Do narrower musical tastes equal greater passion?

[A Lark Ascending]

I was struck by these sentences in Ian MacDonald's 'The People's Music' (Pimlico, 2003):

"While, now, it's common to claim a catholic range of taste, it's doubtful whether such tastes are as powerfully charged as narrower, more sectarian responses …. A certain dilution in response is an almost inevitable consequence of inclusivity …The corollary of exclusivity is concentration. Those with very strong tastes will be more focused in their implementation than those who like a little bit of everything. It is, moreover, typical of strongly defined character that it manifests relatively selective tastes and exclusive sympathies."

The context of the remarks is an essay where MacDonald is trying to explain what he sees as the deskilling of popular music over the last thirty years.

I like MacDonald's writing as a rule but as a fundamentalist eclectic find myself in disagreement with him on this one.

What do you think?

[Jazzmoose]

Well...I agree to a point. I think that the narrower focus gives the illusion of more passion, and those with narrower ranges of music certainly talk as if they have more passion, but it's more the passion of a religious convert rather than a "true believer". (I'm going to have trouble making this work; I have to leave for work in five minutes, so this is going to be pretty jumbled!) The jazz fanatic, who disdains any other types of music, to use an example, seems to almost be afraid of allowing other types of music to affect the "purity" of his love for jazz, as if deep down, he's afraid that jazz isn't really strong enough to stand up to other music. The faith must be kept pure above all else!

However, those without this fear are able to see the connections between jazz and other types of music, and can flow through the common threads that unite all music. I think this type is more open minded to the experience of music rather than "jazz" or "classical" or "hiphop" or whatever ghetto the "fanatic" carves out for themselves.

I sure hope this makes sense; gotta go!

[paul secor]

I tend to agree with Jazzmoose - I think you said it pretty well. However, I have a friend who is into one genre of music - blues/r&b. He may be missing something by not listening to a wider variety of musics, but he knows that genre and his collection better than I know mine, simply by virtue of having less to listen to. My way is mine and his is his, and I make no judgements on either. People do things in their own ways.

[A Lark Ascending]

My thoughts entirely. Someone with a singleminded focus on one area of music will obviously know that music in much greater depth and probably hear things the more magpie listener might miss.

On the other hand he or she is going to lack the wider context of the music. Hearing other music can often send you back to your core interest refreshed and able to hear new things.

I certainly take issue with MacDonald's idea that a 'strong character' will have 'selective tastes' and 'exclusive sympathies.'

[jazzbo]

I agree with all the posters here. . . and Bev, is a "strong character" a GREAT thing? I work with a lot of "strong characters" (and some of them like BOTH kinds of music, country AND western!) that I wish worked elsewhere!

[DrJ]

I agree with much that's been said, but it's not as simple as "either or," in real life as opposed to the abstract.

I've met some "depth in one area" people who are remarkable in their true love for the music AND can remain open to other vistas. And I've met some who are so narrow minded you wonder if they really listen to the music for fun or just to check titles off a list.

Same goes for the "breadth" types - some seem to leap from genre to genre, again almost as if ticking off styles and artists on a list. While others are omnivores in the best sense, listening to a variety of musics while developing a true appreciation for and understanding of each and making connections among the various styles.

There are of course an infinite number of shades of grey between these categories, too.

[A Lark Ascending]

I agree with all the posters here. . . and Bev, is a "strong character" a GREAT thing?    I work with a lot of "strong characters" (and some of them like BOTH kinds of music, country AND western!) that I wish worked elsewhere! 

I've never been too sure what 'strong character' actually means. Over here we're for ever told that things like 'team games' are 'character building.' The implication is that those who don't care for them (or are, like me, too physically weedy and uncoordinated to ever get properly involved) have 'weak characters.'

It strikes me that a 'strong character' is someone who overtly and loudly demonstrates the assessors own particular value system. I doubt that Charlie Parker or Jerry Garcia would have been considered 'strong characters' at school!

I'd suggest people who don't exhabit the signs of 'strong character' are perhaps just less prone to putting their character out on display at every available opportunity.

Agree very much with Dr J. In reality even 'omnivores' have their favourite munchies which they know intimately!

Edited August 24, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[Simon Weil]

I was struck by these sentences in Ian MacDonald's 'The People's Music' (Pimlico, 2003):

"While, now, it's common to claim a catholic range of taste, it's doubtful whether such tastes are as powerfully charged as narrower, more sectarian responses …. A certain dilution in response is an almost inevitable consequence of inclusivity …The corollary of exclusivity is concentration. Those with very strong tastes will be more focused in their implementation than those who like a little bit of everything. It is, moreover, typical of strongly defined character that it manifests relatively selective tastes and exclusive sympathies."

The context of the remarks is an essay where MacDonald is trying to explain what he sees as the deskilling of popular music over the last thirty years.

I like MacDonald's writing as a rule but as a fundamentalist eclectic find myself in disagreement with him on this one.

What do you think?

I think it's common to see inclusiveness in Society as a core good (I mean like a plural society) and I think people tend to carry that over into music. I do think that accounts for some of the popularity of world musics etc.. i.e. It isn't strictly musical what is going on. I catch that in myself sometimes.

On the general issue, if he wants to say that popular music has declined in technique as a result of eclectism, I think that's BS. I mean you can play Johnny B Goode with three chords and get on stage and get people dance along with you - and that has nothing to do with eclectism, and was happening more than 30 years ago. My general feeing is that technique has improved in art/culture (say photography) over the last 20 years. The problem is people have less new to say.

Maybe musicians get more eclectic in their attempt to find something new to say. I think there's truth in that. And maybe listeners do that to, in their desire to hear new stuff (and not be bored). But I'm not sure that a musician's technique is any the worse for it (I mean he's got all these new complexities to grasp).

It is, moreover, typical of strongly defined character that it manifests relatively selective tastes and exclusive sympathies.

"Science has shown..." This is a bit of cod psychology he's pulled out of the air.

Simon Weil

[Michael Fitzgerald]

As others have said, it's difficult (and probably useless) to make such generalizations. Plenty of people listen to a wide stylistic range of music and are not discriminating - same for people who listen to a narrow range.

There are even those who may think that being "discriminating" is a bad thing in and of itself. However, refining one's tastes through knowledge and experience is not in opposition to having catholic tastes. Other people are flatly opposed to any kind of analysis - "I like it." "But why? What about it do you like?" "I just like it." Whatever - can't argue with that (lack of) logic - can't even discuss.

If the "all music is equally good" philosophy floats your boat - great. It certainly doesn't for me. I know what I like and I know why I like it (and what I don't like and why I don't like it). There's not enough time in the day for all the stuff I do like so for the most part, spending time on what I don't like seems rather pointless.

Is it possible to be passionate/fanatical/focused/discriminating on many things? Yes, I would say so. Maybe this is simply in accordance with the original "doubtful" or "almost inevitable" qualifiers. Does depth come with breadth? No. Does breadth come with depth? No. If you want depth, you put the work in. If you want depth in several things, you put the work in for each of them. Neither does depth come with lack of breadth, which is what MacDonald is saying. I know lots of people who don't listen to a wide range of music and still know nothing about their "specialty."

BTW, I'm intrigued by a word new to me - "deskilling" - and if it means what I think it does (removing skill) then I think I very much agree with Mr. MacDonald on that point.

Mike

[Jazzmoose]

Two points came to mind after I left this morning:

There seems to be a type of fan of almost anything to whom being a fan (or, in another vein, a collector) of something is more important than the thing itself. While they may honestly believe that they are searching for that rare Yardbirds outtake, rare Submariner appearance, hard to find porno paperback with the Frazetta illustrations, etc., etc., what they are really looking for is the camaraderie of other specialists in their field (and the bragging rights if they find the holy grail, of course!). In other words, to borrow from Vonnegut, a lot of fans aren't really interested in what they think they are interested in, but are simply seeking a replacement for family in todays world. I think that this is easier to find among specialists than generalists, for what it's worth. Just an interesting point (I hope!), not an argument, as neither group is made up solely of this type.

Secondly, I can't help thinking of my father who, when he saw my 300 or so CDs at the time made the comment "I guess you really don't know what you want to listen to, huh?" I had no idea what he meant, until I thought of his 50 or so LPs that apparently contained all the music he ever wanted to hear. I guess my point here is that no matter what direction you come at music, the approach of others always seems a bit odd at first exposure...

By the way, now that I reread my first post on this thread, I seem to be chastising the specialist in favor of the generalist. This is kind of odd, as a quick glance at my shelves shows that I'm a lot closer to the former than the latter. Go figure!

Edited August 24, 2003 by Jazzmoose

[A Lark Ascending]

Simon,

MacDonald's argument on the decline in popular music (and remember he is talking about mass popular music) is far mor complex than my brief mention - I'm not doing him justice. Essentially he argues that the explosion of 60s pop music was a result of a newly affluent youth getting off the leash and running straight into the conformism of the 50s - the friction created a vibrant and innovative popular music where amateurs were able to become the dominating force as opposed to the professional domination of the music industry (nothing new there). In his view this gave ten or so years of highly creative music before the law of diminishing returns set in. The lack of professionalism that had been the very heart of the 60s became an albatross thereafter and the emergence of new musical technology requiring even less skill ultimately led to a music unable to break out into its own creativity. The result has been a music increasingly reliant on nostalgia, constantly referencing back to the 60s.

I'm always suspicious of 'things ain't what they used to be arguments' and this one seems a bit too all-embracing to be convincing. But my heart hears echoes in what he writes. He obviously explains it much better in the essay 'The People's Music' in the book.

Jazzmoose,

MacDonald also picks up on your point. He talks of three types of listener - those who focus on the music, those who focus on lyrics or words and those who want the lifestyle. Everyone has elements of all three but the balance varies from one individual to another.

I know I can relate to that. I've always been mainly responsive to the music; I frequently stop listening to the words after a couple of verses! I think I'd throw in a fourth category and that is people to whom the most important quality of music is its dancebility. I've known many people to whom dancing to music is a way of life but who have little or no record collection.

As for those to whom the lifestyle is paramount - well you only need look at every musical craze with associated fashion to see that in action. It's in us all to a point but I suspect most people on a board like this have it tuned way down!

Edited August 25, 2003 by Bev Stapleton

[chris olivarez]

I listen to and like different styles of music and generally don't worry about if someone likes or approve of it and certain styles of music don't get it done for me .If your'e listening to a certain type of music to please your friends,girlfriends,wives etc rather than yourself it just seems to defeat the purpose of listening to it in the first place. Just be true to yourself in your listening habits and the rest should take care of itself.

[Rooster_Ties]

I go pretty deep in some areas (with some artists in particular), but I also go fairly wide with just a smattering of titles from other artists (that I'm less fanatical about). And although I volley between jazz and classical as my big interests, I also have half a foot in the rock/alternative camp.

I guess I mean to say that I have my doubts about people that are only specialists and completist in one or two particular areas... ...AND I also have my doubts about people who only scratch the surface (with nothing but compilations and/or greatest hits packages), and who never really dig any further than that.

I think one should do some of both, so as to keep some perspective about the whole thing.

[A Lark Ascending]

I took a lifetimes dislike of Alfred Brendel about 20 years back when reading an interview where he said he only studied and played about six composers - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Lizst and a couple of other because they say everything that needs to be said. How imperious!

I know people who always go on holiday to the same place. No problem with that. They know it intimately, get to know the local people and ways. I'm more of one to go somewhere completely different every year.

I'm like that with music. I have my musical home...artists, genres that I love deeply and have listened to for years. But I need my regular expeditions into other climes to keep my ears fresh (currently Scandanavian folk music).

[Noj]

...I'm like that with music. I have my musical home...artists, genres that I love deeply and have listened to for years. But I need my regular expeditions into other climes to keep my ears fresh...

That sums it up for me.

[Christiern]

• Most of us have favorite artists and/or genres about which we can become quite passionate. It is when that passion takes on a collector's must-have-all-of-this-or-that nature that passion is replaced by obsession. I have met collectors who probably began as genuine jazz fans but whose focus has shifted and narrowed. Some seemed more interested in obtaining a rare matrix number than in the music it identified. I guess that sort of priority shift is found among collectors in any creative arts field.
  
  Years ago, before I replaced my LP collection with CDs, a dealer from California used to pay me regular visits. He wanted Prestige albums on which the label bore a NYC address (i.e. early releases) and Riversides, Blue Notes, and other labels whose labels did not reflect some subsequent change. I told him that I was interested in the music, and nothing else, so I would only let him have albums that he could replace with a better pressing of same. He gave me Japanese releases (usually same cover and notes, but better audio) plus $30 - 50 for each. The exchange made sense to me, the reason for it didn't.
  
  As for a general decline in pop music, I think that has happened. It's easy to assume that the perceived decline is more reflective of a generation gap (and that certainly does come into play), but I really believe that audiences have become less discriminating and that their enthusiasm for certain artists is based more on non-musical considerations like heavy promotion and exposure. In other words, I think the media--with once unimagined electronic communications tools at its disposal--has a proven ability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
  
  Some 30 years ago, I saw Wilson Pickett booed off the stage by an Apollo Theatre audience that found his performance lacking. I don't think that could happen today. Just look at Showtime at the Apollo, or its copycat equivalent, I think you will agree.
  
  Another very important factor, I think, is that record companies have changed their focus. They no longer sign and develop and artist, and those who do the signing are--for the most part--no longer people who are in it for the music. In fact, many record company decision-makers are unable to make a valid music-based choice--listen to some of the "hot" singers of today, they really can't sing! Then listen to what they are singing--it's often crap that wouldn't have gotten much beyond the reception area of a record company a few years back. But it sells, and my contention is that music has very little to do with that fact. After all, we know that pet rocks and bottles of NYC tap water have been marketable, so why not?
  
  To return to the original question, Do narrower musical tastes equal greater passion? (I presume that means passion for the music), I would say that perhaps that is the case, but I know many people whose passion takes it all in, people who are passionate about good music. The collector's mentality is a roadblock when it comes to appreciation , for it demands that one gather indiscriminately. Few artists have not made at least one or two eminently forgettable recordings--adding their failures to one's collection is makes little sense to me unless one has in mind using them for scholarly study or reference.
  
  Finally, I think the Benedetti Tapes release was the ultimate idiocy. Phil Schaap--who will let no cough or sneeze drop to the editing room floor--took collectors' mania to the max. He include eight- and ten-second snippets (Bird droppings, if you will) of no musical or historical value. Of one such snipped he wrote something like "possibly 'Lover Man'." Utterly ludicrous. That was an expensive box, but it need not have been if Schaap had assembled the material more prudently. Without the snippets and, as I recall, a passing train (is that where Ken Burns got the idea?), the box would have contained fewer discs, and the price would have been more reasonable. It would also have been a better release. The Benedetti box release was designed to appeal to the wrong kind of passion, IMHO.
  

My 2¢ (guess I know how to stretch a penny )

[Soul Stream]

I find the more narrow-minded a person is, the more fanatical they are. No matter what the issue. Music is no different.

[paul secor]

• Most of us have favorite artists and/or genres about which we can become quite passionate. It is when that passion takes on a collector's must-have-all-of-this-or-that nature that passion is replaced by obsession. I have met collectors who probably began as genuine jazz fans but whose focus has shifted and narrowed. Some seemed more interested in obtaining a rare matrix number than in the music it identified. I guess that sort of priority shift is found among collectors in any creative arts field.
  
  The collector's mentality is a roadblock when it comes to appreciation , for it demands that one gather indiscriminately. Few artists have not made at least one or two eminently forgettable recordings--adding their failures to one's collection is makes little sense to me unless one has in mind using them for scholarly study or reference.
  
  Finally, I think the Benedetti Tapes release was the ultimate idiocy. Phil Schaap--who will let no cough or sneeze drop to the editing room floor--took collectors' mania to the max. He include eight- and ten-second snippets (Bird droppings, if you will) of no musical or historical value. Of one such snipped he wrote something like "possibly 'Lover Man'." Utterly ludicrous. That was an expensive box, but it need not have been if Schaap had assembled the material more prudently. Without the snippets and, as I recall, a passing train (is that where Ken Burns got the idea?), the box would have contained fewer discs, and the price would have been more reasonable. It would also have been a better release. The Benedetti box release was designed to appeal to the wrong kind of passion, IMHO.
  
  

My 2¢ (guess I know how to stretch a penny  )

Amen on the collector's mentality comments. I'm sure that there are few of us on this board (myself included) who don't fall into that category at some time and to some degree. And it's not a totally bad thing - most of us who have posted here have gathered or given information that's come from a collection.

Personally, I want the records in my collection rather than need them. I'm 57 years old, and I'm sure that even if I have another 30 years, there are records in my collection I will never listen to again. That's a good probability, and by that standard I don't need those records. (If I knew which ones they were, I'd probably get rid of them.) As you can probably tell, the collector's side of me comes into conflict with the pure music lover side of me more often than I care to admit to myself. I can imagine that for some the two don't come into conflict, but for me they often do. This might make a good topic for a separate thread. Perhaps someone who's a better writer and more articulate than I am might want to start it.

As for the Benedetti box, it was a marriage made in heaven - the completist compiler met the completist record company.

[Christiern]

As for the Benedetti box, it was a marriage made in heaven - the completist compiler met the completist record company.

[danasgoodstuff]

No.

[Jazzmoose]

No.

Damn it, if you'd gotten here earlier, you could have saved us all a lot of time, you know?

[Jazzmoose]

If I knew which ones they were, I'd probably get rid of them.

You know, this is the one thing with buying music that frustrates me. I have a hard time disagreeing with someone who says that, with over 500 CDs, I have enough to listen to. But of course, I want something else to listen to. And I'd be more than happy to just swap, but which CD do I swap out? I can't imagine ever listening to My Favorite Things again; I mean, enough is enough. But if it wasn't there tomorrow, of course that's all I'd want to hear...

[Jim Alfredson]

I'm glad Chris brought up the industry's role in this. I don't see it as purely the musician's role as such. The argument that kids with less musical ability rocked the boat (literally) back in the 60s and have since run out of steam due to technology that allows less talented people to create music is lame.

These supposedly less talented people wouldn't have an audience if it wasn't for the record companies. Sometime in the early part of the century they realized they could make serious money selling records. The trick is to sell what's popular.

To find what's popular before anyone else does and milk the crap out of it, they came up with formulas. After refining their formulas decade after decade after decade they've managed to distill the hard edge and rebelliousness of rock/pop into a dull sludge.

It was inevitable.

But the revolution will not be televised. It's on the internet, baby!

[A Lark Ascending]

If I knew which ones they were, I'd probably get rid of them.

I have a hard time disagreeing with someone who says that, with over 500 CDs, I have enough to listen to. But of course, I want something else to listen to.

Agree. Its not so much the buying and owning. Its the hearing of something new that keeps me buying.

You may as well argue that you've eaten 500 types of food so there's no point in trying anything else.

[A Lark Ascending]

I'm glad Chris brought up the industry's role in this. I don't see it as purely the musician's role as such. The argument that kids with less musical ability rocked the boat (literally) back in the 60s and have since run out of steam due to technology that allows less talented people to create music is lame.

I think MacDonald's point is that in the 60s amateurs (in the pop music world) took over from the professionals - your Lennons and Jaggers and Dylans as opposed to the general distinction between performer and the writers on Tin Pan Alley or the Brill Building. Had the Lennon/MacCartney's and Dylans gone into the Brill building as writers as opposed to being writer/performers then I'm sure 'Help' or 'Like a Rolling Stone' would sound very different.

But there is only so far you can go, so much you can do from an autodidactic starting point. The first generation of amateurs had a blank page. Each successive generation (generations are very brief in pop music!) has found it harder and harder to carve out a new way of doing things. The biggest UK band of the last ten years, Oasis, built everything on remodelling a sixties approach.

You are right about the role of the industry. It strikes me that one of the reasons the sixties music explosion was possible was because the industry was caught completely on the hop. They hadn't a clue about what would and what would not sell but knew there was a potential fortune to be made. The result was a brief window when all manner of experimentation was getting out on major labels. The 'stuffed shirts' often gave some very inexperienced people their head in the hope they had their ear to the street.

By the late 70s the suits in the industry had regained control and knew exactly how to package this music.* They've been upset occasionally since but are much quicker at finding how to process any musical rebellion. Punk, Grunge, Rap et all have been very rapidly turned into something very marketable, very quickly.

(*and in many cases the mavericks became the suits - Geffen, Branson etc).