MR

I find myself torn between knowing that certain musicians are more talented, yet prefering to listen to different musicians. However, have I been conditioned into thinking that certain musicians are better? Perhaps everything comes down to preference. Unless we realize the talent level and prefer one over another because we recognize that higher talent level...

There is this theory in psychology called Adaptive Preference Formation (more or less the Sour Grapes fable). An easier explanation would be Buyer's Remorse( I get this alot....lol)

Anyway, back to music....I often find myself wondering if Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, Who, Clapton...etc. are really better (read: talented) than more recent musicians, or have I just been re-inforced, conditioned, brainwashed to believe that those who came before must be better? And then the cog in all this is my affinity towards those who came after. Do I really, as Deano says, have the worst taste in music here? I'd rather listen to Harem Scarem than Zeppelin. Crazy Lixx than Clapton.

I'd really like to know exactly what goes into preference.....is it a show-off thing? Is there a hint of elitism involved? a Cool factor? Is there any other criteria involved in preferences other than I just like it?

S2M wrote:I find myself torn between knowing that certain musicians are more talented, yet prefering to listen to different musicians. However, have I been conditioned into thinking that certain musicians are better? Perhaps everything comes down to preference. Unless we realize the talent level and prefer one over another because we recognize that higher talent level...

There is this theory in psychology called Adaptive Preference Formation (more or less the Sour Grapes fable). An easier explanation would be Buyer's Remorse( I get this alot....lol)

Anyway, back to music....I often find myself wondering if Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, Who, Clapton...etc. are really better (read: talented) than more recent musicians, or have I just been re-inforced, conditioned, brainwashed to believe that those who came before must be better? And then the cog in all this is my affinity towards those who came after. Do I really, as Deano says, have the worst taste in music here? I'd rather listen to Harem Scarem than Zeppelin. Crazy Lixx than Clapton.

I'd really like to know exactly what goes into preference.....is it a show-off thing? Is there a hint of elitism involved? a Cool factor? Is there any other criteria involved in preferences other than I just like it?

For me, some of it has to do with a certain song connecting with a certain memory. When I was a kid, my dad and step-mom had an ugly fight at about 11:00 at night. When the fight was over, my step-mom had a 45 of "When I Need You" by Leo Sayer playing on the record player with the arm left up, so it just repeated over and over. And I connect that song with that awful night, and have never liked it as a result, but a lot of people liked it and may still. Journey was my first real concert and the whole night was just about perfect in every respect, so that could be why I like their music so much.

Deb wrote:

S2M wrote:I find myself torn between knowing that certain musicians are more talented, yet prefering to listen to different musicians. However, have I been conditioned into thinking that certain musicians are better? Perhaps everything comes down to preference. Unless we realize the talent level and prefer one over another because we recognize that higher talent level...

There is this theory in psychology called Adaptive Preference Formation (more or less the Sour Grapes fable). An easier explanation would be Buyer's Remorse( I get this alot....lol)

Anyway, back to music....I often find myself wondering if Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, Who, Clapton...etc. are really better (read: talented) than more recent musicians, or have I just been re-inforced, conditioned, brainwashed to believe that those who came before must be better? And then the cog in all this is my affinity towards those who came after. Do I really, as Deano says, have the worst taste in music here? I'd rather listen to Harem Scarem than Zeppelin. Crazy Lixx than Clapton.

I'd really like to know exactly what goes into preference.....is it a show-off thing? Is there a hint of elitism involved? a Cool factor? Is there any other criteria involved in preferences other than I just like it?

I obviously choose my music by talent, not popularity.

We know this, Deb....you say it all the time....

I'm just wondering what makes you like a particular thing....I mean it could get circular. I like it because I perceive it as talented..and they are perceived as talented because I like them....

S2M wrote:I find myself torn between knowing that certain musicians are more talented, yet prefering to listen to different musicians. However, have I been conditioned into thinking that certain musicians are better? Perhaps everything comes down to preference. Unless we realize the talent level and prefer one over another because we recognize that higher talent level...

There is this theory in psychology called Adaptive Preference Formation (more or less the Sour Grapes fable). An easier explanation would be Buyer's Remorse( I get this alot....lol)

Anyway, back to music....I often find myself wondering if Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, Who, Clapton...etc. are really better (read: talented) than more recent musicians, or have I just been re-inforced, conditioned, brainwashed to believe that those who came before must be better? And then the cog in all this is my affinity towards those who came after. Do I really, as Deano says, have the worst taste in music here? I'd rather listen to Harem Scarem than Zeppelin. Crazy Lixx than Clapton.

I'd really like to know exactly what goes into preference.....is it a show-off thing? Is there a hint of elitism involved? a Cool factor? Is there any other criteria involved in preferences other than I just like it?

I obviously choose my music by talent, not popularity.

S2M wrote:

Deb wrote:

S2M wrote:I find myself torn between knowing that certain musicians are more talented, yet prefering to listen to different musicians. However, have I been conditioned into thinking that certain musicians are better? Perhaps everything comes down to preference. Unless we realize the talent level and prefer one over another because we recognize that higher talent level...

There is this theory in psychology called Adaptive Preference Formation (more or less the Sour Grapes fable). An easier explanation would be Buyer's Remorse( I get this alot....lol)

Anyway, back to music....I often find myself wondering if Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, Who, Clapton...etc. are really better (read: talented) than more recent musicians, or have I just been re-inforced, conditioned, brainwashed to believe that those who came before must be better? And then the cog in all this is my affinity towards those who came after. Do I really, as Deano says, have the worst taste in music here? I'd rather listen to Harem Scarem than Zeppelin. Crazy Lixx than Clapton.

I'd really like to know exactly what goes into preference.....is it a show-off thing? Is there a hint of elitism involved? a Cool factor? Is there any other criteria involved in preferences other than I just like it?

I obviously choose my music by talent, not popularity.

We know this, Deb....you say it all the time....

I'm just wondering what makes you like a particular thing....I mean it could get circular. I like it because I perceive it as talented..and they are perceived as talented because I like them....

No "perceivement" (such a word? ) of talent. Pound for pound, more talent in MB than most other bands out there.

Mr. Big is a clear-cut example of the individual parts being better than the sum of those parts, or the whole. Their is no synergy in that band, and they haven't attained emergence....musically, I can sort of dig them. And EM on his own is quite nice. They can not write a fucking catchy song. Sorry....I know they are your favorite, and that's ok....But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Mr. Big is a 2nd tier rock band....

S2M wrote:Mr. Big is a clear-cut example of the individual parts being better than the sum of those parts, or the whole. Their is no synergy in that band, and they haven't attained emergence....musically, I can sort of dig them. And EM on his own is quite nice. They can not write a fucking catchy song. Sorry....I know they are your favorite, and that's ok....But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Agreed. Assembling the greatest musician at every position in the lineup and teaming them up with Steve Perry (the greatest vocalist ever ... but only from 1980-1984:lol:) guarantees nothing, in terms of chemistry. People have to gel, melodies have to form and the only magic formula for success is generally whether or not people in masses like it. And before people start trampling in with the Lady Gag, Kanye West and other examples, I'm talking about a relative playing field ... the 80's and early 90's. Today? Selling a couple hundred thousand is tremendous for bands whose musical climate "heyday" is about 20 years in the rear view mirror.

S2M wrote: Mr. Big is a 2nd tier rock band....

Way too much credit. Eric Martin played in a park the last 2 years and couldn't entice kids off the fucking teeter totter.

Saint John wrote:

S2M wrote:Mr. Big is a clear-cut example of the individual parts being better than the sum of those parts, or the whole. Their is no synergy in that band, and they haven't attained emergence....musically, I can sort of dig them. And EM on his own is quite nice. They can not write a fucking catchy song. Sorry....I know they are your favorite, and that's ok....But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Agreed. Assembling the greatest musician at every position in the lineup and teaming them up with Steve Perry (the greatest vocalist ever ... but only from 1980-1984:lol:) guarantees nothing, in terms of chemistry. People have to gel, melodies have to form and the only magic formula for success is generally whether or not people in masses like it. And before people start trampling in with the Lady Gag, Kanye West and other examples, I'm talking about a relative playing field ... the 80's and early 90's. Today? Selling a couple hundred thousand is tremendous for bands whose musical climate "heyday" is about 20 years in the rear view mirror.

Thank you. First one hundred thousand of those within 24 hours is none too shabby in this day and age. And that's only release in one country so far. And before you come in mouthing off about sales or attendance in NA, contrary to popular believe the world doesn't start and end with the US. I (and obviously many others) like their songs, vocals and musicality......it matters not that you and a few others on a message board don't like them. LOL, I'm quite sure I make up for that.

Saint John wrote:

S2M wrote: Mr. Big is a 2nd tier rock band....

Way too much credit. Eric Martin played in a park the last 2 years and couldn't entice kids off the fucking teeter totter.

He has played bars and sells about the same as Rik Emmett on his own, nowadays........doesn't make either one of them any less talented. Many, many talented and popular 70s/80s/90s singers(solo) or bands are now playing clubs/casinos etc.