A sosumi is sort of the opposite of a guilty pleasure, something you don't care for that you are supposed to like. In the words of Gene Weingarten, the word's inventor: "A sosumi occurs when you just don't like someone everyone else thinks is great. For me, an example is Jimi Hendrix. Another, Chris Rock. Another, Monet. Another, The Bee Gees." Chatological Humor, 31 January 2006.
Weingarten is a humor writer at the Washington Post, known for giving Dave Barry his first job. "Pearls Before Breakfast" won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing. Another favorite is "The Problem With the French ... is that they have no word for rapprochement."
I like to include things as well as people: foods, pastimes, bands. My sosumis include soup, professional sports, Kurt Vonnegut, and eggplant. What are yours?
Watching movies, I guess. For whatever reason I can't stand movies. I can count the number of movies I've seen in a year on one hand (This year: 5, all anime related actually), and I only really care about three directors: Fritz Lang, Akira Kurosawa and David Lynch. Some other people who have managed to earn a kind of respect are Kubrick, Del Toro, and I've been meaning to watch a film by Jan Švankmajer. That's about it. I don't discount the artistic merit of the medium, and if I dig deep enough, I know I'll find tons of movies that are fantastic with great directors and all that, but for some reason the medium doesn't appeal to me, and I loathe the current age of movies (You ever seen a movie trailer today? To me they all look and sound the same), which has slowly creeped into the world of video games and making that all the more unfun for me. Another thing I really hate is shoes. Of any kind. As a child I loved to walk with my bare feet and hated shoes. A part of it might have been the fact that I always had trouble tying them, but even I never found a pair that was as good and comfortable as my own two feet. I don't get people who collect them and all that stuff. I had a teacher who claimed to have a rather sizable shoe collection, and I get personal enjoyment and everyone has their own interests that I won't/can't judge them for or anything, but I still wonder why. Nowadays I get used to it and wear shoes and socks and all that, and I get that walking barefooted is a dumb idea what with all the sharp stuff around, but I'll avoid wearing shoes as much as I can. I suppose lastly is driving. I dislike driving very much. I dislike the idea of being behind the wheel of a machine that can kill someone so easily. My mother was run over by a car (She survived the accident, and while she has back problems that persist to this day, she's okay). The guy behind the wheel was talking on a cell phone. That is probably a good enough reason for a person to not like cars anymore (On another note, I kinda don't like cell phones either), but in any case I feel nervous driving and feel that I never have a good enough view of the outside. But, this is something you have to do, so I drive. I'd rather ride a bicycle, but sometimes you just can't. I'd rather walk, but sometimes you gotta be somewhere at this or that time. Public transportation is good in theory, but unreliable. So a car it is. I drive, but not with much pleasure. I think that's about it.
Who are you?? You sound like me. Movies - meh. Maybe during a film festival, but for distractions, I prefer my own imagination. Shoes - much longer story. Driving - only under duress. Luckily there are electric streetcars (on tracks), subways, and bicycles (but unsafe bicycle paths here - veen come to Toronto and design bicycle paths - please!)
To keep this short and concise (extremely difficult with my obsession with film), I can assure you that there is a massive amount to build on if you like those three directors, it's just sure as fuck hard to find it with just a base knowledge and interest. There's a lot you'd like from there, don't let the flood of everything discourage you, especially with modern times.
Wow, I never thought I'd find another person who thought this. Every time I say that I don't like the beatles and think they are shit (much better bands out there, even in the same genre) I always get people wide-eyed staring at me like I couldn't possibly have that opinion. Disliking sports, I find, is fine by most people. And comic books aren't exactly seen in a bright light :PThe Beatles
I honestly think that most people that say things like "The Beatles are shit" just don't know much about popular music and it's history.
Yeah, I agree that both bands took music someplace new. But, my argument is not that this is why you should like the Beatles. I enjoy the songs and the music first and foremost, but then when you realize how they created that music given their limitations it becomes that much more impressive. Lets say you really love this painting: When you find out that it was made by a man with no hands it becomes even more impressive imo. First and foremost the art has to speak to you, but when you are a true fan of art you start to learn how it's made, what amps they use, what gauge of guitar strings etc. You start to hear "sounds" that are unique to them. A specific percussive sound etc. My guess is as a writer you are in tune with the writing process of some of your favorites. Right? That's context.
This is the sentiment I share with people when II point out that I can from listening to Jimi Hendrix to Rich Homie Quan or Tech N9ne. I look at the songs for the... Quality (I think you could say) of the lyrics... Nothing like Lil Wayne, even though they discuss the same things in their lyrics (mostly). Then I look at how catchy they are, or how worthy they are of keeping around (in my music collection). I enjoy the songs and the music first
I know what you're saying. That's a bit outside of the public consciousness though, in my opinion, as the guy on the street might not know about strings and amps, and all the small things that go into making a piece of music sound the way it does. I was just arguing that context is extremely important the other day, albeit from another angle. I just think that people experience things at different levels, often due to their exposure to something. I wasn't saying that your argument was based solely on the coincidence of time and the Beatles, just that I see a parallel between both bands along one particular line that I think is a good place to start from.
Context with music is an interesting thing. I will often be turned on to a band that is new to me, but has been making music for a long time. I'll ask a friend that likes them to recommend a starting point on which album to listen to first. There are several different answers: 1. Start at the beginning, this gives you context to appreciate the artists journey and full body of work. 2. Start at with an album that shows them maturing, a turning point album. -Many would pick Rubber Soul for the Beatles. 3. Or... pick the best album they've made in your opinion. Which do you recommend? How important is context to the appreciation of the band in question? Interesting stuff and the answer varies based on the band and the friend asking.
I was thinking about this earlier, too. Used to be I'd trawl the web for album recommendations (honestly, I'd trawl 4chan's /mu/. The recommendations there were mostly always interesting at least and often good) and start with that one album. For a while (and to some extent, still now) I'd grab a discography and start with the very first album. But that has potential issues, too, I think - I haven't moved past Astronautalis' first album, because I love it so much, but the first track I heard from him - the one that made me go get his stuff - was on his latest. I think the hesitance is partly because I don't enjoy his 2nd too much, but I'm reluctant to move on so quickly. What I'm doing more often now, though, especially when I'm looking for stuff for one of the radio shows, is just grab whatever's free (usually from bandcamp). That stuff, depending on the band, can be singles, EPs, really old stuff, stuff the band doesn't really like or think is their best - or maybe it is their best and they're using it to draw in the crowd - or absolutely everything. I can't decide which approach to new-to-me artists I prefer, and I'm determined to eventually settle on a particular approach - even though it'll take ages and a few months after that I'm likely to change my mind.
Oh, that's a tough question. And a good one. I was actually thinking about that tonight while listening to Portugal. The Man. I got their albums all at once and listened to them chronologically, but I got bored and just kind of bore it until I got to the latest album, which got me interested in them in the first place. Then, tonight I started listening backward through the discography and it made a lot more sense to me and was a lot more interesting. Conversely, with Weezer, I liked them until Pinkerton and then decided I'd had enough. I have the other albums, but rarely listen to them. Every once in a while I'll listen through and discover that I like a particular song, or section of an album. Maybe someday I'll like or at least appreciate them all. I guess this is why I so often ask where to start when getting recommendations on hubski. That way I can do it the way I want and then try it the other way too.
The history of something doesn't change it's quality.
Context does. But since writing this comment I've read on in this thread and saw that you think all pop sucks, including the Beatles but that Gangnam Style was okay at first... and you have hipster blood. Chances are this conversation isn't going anywhere.
"hipster blood" was just kind of a joke. It's popularity is not why I hate it. I can't possibly see how context effects the actual song itself. But for the purpose of discussion, you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid? See, to me, that defeats the whole point of music. or art. or anything really. I enjoyed Gangnam style on my first listen because it was an enjoyable beat. The same way I'd enjoy something by, say, pitbull on my first listen. However, after I've heard it once, the overall "catch" and reason to listen to the song is over. and I get no more enjoyment from it. The beatles I don't like for an entirely different reason. I don't like the beatles because it's hardly music. I heard how "great" they are, and my folks love them, so I gave it a shot. Put on my headphones and had a thorough listen. Gave them a chance. Song after song I couldn't see what was so great. It didn't wow me. It didn't even sound that amazing. I'm not a big fan of classical music, but that shit is impressive. Mozart, Beethoven, etc. All great stuff (though I wouldn't listen due to various reasons). Beatles didn't evoke that same interest. To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band. I don't give a shit what they caused, or why they made the music. It sounds like shit. That's like enjoying citizen kane because it revolutionized film. I recognize that the beatles were a big part of history, no denying that. But to say they are a good band because of it? No. Citizen Kane was a bad film. Just like the beatles are a bad band. I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them. So no. The history and context do not change the quality of the music. Nor does it change it's entertainment value. It merely changes it's importance, which an entirely different point.
What I'm saying is that knowing the history of a medium shows the constraints the artists had. The Beatles music would (and does) still stand up today along side contemporary pop-rock and they did it with less technology than you have on your laptop right now. If you are actually a fan of music as an art form, you appreciate these things. Also, context informs lyrics. If you know the history of when a band recorded, what was happening etc, you can get a better understanding about what they're singing about. But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation. I'm curious what music, aside from Beethoven/Mozart etc that you do think is "good".you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid?
-Nope, I wouldn't. I think they're music is unparalleled in the history of popular music/songwriting. If an unknown kid recorded this song or this one or this one, I'd still love them all.To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band.
-I don't think you know much about music. Not trying to be a dick, but even people that don't like the Beatles music have enough sense to recognize that much of it was more complex than a bunch of random teenagers making music.The history and context do not change the quality of the music
-history changes your perception of what the song is about. It puts you in a place and time. Music can be transcendent.I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them.
-Now I'm wondering if I'm talking with a 12 year old?
But you see, I can appreciate what they did with the technology available. Just like I can appreciate Citizen Kane for revolutionizing movies. Or just like I can appreciate pong for revolutionizing video games. Doesn't mean any of them are remotely good. At the time, maybe. But these things have not stood the test of time and there are much better things available now. Honestly, I really tried to like them. That's all it honestly sounds like to me. And really, I'm guessing that's why those are some of the first songs people learn with learning guitar or another instrument. I think this is a good point to bring up. As there are songs I "like" because I like the lyrics (but I think the song is terrible) and there are songs that I "like" because I like the music behind the lyrics (but don't necessarily like the lyrics). I haven't listened to the beatles enough to know if they fall in the "I like the lyrics" category or not, but honestly, I can't stand the noise of their "music". Not much. I find that ~90% of the stuff I come across isn't worth listening to. I've listened to stuff in nearly every music genre. As with Beethoven/Mozart, I find other classical music and symphonies to be pretty impressive. Not "listen daily" material, but I can recognize that it's pretty damn impressive and don't mind it if it's on. As for what I think is "good", that'd really be just what is "interesting". If it can hold my attention, then it's a good song. For some popular stuff: I like a lot of Maroon 5's stuff. Eminem seems to do some good work, but I don't like the music behind his raps. He needs an actual artist to work with. But really, I like to listen to stuff like this. Lots of fusion genres. Lots of electro-swing stuff is really good too. Caravan Palace, Parov Stelar. I prefer fast-pace/tempo music, but that's just a preference. I can enjoy slower stuff too if it's good. By contrast, the beatles are just bland. I appreciate what they did for music (as tons of artists did as well), but in terms of stuff I can listen to right now they kind of suck. Nope. 20. I'm surprised that you think that someone who doesn't follow the crowd's opinion is "a 12 year old". It's not like I'm pulling this shit from my ass. I can cut a clear line between music that I genuinely think is good and bad. Also, age doesn't matter. And I tend to find ignorant or stubborn people are the only ones who tend to use age as an argument. I've seen plenty of 12 year olds that are a lot better of a person than any 20-60 year olds. Fact of the matter is, I really wouldn't mind going deaf in general. It's an inconvenience, but it'd be nice not to have to listen to shit all day.If you are actually a fan of music as an art form, you appreciate these things. Also, context informs lyrics. If you know the history of when a band recorded, what was happening etc, you can get a better understanding about what they're singing about. But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation.
-I don't think you know much about music. Not trying to be a dick, but even people that don't like the Beatles music have enough sense to recognize that much of it was more complex than a bunch of random teenagers making music.
But you aren't a fan of lyrics, this much is evident so I'm not sure it's worth even having this conversation.
I'm curious what music, aside from Beethoven/Mozart etc that you do think is "good".
-Now I'm wondering if I'm talking with a 12 year old?
"Fact of the matter is, I really wouldn't mind going deaf in general. It's an inconvenience, but it'd be nice not to have to listen to shit all day." Respectfully: I think your concluding sentence is perfect, but not in the way you intend. If you're not that into music, then why put forth such definitive arguments on the matter? I don't know much about engineering, and although I understand that it's important, the ins and outs of it don't altogether interest me- I'd never deign to argue about the most influential gear design. Or something. I really know nothing of engineering, are there more or less influential gear designs? That said, all opinions ought to be welcome here, not just the ones we want to agree with. As long as they're put forth civilly. Everybody.
I was merely explaining my statement (as asked). Why did I comment? Because I agreed and felt like added into the thread. I usually don't go this in depth talking about my music tastes. I understand mine are completely different than most people's, so I just go and do my own thing. I like music, I just don't care to go to extremes. I just want to find something enjoyable to listen to. That's all :). I never argued about "the most influential". If said bands are influential, then so be it. I'm merely stating taste. I don't know if you ever mistook my statements as facts, but they are opinions. Hence the topic/question posted. ;)If you're not that into music, then why put forth such definitive arguments on the matter?
I'd never deign to argue about the most influential gear design.
That said, all opinions ought to be welcome here, not just the ones we want to agree with. As long as they're put forth civilly. Everybody.
I think the distinction between appreciation and enjoyment is a really interesting one. To me, they're extremely similar. If I can appreciate how something was done, I'm going to enjoy it so much more. And the context plays a huge part in that, in informing my appreciation. Take film, for example. There are lots of films I didn't particularly enjoy the first time around - take Werner Herzog's Aguirre, for example. Really didn't enjoy that, but after studying it and rewatching it for the contextual and filmic elements I really did enjoy it, because I could appreciate it and understand it more. I can see how this isn't going to be true for everyone, though.
I think it really depends. The two are indeed separate for me. Sometimes they line up, and sometimes they don't. In some cases, knowing "the secret" behind it kind of ruins it. Movies and Video games are especially vulnerable to this (considering I know a bit about how they are made). Music is a bit different, as I don't know quite all the details about how it's made. So it's mostly a naive view, followed by learning about the music later on. A good example (for me) is Eminem. I don't really like his stuff. At all. There's maybe a song or two that I enjoy. But after reading up on the guy and listening to some interviews, I can kind of "see" him behind his work. So I appreciate it a bit more. Doesn't mean I like the music though. It still "sounds" the same, but I have a greater appreciation for it. In other cases, I find that learning about the history/context adds to my enjoyment. That's rare though :P.
For me, knowing "the secret", as you put it, almost always improves the thing for me. I love that, personally, because it means the more I get to know it or the person who created it the more I can enjoy it. Hip hop is a good example for me, too, actually. I never really enjoyed it until I started getting into different parts of the genre - Home Brew specifically. At first, I just enjoyed their lyrics and political content (*very* local) but then, the more I listened not just to them but to similar stuff the more I could appreciate the production and how it all works. It changes the way it "sounds" to me, too, because now I can tell when a track has been produced really well - or, even better, really interestingly - and I can enjoy it a lot more. Like I said, it's really interesting how this is different for you. Context and perspective is fascinating.
It took a long time for me to like it but only because it was always on as a kid. When I read the below story it made me imagine hearing it for the first time again. It's a really great tune.On July 26, 1968, Mick Jagger flew from Los Angeles to London for a birthday party thrown in his honor at a hip new Moroccan-style bar called the Vesuvio Club—“one of the best clubs London has ever seen,” remembered proprietor Tony Sanchez. Under black lights and beautiful tapestries, some of London’s trendiest models, artists, and pop singers lounged on huge cushions and took pulls from Turkish hookahs, while a decorative, helium-filled dirigible floated aimlessly about the room. As a special treat, Mick brought along an advance pressing of the Stones’ forthcoming album, Beggars Banquet, to play over the club’s speakers. Just as the crowd was “leaping around” and celebrating the record—which would soon win accolades as the best Stones album to date—Paul McCartney strolled in, and passed Sanchez a copy of the forthcoming Beatles single “Hey Jude/Revolution,” which had never before been heard by anyone outside of Abbey Road Studios. Sanchez recalled how the “slow, thundering buildup of ‘Hey Jude’ shook the club”; the crowd demanded that the seven-minute song be played again and again. Finally, the club’s disc jockey played the flip side, and everyone heard “John Lennon’s nasal voice pumping out ‘Revolution.’” “When it was over,” Sanchez said, “Mick looked peeved. The Beatles had upstaged him.”
I've heard that story. Poor guy. I just watched this french documentary about Yves Saint Laurent. It was somewhat boring, but there was some cool archival footage of him at home. There's a clip of Yves walking around his living room with Andy Warhol and they're chatting. You can hear a piano in the background, which isn't being played all that well. And suddenly you notice from just a quick move of the camera, that it's Mick Jagger playing it. But the camera doesn't pay any mind. Like it's just another day at Yves or something.
Yeah, makes Paul seem like a total dick. Of those two songs he brought I definitely think Revolution is the better. Mick's the man. Best front man/singer in rock history imo.
Good call, that's a tough one because they both have strengths the other doesn't have. I love Queen, I need to get back in to their music again. FYI, the links you gave me are both the same. Great performance though, thanks.
Fixed that link, thanks. I was 7 when this happened. It still lives somewhere deep inside of me. This and Ohio.
Well, that's like your opinion, man. Of course, I would disagree with the Beatles not standing up with Radiohead etc and I think those bands would too. But no matter what you have to like the art or it will not matter when it was made and how significant it was then. -I would never suggest that anyone like the Beatles just because they were influential. Never.
I've always taken the contextual side of that dichotomy, so I disagree. Regardless, you might give this a quick read -- the Beatles helped make it mainstream. Their sound engineers, who were unsung heroes, used four tracks to the best of their ability. Now anyone can use 64 with a little cheap tech. Just an aside.The history of something doesn't change it's quality.
I had a four-track tascam recorder as a kid. I became pretty good at what the wikipedia post calls "reduction mixing" or bouncing down to one track. It was an art-form. Back then (for me), the more you bounced down on tape the lesser the quality became though. kleinbl00, you remember those days? The limitations we had were really part of the process and made things fun.
As I said, I have no problem appreciating what they did for music. I understand it was a huge contribution. But just because they were a great contributor to the technique, ideas, hardware, w/e, doesn't mean their music was any good. Technically impressive for the time, yes, but the music itself may or may not be good. Another way of putting it would be the Motorola Razr phone (the old flip-phone one). It completely revolutionized phones, and at the time it was amazing (to the point where everyone copied it). By today's standards, the phone is a piece of shit. But what it did for phones was amazing and people can appreciate that while recognizing that it's not all that great of a phone. So knowing the history might make you appreciate it more, it doesn't make it better.
Well, I don't think you can use technology (though you're right about the Razr) as a corollary for music, because tech has function whereas music has form. Art doesn't need to progress to meet the needs of society to nearly as great an extent as technology, although it at times does. I can't escape the feeling that songs like A Change is Gonna Come or Vietnam Song wouldn't have remotely the same effect if they'd come out in 1995. You might argue that effect doesn't influence appreciation but I would argue that they're almost the same thing. To each his own.
Regarding arrested dev: Did you watch the original series or the new episodes? Also, did you watch it by yourself or with someone else? Also, and a very important question, was the person you watched it with someone with whom English is a second language? There are so many pop references and jokes revolving around language.
The original series. We started at the beginning. Yes, I've watched it with my wife, but it's not because of that, I just find most of the jokes to be just ok. Every once in a while there is a really hilarious and subtle line (last night I LOL'd to Oscar's double-entendre "maybe I'll put it in her brownie"), but I don't find it to be as witty as so many people have led me to believe.
Ah yes, that is a good one: Michael: My mom is very stressed out, and, uh, she needs something that I can’t give her. Um… maybe a little “Afternoon Delight”? Narrator: Oscar thought that Michael was referring to a particular brand of cannabis named “Afternoon Deelite,” a strain famous for slowing behavior. Oscar: Well, sure. The question is, which way do I try to get it in her? Michael: I don’t need any details. Oscar: Maybe I’ll put it in her brownie. Michael: Hey!
Donnie Darko. Anything by Stanley Kubrick. (Not a sosumi, but: I never understood the hatred Avatar got.) The Beatles. Oh, I like 'em well enough, but I'm talking about Beatles as Pinnacle of Modern Music. Just... no. They aren't even close. Everything Lana Del Rey. Arcade Fire. Bar-B-Que. It's a'ight; I don't hate eating it. But where I live, people have made some kind of fucking religion out of it, and I can't help but wonder how a sauce invented to mask the taste of rotting meat is now, somehow, considered to be culinary genius. Call of Duty/Battlefield X/Modern warfare simulators. For that matter: sports games. (I never did understand why people who like football that much don't just go outside and play it). Heck, while we're on this track: sports themselves. This includes the olympics. I just do not understand, and have not been convinced, that training for years and running really, really fast is a worthwhile accomplishment worthy of heaping piles of praise on someone. And the violent, us-vs-them warrior culture that the NFL promotes is just hideous and, I believe, the source of a lot of other long-standing problems we deal with all the time. Parks and Recreation. Everybody Loves Raymond. ... I think I'll stop here, I have somewhere to be.
I'm a New Orleans native. You're not wrong, but... at least there, there is a lot more to it. There, it's like you start with sugar and fat, but have to do a whole hell of a lot more to it before it passes muster. Usually, that "whole hell of a lot more" takes hours to days of careful and considerate shenanigans. Then again, I perhaps undersell how it is here. The sauce is surely just sugar and fat (and a bit of pepper), but the meat prep is insane. That's the twist: the sauce was invented for low-grade, not-keeping-well meat, but is now applied to intricately prepared and marinated top-shelf stuff. It's a strange paradigm that I've yet to get used to even after almost a decade.
Wow, thank you for giving me the confidence to finally say this , "I'm not a fan of Jimi Hendrix." Holy shit, that felt good. I don't care, not one iota about NFL football. I'm to the point in my life where I refuse to even pretend anymore. Also, I pretty much don't care about college football either, except for the fact that it makes people I care about happy and helps local economies that I care about. I think New Order is just okay. -preemptive strike to mk's inevitable dig at #thebeatles. I think the movie Scarface is "meh." Same goes for most, not all, Scorsese films. Also, onions suck. Give me a shallot or garlic in its place any day.
I'm the same way about sports, even though I played a number of them growing up. I always feel bad though, because their followings are so huge (especially soccer) and inspire such passion (including riots, cough cough). I don't even care about sports and racing video games and they are hugely popular and I just think, maybe I could enjoy them - and I'd finally have a game my dad and brother-in-law would enjoy when they come over. But alas, I am stuck playing space and politics simulator games.I don't care, not one iota about NFL football. I'm to the point in my life where I refuse to even pretend anymore. Also, I pretty much don't care about college football either, except for the fact that it makes people I care about happy and helps local economies that I care about.
But Journey... You're right, Journey doesn't have the grand mechanical depth of games like WoW or Quake. But for me, Journey evoked an indescribable, inexplicable emotional response. I think Journey somehow created a Hero's Journey effect, without words or even concrete symbols. For me, Journey was a defining experience in my life, and I'm not even a video game connoisseur. But I also enjoy the stories of "cinematic" games, so I imagine we're very different people."Art" games, especially if they have no mechanical depth. (Looking at you thatgamecompany)
I agree Flow and Flower aren't all they're hyped up to be. Original? yes. Fun? meh.
Almost all TV shows. I just don't care to carve out an hour a week (god forbid more than one a week) where I have to sit and watch "my shows" just to keep up with them. When I rarely decide to invest time in a series I like to pick a show that's already finished it's run so I can watch it at my leisure, and know I'm done with it when I get through the last season. It usually takes me a couple months to watch a series. The downside of all this is I have absolutely nothing to talk about when everybody else is blabbering on about Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.
1. Pop music. All of it. Any of it. Old, new, etc. I don't care. If it's popular, there's a 99% chance I'm gonna hate it. I guess it's my hipster blood, but I can't stand any of it. Beatles? sucks. That stupid fox song? Stay away. Gangnam style? okay the first time, but it got annoying. Really. It all sucks. Go get me some good music. 2. I guess a strange one would be: Jeans. I don't get the big deal. I hate the texture. I don't care that people like them, but it just seems so eery and robotic. Literally everyone wears jeans it seems. wtf? 3. Movies. Not movies in general, but just what seems to be popular. Comedy movies aren't funny. Action movies are usually the most boring. And the avengers was not good. All those movies suck and I'm ashamed I paid $10 to go see it with my friends. I'll stick to my time travel, parallel universe, and anime movies, thanks. 4. Wearing shoes indoors. I get home and immediately take off my shoes. I know people who'll wear their shoes until they go to sleep. How can you be comfortable/relax when you have shoes on? I don't get it. 5. First Person Shooter games. They just don't hold my interest. I played some way back when, but I got bored of them and haven't touched one since.
Hey Kafke, everyone is kinda asking you "Well, what do you like?" so maybe some more music can be recommended to you. There is lots of very good stuff out there, but you have to listen with different ears sometimes. The context argument newgreen spoke of is an important one. You are not sitting there listening to music unseated from history or without any personal context. The preferences of your relatives and the music they exposed you too have provided you with something to base your preferences off of, as you stated yourself. Also, there's been plenty of artists that I now adore that I used to not enjoy at all, because something from their catalog finally just struck me at the right place/time and their other work began to make sense. Also, Meriadoc recommended Sufjan Steven, and I would consider that a very good idea, but his Illinois album would be a better primer, imo. Bjork is also a very good recommendation, she is an extremely varied artist and I think can appeal to your sensibilities you previously mentioned, ie, "fusion" styles or some juxtaposed form.
Of course. I generally prefer a specific style for general listening, but I'm up to try anything. I suppose that's true. Most of the stuff I heard early on I don't really like or listen to anymore (and didn't care for it at the time either). So it hasn't really changed. This has definitely happened to me before. Not often, but it has happened in rare cases. The few times it did, it took me maybe 10-20 listens of the same song (even though it was meh) to begin actually liking it. Sharing those songs with friends/family gets roughly the same reaction I had (didn't like it, then it grew on you). When Meriadoc mentioned this artist, I gave it a quick listen (the suggested album was age of adz) and I didn't really like it (and responded as such). Giving it a second listen resulted in the same opinion. I have his Illinois album a shot, and actually ended up liking it (although it's a bit simple). It's definitely a completely different style of music than I usually listen to, but it was enjoyable. Which is rare for me to find in slower/simple music. Which is why my preferences have progressed from rock -> punk rock -> metal. It kind of reminded me of "clocks" by coldplay (which I also enjoyed). I also noticed there was a "vs" youtube video in the recommended videos (so my thoughts on the matter weren't far off). As I mentioned in my other comment, Bjork sounds like the type of artist I'd listen to, but I haven't been able to find anything by her that I actually like. Yea, once people find out that I tend to not enjoy most music, they kind of jump in on the "find music Kafke likes" game. I'll have to look further into Sufjan Steven. A "meh" and a "this is pretty good" leads me to believe that there's some other good stuff hidden away. And yea, for a while I was just kind of genre hopping. Sampling the top hits of every genre until I found some I enjoy. As I mentioned in another post, that kind of landed me somewhere around electroswing, jazz, and some sub genres of metal (along with japanese doujin music).There is lots of very good stuff out there, but you have to listen with different ears sometimes.
You are not sitting there listening to music unseated from history or without any personal context. The preferences of your relatives and the music they exposed you too have provided you with something to base your preferences off of, as you stated yourself.
Also, there's been plenty of artists that I now adore that I used to not enjoy at all, because something from their catalog finally just struck me at the right place/time and their other work began to make sense.
Also, Meriadoc recommended Sufjan Steven, and I would consider that a very good idea, but his Illinois album would be a better primer, imo.
Bjork is also a very good recommendation, she is an extremely varied artist and I think can appeal to your sensibilities you previously mentioned, ie, "fusion" styles or some juxtaposed form.
Hey Kafke, everyone is kinda asking you "Well, what do you like?" so maybe some more music can be recommended to you.
I'm glad you like Sufjan, although I would be careful about calling it "simple", he's a very powerful and thoughtful artist, it just may formulate itself in other ways than you may be used to listening for. I think you may appreciate the more eclectic, so if you don't mind a couple of other suggestions: Dirty Projectors did an album "covering" Black Flag songs, and it's my favorite of theirs and their earlier work is definitely more of a challenge to listen to and probably will appeal to the "rock"-ish aspects of your preferences. Naked City is a group that John Zorn took part in and they are just some wacky fuckers. Extra Life is a self-proclaimed "baroque-metal" group that recently disbanded and sound to me like a stylistically extreme Tool.
Even when they're old and haven't been washed in a while? Because I agree that new jeans or recently washed jeans aren't that comfortable. However, a worn in pair can be one of the more comfortable things I ever wear.
I'm curious Kafke, do you have a desert island list of music or albums?
If by "desert island list" you mean severely lacking, then yes. But I wouldn't say it's because of my music taste. My first introduction to "music" was probably around middle-school where I just listened to my Mom and Brother's stuff. My mom is more into... err... traditional? music. I think it falls more in line with classic rock and country. I didn't really like that stuff. My brother had a "better" taste in my opinion, and he was more into punk rock. Linkin Park, Good Charlotte, and the like. Which were okay. That was really my only taste of music up until high school and college. In highschool I started to dabble in some music I stumbled across. Just misc. songs. While my actual music discovery just only started maybe last year or so. So yea, my library is a bit lacking at the moment. Fortunately, I've found 3 artists in the past week or so that I really enjoy. So it's not just that I hate everything :P
Oh, yeah, once you start really digging in in terms of music discovery your tastes kind of explode and develop like mad. I'd recommend starting with a few bands you like and checking out related artists on last.fm or the like. Or go check out a sharethread or something, like the #weeklymusicthread or something. Lots of good obscure stuff out there.
Sorry. The desert island question is a hypothetical game people sometimes play. As in "You're stuck on a desert island, what music would you like to have with you?" Sort of like asking what album(s) would most satiate you if you only had a select few for the rest of your life. It sounds like your musical tastes are changing though, maybe, which makes it a tough one to answer. Do I go with a classic from childhood, or something more contemporary?....
Yup. Just the fact that everyone wears them without any thought in the matter. As soon as I was old enough to think and decide for myself, I nope'd out of them. Do you actively say "yes, I want to wear jeans"? or is it something you grew up with and so you never thought about changing? As a side note: I enjoy seeing different styles of fashion (like in Harajuku) but it seems most people just go with the t-shirt+jeans look. Which is fine, but it's a bit boring to see it day in and day out.
Actually, I chose not to wear jeans for a long time. Like, 10 years. Then one day I found a pair that fit really well and that was that. As for boring, I can understand that. I am also fine with that. It's unusual to see me in something other than jeans and a white t-shirt. That's more of a habit though. I used to work long hours at a restaurant and then have class all day, so instead of doing laundry I just bought packages of white t-shirts from the discount places downtown, near school (I do laundry more regularly now). Edit: until 2012 I pretty much wore business clothes during the day but . . . I haven't exactly been doing business since then.
I've never heard of either of them (and thus would be excluded from what I was talking about) but I gave them a listen aaaaaannnnnd didn't like it. "Sufjan Steven's Age of Adz" I had really no idea wtf was going on and it was just meh. Bjork seemed to have potential but ultimately failed in my book.
I like this word a lot. For me: Eggs T.S. Eliot Ezra Pound Portlandia (yeah, there are some funny bits) Socks Underwear Soda Candy Corn Bananas Cars Air Conditioning Bagels "Awkward" comedy (with some exceptions I guess) I think I'll cut it off there, because I'm sure there are a lot more . . .
St-Viateur bagels are the classic Montreal bagels, but you have to buy them fresh from St-Viateur. They outsourced a bit and have breakfast places and deliver them to some stores but it's not the same. Still hot from the bagel oven is the way to go. Like this:
Portlandia is one of those shows that can really make me laugh 3/10 "sketches", and I really root for it to be better but it just isn't.
My list is this: Nutella Tomatoes (except the tomato paste on a pizza) Dr Who Pokemon I've tried them all, and just couldn't get into them. Not sure why
I mentioned this to you earleir but I have finally identified my sosumi. Chocolate. Most things sweet, in fact. I used to have a huge sweet tooth but now I favor savory almost any time. It is no hardship for me to forgo dessert usually. And chocolate? Pieces of chocolate? Keep them. I find it too sweet. (Ironically, dark chocolate is not sweet enough.) Most typical "candy" is too sweet for me. And ice cream. I do like certain combinations of, say, chocolate-and-peanut-butter. Chocolate-and-caramel. But I usually like it paired with something salty like chips or pretzels, etc.
Living in America....football (and sports in general really). I loosely follow the Atlanta Braves and watch some of the Olympics but other than that I never watch sports. Without sports there is almost nothing to talk about with men around my age (24). I really wish I could get into them and I used to pretend that I loved sports but I can't do it anymore. Also, movies. There are a few movies I truly do enjoy but 99% of them I just don't care for. I guess my interests involve doing things with my hands/brain. I can't sit passively watching something for more than 30 minutes but I can read primary scientific literature, listen to music, and play competitive video games for hours on end without ever getting bored.
I don't get classical music. Chamber music? Yes. Organ music? Yes. Classical guitar? Totally. One person conducting a bunch of folks through a long piece without a word? Nope. I've tried, but I just feel like I'm listening to autocracy and hegemony. This overbearing mofo is waving a tiny dick at a bunch of skilled people and gets to yell at them. They're wearing black tie. It's uptight out to hell.
Have you tried some neo-classical/post-classical? Basically modern composers doing some wonderful things, and I tend to find it personally much more compelling than classical itself. Check out Olafur Arnalds and Luke Howard and oh boy, Jherek Bischoff for something a bit different.
I like classical music but there are many genres I find to be more compelling. However, I'm a huge fan of neo-classical music. The examples you posted were excellent. I loved every single second. Having said the above I must admit that I can listen to all three movements of Moonlight Sonata everyday. To me, that is the epitome of classical music and I wish more composers would have taken that route towards classical composition.
There are some really good alternative composers out there, too. I'm no expert but I have a friend who is, I'll ask him for some recommendations and post them. I quite like Debussy but he's still quite classical. Schoenberg is really cool, too - he developed the twelve tone method, in which the composition plays through the twelve musical tones, never repeating a tone until it's played all twelve.
I think I mentioned it here already, but i don't like Music. I like going to shows for the vibe. I like music during parties. I like singing nostalgic song when I get a bit drunk. I like music in a car at the beginning of a road trip, so I feel like i'm in a movie. I have favourite songs and genres I like. But, I almost never listen to music when i'm alone. I just don't get it. Silence is great. I guess i'm lucky about this one: smoking. I've smoked socially through high school for stupid reasons. Then I cut it down to parties every week end. Now I just don't anymore. I don't like it and I never will. I'm not really into Breaking Bad. I've watched all of it until the last 10 episodes. And I simply don t care enough to even finish the series. Foodwise? bread. I like bread on occasion but i think I could live without. My boyfriend can't eat a meal without some bread and I just don't get it. I bet he could eat pizza with bread...
Do you feel that smoking is something you're expected to like?
Everyone that smokes seem to like it. They hate the fact that they like it, but they still like it. I guess you're not expected to like it, but once you start it's expected that you will like it and keep smoking. I might be wrong in assuming people keep smoking because they like it. Maybe they just don't hate it and become addicted.
It's weird isn't it? People both like it and hate it I think. I work really close to a bunch of ESL schools. When I step out for lunch there are inevitably 30 to 40 kids out in the alleys chain smoking away. What is it with youth and cigarettes? It's the perfect social combination.
Whenever I eat a carrot, I get the feeling that chewing doesn't break the carrot down- it just generates increasingly numerous, smaller carrots. Until I've got a mouthful of carrot-gravel and I have to mercy-swallow. Carrots are beyond overrated.
This made me laugh because you have perfectly described the sensation I've always felt but never even recognized. I'm ambivalent about carrots, but now I may lean towards not liking raw carrots. However, carrot cake with cream cheese frosting is one of my favorites.
BBT is what the rest of the world thinks about geeks. Sometimes they get a couple things right, but it's more like Amos & Andy: stereotyped, cringe worthy, increasingly seeming like it'll be embarrassing to watch in syndication in a decade. Sometimes they have a guest shot by someone I really like (Bob Newhart, the recurring Wil Wheaton). Otherwise it's just... numbing. I don't actually hate it, but I feel like it's from an older era of television that was accidentally filmed in HD.