academics designated them as being in 'good taste'

Do you often check out the views of academics to decide on what would you should be buying?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was being superflous, allow me artist license.

By "superfluous" I presume you mean that you were exaggerating?
Even so, that doesn't hold water.
If that were the case you would have said something along the lines of "GnR and American Beauty are exampes of very good taste".

Wat you wouldn't have done would be to claim that they epitomise (i.e. exemplify or embody) "good taste".

If something is in 'good taste' it is generally accepted by a broad swathe of academics (within the field), as being good.

Really?
Adorno, Horkheimer and a whole swathe of their disciples in the field of cultural studies wouldn't agree with you.

It appeals, has desirable qualities, inspires, praiseworthy. If something could be said to elicit these emotions\feelings then it denote good taste.

So, for example, a song that inspires me to, for example, be violent, denotes "good taste"?

You need to go back to the drawing board and reformulate your hypothesis, and this time you need to work from basic facts, not from your emotional conviction.

 

[Hollis]

So, for example, a song that inspires me to, for example, be violent, denotes "good taste"?

Surely Overkill by Motorhead would be a good example of this?

 

[muser]

Of course not, nothing can be "wholly subjective", human nature is such that a "baseline" appeal (usually cultural) to a particular stimuli is always present and can be appealed to.

The market research companies are hired by, for example, music and film companies who want to know how to "shape" their products for the widest possible appeal.
Therefore most marketed products are aimed at the widest possible market within the product's genre
That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that the product will "score" with the demographic it is aimed at, hence for example, American Beauty's relative failure with the "art house" crowd it was originally aimed at, but success with a broader audience with subjectively lower aesthetic standards and expectations.

In other words, while marketing attempts to mould "taste" it generally only partially succeeds

Yes, but it's only partial because we also tend to react against cultural artefacts that are too nakedly aimed at us. marketing treads a very thin line between transcient success and total failure, hence the constant "churning" of culture, the re-packaging, re-issuing and re-popularising of older cultural forms beside the packaging, issuing and popularising of new forms. If you can tie your "new" product to a successful old product you stand a greater chance of inserting your product into consumer consciousness.

"Right" is relative.

So now not only do you want to set the terms relative to "taste", but you want to set the terms of debate?

Oh dear.

If I don't set the debate then it will be name calling throughout, and no actual discussion. Right is relative, though would you agree to universal constants of right and wrong. It is right that we revolve around the sun not the other way round. For everything we like and enjoy, had to achieve partial success at some level.
When I said that American beauty epitomised good taste, that is of course the level at which I understand it, others as you have said the "art house crowd" don't find it as aesthetically pleasing.
The level to which we like something to my mind can be gauged, if we have enough facts on the target audience\individual.
In all of this I had said to dub that if he was significantly older than me then I could see why he wouldn't like GnR, because it wouldn't have the necessary 'stimuli'.

 

[muser]

So, for example, a song that inspires me to, for example, be violent, denotes "good taste"?

Punk, heavy metal, hip hop, goths....

 

[ViolentPanda]

Surely Overkill by Motorhead would be a good example of this?

Well yes, but then that's an example of a song inspiring violence right enough, but it doesn't denote "good taste", does it?

(Worries that Hollis is a Droog and thinks ALL violence is in good taste, keeps eyes peeled for weirdoes with Bowler hats and brollies)

 

[Hollis]

Yes - it can denote good taste.

I aint' really been following this debate, but you can put together a strong argument why liking AC DC represents better taste than say, liking some crappy 6th form metal band (as an extreme example).

Saying that AC DC is better taste than liking the Pet Shop Boys is more difficult, imho.


For what they're doing, and trying to do, some bands/films are gonna represent better taste than others.

Its comparisions between genres which are more difficult.