Why do most people have shit music taste?

It's true Sup Forums. Like when Bowie died and they wouldn't stop playing fucking Let's Dance on the radio. Why did people enjoy listening to repetitive derivative rubbish instead of challenging interesting stuff made with real passion?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mvstpQGjPPc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Radiohead is good.

Yeah but my point is that 80% of people would only want to listen to Creep and not, say, Life in a Glasshouse

Having shit taste is thinking any music is good fucking pleb

The art of making music with marketable mass appeal was mastered fuck knows how long ago. You keep hearing the same shit because the same shit keeps making money.

That's nothing to do with my question. My question is why do people genuinely only want to listen to that kind of stuff

Because it's what they like.

This.

/thread

take your elitist autism elsewhere OP

Tip your fedora a little harder

C'mon guys there's genuine discussion to be had here. I'm just curious as to why people don't enjoy music made with passion and soul and creativity as much as pop produced to sell, psychologically or whatever. I just want some insight into it. Saying 'it's what they like' answers nothing

It kinda does because the average person neither thinks that hard about it nor wants to think that hard about it. They hear something that sounds good to them and that's that. Listening to music for "challenge" and "intrigue" is something actual music enthusiasts do. The average person is not a music enthusiast.

because your listening to the fucking radio

because "passion" and "soul" or creativity dont necessarily translate to music most people can connect to

Keep living in your autist bubble, egocentric douchebag.

Repeating digits.

Lets Dance is a good song though familia

Just admit that you don't want to think about it and move on.

But it's not a difficult thing to think about. Music sounds good to me when it's fresh and exciting and new, I don't get how other people don't find the same qualities appealing, like isn't freshness and excitement and challenge what makes things appealing in the first place?

most people aren't genuinely interested in music, it's like television for them. just another medium that provides them some kind of escape from their shitty existence (/provides them some kind of corporately designed bullshit to brainwash them even further).

>not liking Let's Dance
Is this Sup Forums or /cringe/ amirite guys

It's a good song

>I don't get how other people don't find the same qualities appealing
Welcome to the real world.
The average person just does not care. All they want is instant gratification.

What does any of that mean. Wanting know why people enjoy mass produced stuff that an artist is embarrassed about (i.e Let's Dance) over an artist's work that is them at their peak creativity and musicianship and that they're most proud of, makes me egocentric? You're basically calling the artists egocentric too

People like Let's Dance because it has a much stronger dance beat, the lyrics about dancing, it's a better dance song than A New Career in a New Town.
Also, LD is a fucking great dance song.

lol none of Bowie's music is good and none of it has real passion
Let's Dance is one of his few decent songs

Courtesy post that you guys are getting memed pretty hard by OP.

>none of it has real passion
youtube.com/watch?v=mvstpQGjPPc

Most people who don't have a deep interest in a art form prefer the easy digestible stuff than anything else. You don't expect that somebody who doesn't care about cinema would rather watch a Ingmar Bergman film rather than a Zack Snyder film right? Why should music be any way different?

Shit example
Bowie was seemingly physically incapable of expressing real, genuine, human emotion.
Also it's funny how people think Bowie's music is so "theatrical" and "complex" even though his favorite trick is to write a 3 chord melody and repeat it until the middle of the song where it jumps up an octave and starts screaming and Bowie stans are like "woah this is so amazing Bowie goat"

>isn't freshness and excitement and challenge what makes things appealing in the first place?

Not inherently, no. They seem like the kind of qualities that an enthusiast would find appealing, sure.

For someone who isn't an enthusiast, they may find catchy melodies or rhythms to dance to appealing.

You've made some assumption that freshness/excitement/challenge is the unanimous measure for appeal. I see no reason why this assumption should be accepted.

This OP, you fucking idiot.

I put music into 3 categories. All 3 respond to certain needs. The 1st one is where standard radio pop fits, shit like, Let's Dance, people like this because it's catchy and responds to the need to hear something that's just 'good' because it is, it's catchy, it's upbeat, whatever. The 2nd is a category for songs that provide an immediate/easy to understand emotional response and/or story, this is where I put bands like Slipknot, A7X, Korn, any known metal bands, a lot of songs on the radio can slightly merge into this category despite being category 1, say your standard love ballads, love songs are popular on the radio because everyone can relate, right? But still semi-catchy and not too much. 2 is basically 'I have emotions that aren't just yEaEAahH GET tUnrrNT NiQQaaA' Then we get to the 3rd category. Immersive music that is challenging, interesting, needs you to go somewhere else and asks more from the listener to just sit there jamming to it, i.e Neurosis and Swans, bands in this category can also fall into 2, I consider Monolith of Inhumanity by Cattle Decapitation to be an album that falls into both. There's a lot of outside shit too I guess but I don't know I just thought up this module like a week ago. So what I'm saying here is, everyone's got different needs from music. We all know that most people like category 1 shit. It's just like why people like McDonalds. Plus radio stations aren't going to play some deep ass shit because a massive chunk of their listeners are either driving or working. It'd be illogical to do so.

As for why people listen to shit is because they're satisfied. People care about music or they don't. Anyone who does eventually goes deeper, but not your standard soccer moms and so on. It's like any interest. If there is no immediate need to go deeper they won't. You seek out 3 because 2 dried up for you. A lot of abused highschoolers seek 2 because they need something to relate to and 1 just doesn't cut it and whatnot.

>take your elitist autism elsewhere OP
this attitude on Sup Forums, Sup Forums especially, what the fuck...
how I look at it "autism" should be embraced in these kind places.

>let's agree to disagree and have no form of intellectual discussion to ever take place
k den
how "politically correct" are you twats?

That's a rubbish example. You can't compare film to music they both require completely different things from the observer

in these kind of places*

I have a conversation with a "friend" about the music that played on the radio, his main reason for only listening to radio pop was cause he didn't understand why sad music is a thing.

>Implying intellectual discussion on variation of musical taste is possible

Yeah but it's the same as why kids find fucking talking dog movies and Diary of a Wimpy Kid books fresh, new and pretty much the coolest thing they've ever experienced, lack of exposure and in the case of adults; pure lack of interest.

Some people just aren't into music, hombre. Some people are just satisfied with not much of anything.

Who say's music and film requires things from the observer to enjoy? What do they require? That you have ears? You know you're required to have ears to watch a movie, unless you have the subtitles on.

expand

Then what is a good example?

lol

the separation of your 2nd and 3rd category is so based on your subjective opinion and taste it hurts.

>So guys, basically, any popular metal band has no emotional depth, super easy to understand. But Swans, they're way more complex.

>Oh, what? You prefer Slipknot to Swans? lol pleb, Swans is 3rd category music, Slipknot is only 2nd category

dude seriously l m a o

Where would The Velvet Underground go?

Nothing really there to expand, he didn't understand why I liked "sad" music, which to him was anything that wasn't 100% upbeat.

>I put music into 3 categories.
Dropped instantly.

Your 3 categories of music are based on your own standards and if you're separating music into any category other than genre, you have retarded standards.

Who gets the final say on what's 2nd category and 3rd category music? You?

Where would literally every other band go besides the ones he mentioned?

How about this;

Your average person is content with learning a couple standard part-of-the-school-curriculum facts about history or geography. It satisfies the need to pass 12th grade or whatever. An archaeologist or historian or whatever is not because they're just interested in that kind of shit. Learning about soil erosion in some click clock village in east Nigeria sounds fucking gay, doesn't it? Whereas hearing about Mayans beheading people for sacrifices sounds cool and edgy or whatever? You don't care about the shoes they wore. You just don't. Music is the same, people are either inclined to get into music or they're not, all depends on whether the need or the interest is there. Simple as that.

Fucking this.

ok but why would I use someone else's standards for music I like

also I'm confused, when did I say someone's a pleb for liking Slipknot? I'm saying people listen to bands for what they need from them. People's music tastes respond to a need. That's it. And genres are a completely different concept.

Many people consider themselves
into music, but will still only listen to very popular/chart music. I've met people who tell me how much they love music. Hell, they might listen to music almost as much as you, just a much narrower breadth of music.

It's not that people like us or your average Sup Forums user or whatever are more into music than the average person, we are more into music exploration/discovery and more into eclecticism.

I think that's an important distinction to avoid some of the implied elitism here.

Look. All I'm saying is, if you want something to jam to, category 1. If you're angry or sad about something, 2. If you want to feel something different, listen to something atmospheric, then that's 3. That's it. It's not hard to grasp. It works for me.

Yes as long as you acknowledge that your standards are literally only for you. Because it wasn't clear in your initial post.

There are people who may be able to make a case for the emotional complexity of Slipknot or whatever. Just because you see Swans as more emotionally complex than Slipknot, doesn't mean it is the case.

Your categories are only relevant to you, right?

oh I forgot to mention, one category isn't better than the other, they're just different. They just respond to different needs.

yeah you are right. even if I think there are a group of music enthusiasts who may be more emotional,
and who have a stronger emotional reaction to music than most...

but far from all music enthusiasts are more emotional like that,
just take a look around this place filled with emotionally numb depressed boys

Because that's how their brains are? Because time is finite and they have more pressing matters to tend to? Because most people see it as a light medium to pass the time?

If a particle physicist came up to you and asked you why you don't go deeper into science, what would you tell him? He'd tell you he's befuddled why everyone doesn't go deeper into science.

I'm OK with how things are, people are experts at different things. No one truly knows everything.

>I don't understand why other people don't have the same interests as me

You've got some growing up to do.

Well yeah, pretty much.

I don't see Swans as more emotionally complex, they're just different. I gotta be in a different mood for each category. Slipknot is more laid out for you is all. If I have an ass of a day, I just wanna listen to Slipknot. Fuck, idk I thought it would be at least a little relevant to other people when I typed that up but I guess it only works for me.

>Why would I use someone else's standards for music I like?
>Tries to make 3 categories of music to set standards for music people like.

Bravo.

While they both require different requirements you don't need much to enjoy the both of them.

I was just trying to make OP get why people are satisfied with listening to Let's Dance on the radio a million times. Didn't know how else to convey it.

People are just too different man. You can never assume they're having a similar reaction.

Perhaps you are only scratching the surface with Slipknot, not bothering to invest any deeper, and so you are perceiving it as "more laid out for you"

Someone may be able to write a five thousand page article on the emotional nuances and subtle complexities of Slipknot.

This is why it's too assumptive to think your categories can be generalised to other people and their emotional relationships with specific bands.

five thousand word*

lol

I find it funny that OP implies he wants genuine discussion with such a buzzword, bait-sounding, inflammatory title as "why do most people have shit music taste?"

Why be sad if it isn't enjoyable?
Obviously I'm not like this with music, I find it gratifying and beautiful.

I am however a pleb when it comes to film though so I understand, I don't even watch Drama.
Character interactions make me feel nothing and I honestly don't ever have a strong response, I mostly just watch comedies to entertain me.
It's just a bunch of actors to me trying to act like human beings and feeling, I'm not knocking on it because I know it takes skill and many others care for it.
I do enjoy books however, I can find them more gratifying than music at times.

Just look at their most popular songs on Spotify

*human beings and failing
And if you didn't understand the first sentence was rhetorical, I don't feel that way toward music but if someone said that I wouldn't argue because if a movie made me sad I would just be sad, wouldn't move me at all.

But particle science is complicated and requires actual knowledge and understanding. Listening to music, any music, doesn't. You understand it simply through listening to it

I promise you Sup Forums, the second you stop giving shit about what people listen to, your life will become so much less stressful and bearable. Silently brooding and classifying people into "pleb" and "patrician" is fucking childish and makes you look and feel like an idiot. Grow up.

spoken like a true pleb

...

Wot. Since when is occasionally thinking about why other people have different tastes 'unbearable' and 'stressful'?

that's the normiest meme i've seen on Sup Forums all day, congrats

>so much less stressful and bearable

How sheltered are you? No one is stressed here, it's all people fucking around with each other.

I went on to explain that his definition of sad is anything that isn't constantly upbeat as seen in this post

Okay I read it?
I was explaining why someone might not like something sad or emotional, I wasn't talking about your friend.

hit the nail on the fucking head

nice

The Lowest Common Denominator.

>Creep listened to 100x more than anything else

Because they don't *listen* to it, it's just there as background noise. I guarantee if you put any "normie pleb" into a room and gave them Taylor Swift to listen to for days, they would get bored and search for something new, and eventually get deeper into genres etc. But they don't sit and listen to music locked in their rooms so it doesn't get boring

>be me
>bowie dies
>go on facebook
>everyone's posting fucking space oddity
>"the stars look very different today R.I.P Bowie.

I bet they don't even Low.

They don't appreciate it as art. Its the reason that when a lot of people think of Bowie they just think of lets dance or another one of his hits, where as someone who appreciates music as an art form would think of something like Low, Ziggy Stardust, Hunky Dory, etc. For fuck sake most of them cant even name a full album

LOW BAIT
*in these kinds of places"
retard

The vast majority of people think of music the way you think of, like, I dunno, cars. For most people, and probably you, it's a way to go from point a to point b. But for some people (maybe you idk) it's a passion and a hobby, you know how cars work and want to customize your car and enjoy pushing cars to their limits at races and keep up with new advances in car technology. But for most people it's just a background thing that they don't think about.

Ask the average person what music they listen to. "Uhh anything but country and metal xD" because they don't know anything about music. It's not part of their life. Like cars aren't part of your life.

There's nothing wrong with that, nobody can be into everything. I mean sure they'd get a lot of enjoyment and pleasure from getting into music, but you probably would too if you got into cars, or pottery, or hiking, or whatever. Nobody is into everything, and most people just aren't into music, so they just listen to whatever accessible basic shit is provided to them by the industry.

I'd imagine it has omething to do with singles being more popular than full albums

the general public aren't so into music and so will only spend a small time listening. this leads to them listening to singles produced by artists and not full albums. these singles then skyrocket in popularity when compared to the full albums and the radios cater to the demand and supply

i mean i'm just shitpost guessing here i know nothing about music or how this works

but hey i tried

>i'm not a prophet or a stone age man
>just a faggot that cant dress up like a normal man
>i'm living on
>i'm alll over statuses on people's facebooks
>cant take my eyes from the salivation
>of pop hungry teens
>i've stated many times that i'm not a hero
>i like nazis and occult cuz im a massive queero
>and i ain't got the power anymore

read the thread man, not so much "discussion of taste" (which is impossible), but the fact that some people passively listen to music without giving what they're listening to "a second thought".

listening to music without having as much as a grain of critical though going into it basically.
a lot of "enthusiasts" find that to be absurd.

that's what the thread is about. the whole Bowie thing was just clickbait, to get people in here, I think.

I have shit taste just because until I was like 17 I never really listened to music, beyond video game background music. Never really refined my taste I guess.

Anyone got some good ones for me?

depends on what you're already into ("where you can go from"), genre-wise and such.

is that shit, though?

This makes the most sense.
I took a rock music class (liberal arts college) and my professor talked about this quite a bit.
I remember him saying, maybe in a different class, that bands would sometimes focus on a couple really good songs then just fill the album with subpar songs. Not implying this holds true to every album, but that was the common thing to occur back in the day.

I don't really have a preference aside from not liking country and rap. Something about depression and people yelling about sex and drugs without bleeding on a guitar annoys me. I may have stole the rap statement from my uncle by the way, I assume it has something to do with rock and roll.

if the future does go that way, with about three good songs on almost every music album, that's like a disaster

only its not because for those who enjoy full albums it'll become a treasure hunt where we have to scavenge through tons of albums to find one that's actually worth buying and listening to in its entirety instead of just the good singles

in which case those few well spread albums will become far more popular than all the other shit albums

just shitpost guessing again, i still dont really know anything about music

bait?

either way, I'm not to much help here

No not bait, I don't know enough about music to bait here. All I remember hearing from the country genre is people crying about X or Y, and from rap it was people talking about money and how much sex they got.

Presumed rock and roll thing is again from my uncle. Or maybe just rock? I forget which he was in to now. Either way I wouldn't mind knowing where to find some good music

just listen to the beatles or something i dunno nigga

go onto threads here with people posting powerful or emotional albums

make a folder of music you should listen to and save the images of the album covers there

when you next have time to listen ue the google image search functiion (drag image onto search bar) to search the album covers and find their names. From there you can listen to all the albums in your new folder and find the ones you like.

Then you can post an album cover of an album you enjoyed here in a thread or on your own thread and ask for reccomendations for what to listen to next.

That's what I do. You can start with pic related

>That's nothing to do with my question
yes it does
>My question is why do people genuinely only want to listen to that kind of stuff
he already said, it's because it's music that has been specifically produced to be as appealing to the masses as possible. people like it because it's instantly gratifying. no thought, or critical analysis is required to enjoy it, so people who don't care enough about music to put mental effort into it settle for whatever is the easiest to listen to.

Yeah I like cars too