What we like, Why we like and Why some things we don't

[Tequila Cowboy]

I made an attempt at starting a thread like this before and didn't get much of a response. I think what I was missing was context. This theme runs through the forums pretty frequently and I though we could explore it. I mean lets face it we all have similar tastes here and, of course, it starts with DBT. Now that's a pretty good anchor for musical taste and we all branch off in various directions. I think I remember Clams saying that he actually has an Itunes category he calls 3DD/9B music. Hell I used to get 90% of my music recommendations from a handful of rock critics that I learned to trust and now I rely on you guys or, on rare exception, something I just randomly here. Nowadays I rarely even read reviews except to see what folks are saying about records I've already heard. So that's where we start, we have a mutual love of music, some common ground and some of the most intelligent folks I've ever run across, yet we still have disagreements over what songs we like on certain albums, what artists we love, which we dismiss out of hand and those artists we just love or loathe. Don't get me wrong I'm glad we have these disagreements, this place would be boring without them, but I am interested in some of the reasons. Recently age has been pointed out and I think that's valid. I think how, when and where we listen to music is another and, I think it goes without saying, background is another. So lets take a look shall we?

Lets start with this:

I don't fully get the under the surface loathe for Lucero on this board either. They're totally written off, often because of their fans. Admittedly, I've never been to a Lucero show, but man their music gets me. Nichols ain't faking it. Even if some of the fans are douche bags, so what? If you let other fans ruin good music for you, that's a "you" problem.

It's an interesting question that Iowan poses. One would think that the love for DBT and Lucero would be close to equal. Both are boozy bar bands that bring it every night, both have influences ranging from country to Springsteen to my beloved Mats. Personally I love every DBT album warts and all but I only like selective Lucero albums and, as much as I've tried, cannot understand the love for 1372 Overton Park which some people consider one of the best albums of the last several years. Why is that? I don't know, I would point to things like production and others would point to the songs. For me I require a balance of those two things to like an album. For others it's all about the songs. I can honestly say, no matter the artist, if I ever feel the need to skip past more than one or at most two songs on an album, I never listen to the album. I put albums to listen straight through. if I can't I just don't like it. In regards to Lucero is age a factor on this one? I mean these guys are quite a bit younger than DBT, but in my case I absolutely love Two Cow Garage, to whom they are often compared, and those guys are even younger. If it's not that what is it? Pretty interesting stuff.

Another persistent theme around here is the timeless Beatles vs. Stones debate. Everyone knows where I stand here, the Stones are in my top five favorite bands and well, the Beatles are not. They probably don't crack my top twenty. Why is that? I sure as hell don't know I just like what I like. There are Stones songs I can't stand (Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women) and there are Beatles songs I can't stand (Let it Be, Hey Jude, With a Little Help From My Friends) but overall the Stones speak to me where the Beatles do not. Adding to that I love Keith Richards and John Lennon and loathe Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney. Those splits make sense in a way given that I lean to the rock side of tings where Mick and Paul are pure pop people, but if that's true why do I love Big Star (who some often call the indie Beatles) who were as pop as they come? Well I'd maintain that Alex Chilton, and Chris Bell for that matter, had a deep emotional angst that balanced out the pop. I may be wrong but it seems to me that there are more Big Star fans here than Stones fans or Beatles fans. Odd thing that since in the vast scheme of things they were a blip whereas the other two were mega bands who people will remember in a hundred years when Chilton and company will be a footnote.

Anyway this is a start. I really think these difference are worth talking about. The musical knowledge on this board is so impressive that I can't imagine any other folks I would rather hear from on things like this. Lets have at it and have a lively discussion shall we?

[beantownbubba]

Where's the beer, cowboy? This conversation clearly requires beer and has to be held at nite. See u then

[rlipps]

I've had the same Stones/Beatles argument a million times and I feel exactly the way you do. The Stones definitely "speak to me" and the Beatles don't. Not to discredit anything the Beatles did, but none of their music ever grabbed me like the Stones' music did. Interesting questions you brought up, looking forward to hearing other responses.

[cortez the killer]

I may be wrong but it seems to me that there are more Big Star fans here than Stones fans or Beatles fans. Odd thing that since in the vast scheme of things they were a blip whereas the other two were mega bands who people will remember in a hundred years when Chilton and company will be a footnote.

I'm not so sure about this one TC. I think Big Star might be discussed more because they are more obscure than those two giants, but I never got the sense that there are more Big Star fans here than Stones or Beatles lovers. I love all three bands, but when you look at the overall catalogs of the artists, Big Star doesn't even belong in the conversation.

I think this is a difficult thread to tackle on a message board TC. There are times I find it hard to articulate why I like something and why I don't. Additionally, I think the "answers" manifest themselves over the course of a variety of threads and discussions on this board. A lot of what you touch upon in your post seems to get back to issues of authenticity. There was a brief discussion about this in the thread about music books, but I think you (and many others) would devour this book.

[StevieRay]

TC - nice post... a ton going on here.

I think I'd rather think about the whole what defines 3DD/9B music and why aspect than Keith & Mick vs. John & Paul... or, the dreaded Tweedy vs. Farrar for that matter...

The best recent band I can think of that fits the category to a T - is: those crazy Henry Clay People... Holy shit are they fun. Rock and Roll 'ain't dead with bands like that out there. They are the anti-Goo Goo Dolls.

[beantownbubba]

And i was totally disappointed in the Henry Clay People album i picked up after hearing about them here. So go figure.

Cortez, that book is proving incredibly elusive (or maybe just popular?) in the boston metro area. It's missing from my local library and none of the others in the network have come up w/ it yet, meaning somebody(s) out there is reading it. People from 3DD? Who knows?

Maybe this is what Cortez means by authenticity, i don't know, but sooner or later we're gonna have to talk about the subject everyone around here seems to hate: the role music plays in our overall cultural identification. Or, IOW, which subculture did u belong to in high school?* Music, musicians, bands and genres signify in a big way and you just can't avoid how that plays into our likes and dislikes, even for the many folks here (myself included) who think we've outgrown that sort of thing. Still waiting for that beer, tho, so i'll be back later.

*I don't mean that these things are decided for all time in high school, only that that same dynamic continues throughout our lives. E.g. how many people here decided that they "hate" britney spears, justin bieber or lady gaga w/out ever hearing a song by any of them?

[dime in the gutter]

good idea for a thread. lot to chew on. best of luck interpreting the responses. tough to frame up what your asking in terms of typed words. this one should be a great read.

cortez's point about authenticity is spot on. i need to read that book.

i don't want to buy anything sold or processed.

talent can't be overstated.

[Tequila Cowboy]

... The best recent band I can think of that fits the category to a T - is: those crazy Henry Clay People... Holy shit are they fun. Rock and Roll 'ain't dead with bands like that out there. They are the anti-Goo Goo Dolls.

Futurebirds fit the same bill, SR. Check 'em out. They're young, full of energy and really brought it when they opened for DBT. Those two bands, among others, give me hope for Rock & Roll.

Back to the subject at hand though, I agree with you, Cortez, this is a tough one. I too pretty much like what I like and can't explain it. Someone recommended Slobberbone to me in 2002 so I picked up Slippage the day it came out and was ambivalent towards it. I liked a few songs but it didn't really move me that much and I don't know why exactly. In the winter of 2007 I heard Everything You Though Was Right Was Wrong Today and it blew my mind, and today I even love Slippage. Slobberbone has taken their place about one small notch below DBT in my favorite active bands. Go figure. I guess I just want a place to discuss these things without derailing threads or the contentiousness of the "Blasphemy" thread. You guys are my musical family and rock gurus and I value your insight.

[StevieRay]

Back to the subject at hand though

That is the subject, isn't it? I stated why I liked a band that I named - to me that band is the antithesis of commercialized schlock. They are authentic (thanks Cortez). I surely will check out Futurebirds TC, thanks for the recommendation.

BTB: what was missing for you with HCP? Not that I want to make this a thread about them. I guess I'm interpreting TC's thought process as an inquisitive investigation into the collective "why" or "why not" (?), etc.

[cortez the killer]

Maybe this is what Cortez means by authenticity, i don't know, but sooner or later we're gonna have to talk about the subject everyone around here seems to hate: the role music plays in our overall cultural identification. Or, IOW, which subculture did u belong to in high school?* Music, musicians, bands and genres signify in a big way and you just can't avoid how that plays into our likes and dislikes, even for the many folks here (myself included) who think we've outgrown that sort of thing.

I suppose that's part of the "authenticity" equation. Another part of it includes our (and the artist's) perceptions (true and false) of what we believe authentic to be. The old "riding the rails" argument is a good example of this. It was a prime factor in Dylan's decision to concoct a story about his hobo upbrining (later exposed to be false). He wanted to be perceived as an authentic folkie, much like his hero Woddy Guthrie. The book also examines "cultural gatherers" like John and Alan Lomax who went on these excursions through the American South in the 1st 1/2 of the 20th century to discover these "pure" and "authenitc" primitives that performed folk and blues songs. The premise, search, and unveiling of such performers like Leadbelly is ripe with problems. Another example is the celebration of the "do it yourself" model. Because it has been established as a marker of true authenticity in certain circles, many artists (and their fans) tend to embellish some of the details. From the "D.I.Y." model, you can start to explore notions of "selling out" - another topic that has been of great interest 'round these parts.

In the end, not surprisingly, cultural identification plays a big role in what we like and dislike. You can take the bubba out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the bubba. Your perceptions are tied to your life experiences. I'm not reinventing the wheel or anything here, but the book does a far more articulate and interesting exploration of these subjects.

[beantownbubba]

This is a big, I mean really BIG topic, TC, and we need to chop it down to size. For example, there's a difference between not liking a band that people whose taste you share generally like and not liking a song by a band you like a real lot (the kind of band that you like almost everything about). Let's take a brief look at the latter.

I think the main point here is that this kind of thing is likely to be fairly random and hard to generalize about. It probably for the most part can't even be explained by "taste", given the assumptions that you already like the band, their style and almost all of their work. But FWIW, let's take u as an example:

"Jumping Jack Flash," "Honky Tonk Women" and "Brown Sugar." Three enduringly popular songs. Three smash hits. All more or less from the Stones' greatest period. All can still be heard regularly on the radio. I can imagine reasons why you might not like the latter 2 (more in a moment). But JJF? The song that Keef himself says is the prototypical Stones song? The one he says he STILL enjoys playing even after all these thousands of performances? I don't even have any guesses about that, so I'll suggest that you associate it w/ something negative in your life. Maybe somebody u didn't like really loved it way back when. Maybe it was on the radio when u got some really bad news in your life, maybe it was the song that was playing when somebody made fun of your dancing, that kind of thing.

W/ respect to "Brown Sugar," I can imagine a couple of possibilities: It was too pop or perhaps too pandering for the pop audience at a time u were likely in your most snooty idealistic period about music. Or a different take on the same phenomenon, it was too popular. Or maybe it was too simple and reminiscent of a lot of other things at a time the Stones were doing all kinds of stuff that made them unique and uniquely great and was therefore disappointing. Or maybe you're uncomfortable w/ the racial aspects of the song (and you wouldn't be alone in that). Maybe it just didn't sound like what u thought the stones "should" sound like at the time. I say "at the time" because it's more likely for early impressions to harden than to change over time.

My guess for HTW is that, listened to one way, it is Mick at his pandering, philandering, condescending, drawling caricature worst and i suspect u react badly to that. It was also the "single version" of a very different album cut and once again, i bet it was a lot cooler to like "country honk," especially among a lot of people who probably hadn't even heard that version.

I hope u realize that i don't say things like "cooler" and "snooty idealism" in an insulting way; i'm referring to a state of mind that we've all experienced and all continue to experience to some degree so it's really value neutral in this context, here among like minded types.

But the bottom line on all of this (even if some of it should by blind luck prove to be correct) is that I'm assuming that the explanation for this kind of reaction is not to be found in the music itself, it is highly individual and i don't know that any generally applicable rules or insights can be gained from it, beyond the obvious that we all have songs that fit the same mold and that we probably dislike for similar kinds (even if not the same) reasons.

And that's just one small part of the issues u raise

[beantownbubba]

I suppose that's part of the "authenticity" equation. Another part of it includes our (and the artist's) perceptions (true and false) of what we believe authentic to be. The old "riding the rails" argument is a good example of this. It was a prime factor in Dylan's decision to concoct a story about his hobo upbrining (later exposed to be false). He wanted to be perceived as an authentic folkie, much like his hero Woddy Guthrie. The book also examines "cultural gatherers" like John and Alan Lomax who went on these excursions through the American South in the 1st 1/2 of the 20th century to discover these "pure" and "authenitc" primitives that performed folk and blues songs. The premise, search, and unveiling of such performers like Leadbelly is ripe with problems. Another example is the celebration of the "do it yourself" model. Because it has been established as a marker of true authenticity in certain circles, many artists (and their fans) tend to embellish some of the details. From the "D.I.Y." model, you can start to explore notions of "selling out" - another topic that has been of great interest 'round these parts.

In the end, not surprisingly, cultural identification plays a big role in what we like and dislike. You can take the bubba out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the bubba. Your perceptions are tied to your life experiences. I'm not reinventing the wheel or anything here, but the book does a far more articulate and interesting exploration of these subjects.

I agree w/ all of this and just note that just about every sentence could lead to a chapter's worth of exposition. Which may be why those guys wrote a book about it

Stevie ray: So, you're gonna make me pull out that album and listen to it again, eh? Ok, i will but not this minute.

[Slipkid42]

I used to work w/this guy who told me that listening to T. Petty, was like fingernails on a chalkboard. Another buddy liked all kinds of music, but didn't like Led Zeppelin. I've had various people tell me they can't stand Skynyrd, the Beatles, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, Rush, Yes, Eric Clapton, Nirvana & the Smashing Pumpkins. Lucky for me I like all of those musicians (and damn near everything else). I've long since stopped wondering why people don't hear the same magic that I'm hearing. I've chalked it up to the fact that there really is no accounting for taste.
This seems to apply to most things subjective.

One man's ceiling
Is another man's floor
One man's princess
Is another man's whore

[beagle001]

Verrrry interesting... Here's my take on the subject

Age definitely plays a role in some instances, yet in others it doesn't. Like getting into Lucero.. Our concert crew that a few of you know is kind of diverse. (Me, 22, Brett, 26, his dad, 50, my dad, 45, my brother,19) Brett's dad, Brett and I all prefer Lucero to DBT, my brother has it as a toss up and my dad is kind of indifferent to Lucero. So, maybe what I'm trying to say is that age maybe isn't as big of a factor as something that may be deeper to the soul.
When we talk of Lucero, we always come back to one point, and one common feeling where we all agree without a doubt... "They are 'Us'" which is kinda what this thread is about.
It is kind of ironic with all the talk of Lucero, and now thats who my Artist of the Week was. But nonetheless, there are factors that determine your "Us" band.
Location, location, location I think has a lot to do with it, in general anyway. I know there are plenty of exceptions to this rule, but people who live or grew up in a more rural environment are going to generally lean to a more country sound. Not always and there is of course crossing over, but I noticed when I did my Top 50 songs of alltime that I went back to my country roots for a lot of the songs. Songs that I have not specifically sought out in a long time, or have near the plays on itunes that other artists like a Two Cow Garage or a DBT or Glossary have.
I think another big thing is the experiences you've had seeing bands live plays a big role in the grand scheme as well. (Going back to Lucero, not to be redundant) This was kind of the case when we finally saw Lucero live. They were my #2 band for quite some time, as time went on, I started thinking it might be a tie. Then we saw them live and I wasn't sure if it was a case of (not to sound like a pig) "New "tail" is the best "tail" or if it was legitimate to say they were my favorite, which can happen at times. It's been months now and I still listen to them wide open.
Along with the experiences it definitely helps to have someone else to listen to a band with or see with someone live. It always cements a much more longer lasting sense of Awe I suppose is the word I could use.

I think the biggest thing though, is what you've lived through, what you maybe didn't want to live through or how you percieve certain types of songs. Like me, personally, I enjoy sad songs and seek them out and lean way over for them. And I am a happy person!

Great topic, great responses, keep em rollin

[Tequila Cowboy]

"Jumping Jack Flash," "Honky Tonk Women" and "Brown Sugar." Three enduringly popular songs. Three smash hits. All more or less from the Stones' greatest period. All can still be heard regularly on the radio. I can imagine reasons why you might not like the latter 2 (more in a moment). But JJF? The song that Keef himself says is the prototypical Stones song? The one he says he STILL enjoys playing even after all these thousands of performances? I don't even have any guesses about that, so I'll suggest that you associate it w/ something negative in your life. Maybe somebody u didn't like really loved it way back when. Maybe it was on the radio when u got some really bad news in your life, maybe it was the song that was playing when somebody made fun of your dancing, that kind of thing.

W/ respect to "Brown Sugar," I can imagine a couple of possibilities: It was too pop or perhaps too pandering for the pop audience at a time u were likely in your most snooty idealistic period about music. Or a different take on the same phenomenon, it was too popular. Or maybe it was too simple and reminiscent of a lot of other things at a time the Stones were doing all kinds of stuff that made them unique and uniquely great and was therefore disappointing. Or maybe you're uncomfortable w/ the racial aspects of the song (and you wouldn't be alone in that). Maybe it just didn't sound like what u thought the stones "should" sound like at the time. I say "at the time" because it's more likely for early impressions to harden than to change over time.

My guess for HTW is that, listened to one way, it is Mick at his pandering, philandering, condescending, drawling caricature worst and i suspect u react badly to that. It was also the "single version" of a very different album cut and once again, i bet it was a lot cooler to like "country honk," especially among a lot of people who probably hadn't even heard that version.

I'll tackle this the best I know how, which is pretty much spouting bullshit off the top of my head. I'll start with Jumping Jack Flash and I guess that one probably is the hardest to understand because it's not controversial, not pretentious and clearly has one of the best riffs in Rock & Roll history. Still, I can't stand it. In a way you're right, Beantown, my reasons are because of personal experience but not quite as personal as you suggest. One of my biggest "problems" with music is that I bore easily. If I'm to truly love music, listen daily and feel it the way I like to then I have to have something new all the time. New albums, new songs, new versions of songs and it's all got to be loaded with subtlety and nuance. Even during my years of "jam band hell" (which I apologize for the term to anyone new around here but I've spoken of this a lot) I had to have something "new" all the time so I listened to endless hours of Grateful Dead shows because they were all so different. I'd spend hours pouring over different versions of Althea for example. Then I'd discuss the subtle difference with my Deadhead friends. "oh Jerry is using a quarter note on this version and he's moving away from the pentatonic scale on this one, isn't that kick ass?" or "wow he's really digging having Branford sitting in on this version do you hear how he's playing off his horn?" Is this geeky to like the bazillionth degree? Hell yeah but it's my deal so fuck anyone who doesn't get it! Seriously I need this out of music. So given that context let's get back to Jumping Jack Flash , nothing subtle there folks. You can't slow it down, you can't speed it up (a-la Devo's fantastic reworking of Satisfaction) and really the song just hangs there. It's not interesting after hearing it thousands of time. Hell when I played in bands I probably played it hundreds of times on top of that. I'm done with the song and have been for thirty years.

So all this can also explain my love of DBT. Patterson loves switching things up. Songs sound different on different tours, he changes lyrics, tempos and sometime even meanings of songs to match the times, the moment or even his own mood. Makes it endlessly interesting. Even the iconic Let There Be Rock changes. Now to be fair the Stones used to change things up too when they could, at least with the songs that lent themselves to that, which gets me to Honky Tonk Women and Country Honk. The latter was the original version until it was suggested that, if reworked into a standard rock arrangement, it could be a hit. Now Mick loves to pander and Mick always loved hits so away they went and reworked the song. Gone was the charm, gone was the "aw shucks" joke factor and gone was my love for the song. I'm a fickle bastard at heart. You want to keep me engaged, then don't pander to the masses because I ain't one of them. Patterson Hood understands that about folks like me and, frankly, I suspect he's one of us.

So the last one on your list, Beantown, is Brown Sugar and here you're pretty much spot on, at least when you mention the racial aspect. Racism, slavery and what happened to African Americans is not a funny subject to me and it shouldn't be in a song designed to shake your groove thing. It makes me ill and I can't abide by it. On top of that the song is trite, Bobby Key's horn is too cute by half (and I love his other work with the band so ain't about him) and I just think it's a bad song. have thought that for nearly thirty years too so if that's what you mean by hardening over time you are 100% correct.

Listen I'm a freak and I like it that way. Like many people here I don't listen to music like 90% of people listen to music. Music shapes my mood, my world view, my politics, my sense of humanity and so much more that I'd be listing things all day to cover it all. Because of this I have different ideas of what I like and don't like. That's why I like to hear about how others react also. I started the "Quick Lists" because I wanted to see how, when pressed into a five song corner, people would choose their favorites from artists that were important to them. The reason for the five was that if we all list our twenty favorite Stones songs, for example, the lists would be remarkably similar except for the order. That doesn't tell me anything about anyone. Top five lists do. Now they got out of control and multiplied like genetically altered rabbits but, still, they have been fun. Over the last several years I've gotten to know the people here, some on a personal relationship basis, some on on a strictly musical basis but regardless I value those relationships. I also value your tastes and insights. I also like to share mine. That's what this place, and this thread in particular, is about for me.

[Iowan]

First off, incredible topic TC. This is really starting to cover new ground in musical discourse. We're really starting to get to the root of shit

In the end, not surprisingly, cultural identification plays a big role in what we like and dislike. You can take the bubba out of Brooklyn, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the bubba. Your perceptions are tied to your life experiences. I'm not reinventing the wheel or anything here, but the book does a far more articulate and interesting exploration of these subjects.

Cortez is hitting on something that I think is very key in at least determining the roots of our tastes. I come from a really rural background. I grew up farming, out on the plains where summers would push triple digits and winters would get to -20. I remember being 9 years old, completely bundled up and having to walk out to the hog barns and give the pigs straw to keep warm. It was a total white out, so you had to make sure you didn't get turned around or you could literally wander off and die from hypothermia. There's a certain "grit" (for lack of a better term) that is just ingrained in coming from that kind of background, and the music I seek out in some way, shape or form, expresses a quality that's connected to that source.

Everyone on this board comes from a different background, but there is something in that background that connects us all to Drive-By Truckers. No matter if we came from a farm in Iowa, a small town in Alabama, Brooklyn, or Stockholm Sweden, there's something in the experiences that come with those places that are expressed in the music we like.

There's an underlying and undeniable connection between music and geography/culture. As someone who is both a geography buff (1999 Iowa National Geography Bee champion, yo) and a music nerd (why else would I be here?), this connection has been a big part of a life long fascination of both subjects.

I'm still kind of overwhelmed with thoughts on the subject. Time to put on some coffee, cook some breakfast, and listen to some tunes.

[Iowan]

It's an interesting question that Iowan poses. One would think that the love for DBT and Lucero would be close to equal. Both are boozy bar bands that bring it every night, both have influences ranging from country to Springsteen to my beloved Mats. Personally I love every DBT album warts and all but I only like selective Lucero albums and, as much as I've tried, cannot understand the love for 1372 Overton Park which some people consider one of the best albums of the last several years. Why is that? I don't know, I would point to things like production and others would point to the songs. For me I require a balance of those two things to like an album. For others it's all about the songs. I can honestly say, no matter the artist, if I ever feel the need to skip past more than one or at most two songs on an album, I never listen to the album. I put albums to listen straight through. if I can't I just don't like it. In regards to Lucero is age a factor on this one? I mean these guys are quite a bit younger than DBT, but in my case I absolutely love Two Cow Garage, to whom they are often compared, and those guys are even younger. If it's not that what is it? Pretty interesting stuff.

Interesting point between Two Cow Garage and Lucero. I'm on the other side of that fence. Now, I do like Two Cow Garage. "Sweet Saint Me" is probably one of my more listened to albums of 2010, but for me they don't push the needle too far past "like". There are some really, really great songs on that album, particularly "Jackson Don't You Worry" and "Lydia". However, it just doesn't get me the way Lucero does. Maybe I just share more in common at a deeper level with Ben Nichols than I do MIcah Schnabel. If I had to distill it into some kind of tangible thing, it would be that I prefer Nichol's voice to Schnabel's, and that Schnabel occasionally writes lyrics that just scream "pop punk" to me (and I went through a semi-embarassing pop punk phase in high school, but hey, it brought me here eventually). It's just a line here or there, and something that I can easily forgive, but if I'm going to compare the two bands, it would part of the reason I prefer Lucero.

[StevieRay]

Is this geeky to like the bazillionth degree? Hell yeah but it's my deal so fuck anyone who doesn't get it!

I'm a fickle bastard at heart. You want to keep me engaged, then don't pander to the masses because I ain't one of them. Patterson Hood understands that about folks like me and, frankly, I suspect he's one of us.

Listen I'm a freak and I like it that way.

Quoted for truth.

[StevieRay]

TC is on fire.

[StevieRay]

Racism, slavery and what happened to African Americans is not a funny subject to me and it shouldn't be in a song designed to shake your groove thing. It makes me ill and I can't abide by it.

To me: racism isn't a theme in this song. Yes the first verses talk about slavery: BUT, from a song "meaning" perspective: it's more Mick singing about sexual desires, and, of course there is a huge thematic double entendre about heroin. I love the live versions on A Brussels Affair. Further: the song anchors what is one of the best albums the band ever made.

[cortez the killer]

Brown Sugar? It's pretty straightforward.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I was not surrounded by music geeks growing up but thanks to the innerwebs it made it easier to seek them out later on in life. In fact, that would be one of my main reasons for moving to Raleigh several years ago. That, and employment opportunities are greater here than they were along the NC coast. With that bit of background, I'll move onto my point. One of my friends whom I grew up with also lives here and while he's not a music geek, he is responsible for turning me onto lots of stuff during my formative years; everything from Be Bop Deluxe (not exactly a household name) to Mother's Finest. Over the past several years I've introduced him to a lot of music I'm into such as the Truckers and Tift Merritt. Little did I know but he can't stand the Truckers. Even though we attended at least one show and I gifted him with The Fine Print, he just didn't have the nerve to tell me. Not so long ago, I was hanging out at his house listening to music when he said, "you've got to hear this" and proceeded to bring up a Nickelback song on the computer. What does one do in this situation? Online I've never had a problem slamming someone for their musical taste if they mention Nickelback but in person, hanging out with a lifelong friend, it's a totally different situation. It also makes me feel somewhat superficial for saying that but it's the truth. I've never thought of myself of that person slamming people that hides behind my anonymity but I've definitely been guilty for putting people down online that like Nickelback. So, here I was being forced to listen to them with my friend. Did I slam him and them? Of course not, nor did I praise them. After all, he'd just gotten finished saying how he'd never cared for the Truckers so why not be honest with him as well? In truth the song (I have no idea what it was) wasn't too bad, typical grunge-derived modern rock so I politely listened. Am I going to rush out and buy up the entire Nickelback catalog? Not on your life but it just goes to show how our perceptions and reactions change in face-to-face situations. One lesson I've learned is not to be so quick to judge. Everywhere I turn people are putting down Justin Bieber. I still haven't heard a single song he sings but given his teen pop stardom, chances are I'm not going to like him either way but I should probably actually listen to him before offering up an opinion.

On similar note, last year I was asked by a friend not to play my iPod at his party. I was never told why and when I asked he wouldn't offer up an answer. That evening we heard the Zac Brown Band, Nickelback and nearly every hair metal band from the 80s you could imagine from Iron Maiden to Dokken. None of which are my cup of tea but the bottom line being, it was his party, not mine so I probably had no place in asking to play my iPod to start with.

Not sure if this post is keeping with the spirit of the thread or not but if it is, does anyone else have any similar stories to share?

[Tequila Cowboy]

I guess I do have something similar. My oldest friend who I've known for closing in on 33 years now is a huge music fan, played guitar in my first bands and still plays in cover bands on a pretty regular basis. For years I've been trying to turn him on to DBT and he always seemed sort of receptive. Now Jim is a massive Stones fan, loves the Faces and in terms of more contemporary bands has always been a fan of The Black Crowes. I've always felt DBt would be a natural for him and had previously sent him Stones and Faces covers from Patterson and the band. About the time of it's release in 2009 I gave him a copy of the ACL live album figuring that would be the thing that would finally turn him into a fan. Umm not so much. When I asked him what I thought he admitted that the only track he liked was I'm Sorry Huston. He said that he didn't like the guy singer at all and though he tried to hard to put on a phony accent. When I explained to him that it wasn't phony and asked him which of the guys' voices he didn't like he said he didn't even realize that there was more than one and he thought it all sounded the same. he was impressed with Shonna though and thought she should be front person for the band. Go figure.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

I meant more about being in a similar situation where you are subjected to music from your peers that you have no use for. Do you play nice or just come right out and tell them you think their musical taste is shit?

[bovine knievel]

TC is on fire.

Some good lovin' and a warm heart will do that to a man.

[Zip City]

I meant more about being in a similar situation where you are subjected to music from your peers that you have no use for. Do you play nice or just come right out and tell them you think their musical taste is shit?

I think you just smile and nod. Imagine playing someone your favorite songs and them telling you that YOUR musical taste is shit.

Different strokes for different folks

[Slipkid42]

Good post KG. The fact that your buddy digs Nickleback over DBT further proves the 'ear of the beholder' syndrome. Nickleback resonates for him, DBT does not. It's as simple as that.
Geography? Where you grew up does make a difference in the type of music you listen to. It doesn't explain why you like this particular song or not (within that genre).
I'm not following the authenticity angle either (I am slow on the uptake). I can't see reaching a consensus on what is real & what ain't, anymore than I think we could agree on what is good & what is not.
TC - I guess I'm the opposite of you in a way. While I don't often put on the oldies, I have no problem hearing one if it pops up. I appreciate hearing a nugget out of context, and trying to remember how it fit into the whole scheme of things. Everything influenced everything back then. I think of that Ray Bradbury story often. The one where the scientists go back to the dawn of time & one of them accidentally kills a butterfly & when they get back to the present, everything is like Bizzaro World. Without the Everly Brothers there would be no System of a Down. Without Jumpin' Jack Flash there would be no Zip City. Without Paul McCartney there would be no Paul Westerberg (at least not quite the same Paul Westerberg). I like to connect those musical dots. I try to keep track of how we got from there to here (it helps me feel attached).
I also like a whole lot more songs than you do, apparently (which is not to say that I have better taste than you). I've always liked more stuff than most people I know. I consider it a blessing. I like some songs more now than I did then 'coz the burden of overkill has been lifted. I still don't like Foreigner or Toto or Supertramp or anything else that I thought sucked back then, but the occasional Beatles, or Stones tune usually brightens my day.
I don't believe we'll come up w/any magic formula for why we like what we like (but it does make for lively conversation).

[Tequila Cowboy]

I meant more about being in a similar situation where you are subjected to music from your peers that you have no use for. Do you play nice or just come right out and tell them you think their musical taste is shit?

Well the same friend has, IMHO, awful taste in music in recent years and I have no problems telling him so, but I think it varies from person to person. when I had on an alt country mix here at the house a few weeks ago and my roommate's girlfriend asked if we could put on something more "old school" I said sure and suggested some Stones, Allman's or the like and she said she was thinking more like Madonna or Duran Duran. I kept my mouth shut.

[Tequila Cowboy]

TC - I guess I'm the opposite of you in a way. While I don't often put on the oldies, I have no problem hearing one if it pops up. I appreciate hearing a nugget out of context, and trying to remember how it fit into the whole scheme of things. Everything influenced everything back then. I think of that Ray Bradbury story often. The one where the scientists go back to the dawn of time & one of them accidentally kills a butterfly & when they get back to the present, everything is like Bizzaro World. Without the Everly Brothers there would be no System of a Down. Without Jumpin' Jack Flash there would be no Zip City. Without Paul McCartney there would be no Paul Westerberg (at least not quite the same Paul Westerberg). I like to connect those musical dots. I try to keep track of how we got from there to here (it helps me feel attached).
I also like a whole lot more songs than you do, apparently (which is not to say that I have better taste than you). I've always liked more stuff than most people I know. I consider it a blessing. I like some songs more now than I did then 'coz the burden of overkill has been lifted. I still don't like Foreigner or Toto or Supertramp or anything else that I thought sucked back then, but the occasional Beatles, or Stones tune usually brightens my day.
I don't believe we'll come up w/any magic formula for why we like what we like (but it does make for lively conversation).

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind some of the old songs. Hell as far as the Stones go I never tire of a single song on Exile and as far as the hits go I don't often tire of Satisfaction or Paint it Black either. It's not that. It's the versatility of the songs. In the Quick List Cover song thread I posted Aztec Camera's version of Jump which I like far better than the original Van Halen version. Now that cover doesn't exist in a vacuum, the song had to be written in the first place to product the cover I like so much and the very fact that it lends itself to such a radical interpretation is a testament to the songwriting itself.

As far as a magic formula as to why we like things, no I don't believe there is one, but there are reasons behind every damned thing and i like getting to them. It helps me appreciate other people's tastes and the art itself. I mentioned buying Slippage by Slobberbone years before I ever got into the band. It was the wrong album for me to buy. Had I started with Everything I Thought... I would have been a fan years earlier, I'm convinced of that. What was so cool about that turn of events was that I was able to discuss that with Brent Best one night after a show and he agreed with me. Slippage was not an entry album, instead it was meant to be a transitional album for what was to come next but the band broke up before that could happen and instead he made The Drams Jubilee Dive which was something else entirely. It was a pretty cool conversation and I was lucky to have it with such a self aware artist as Brent Best.

[beantownbubba]

I meant more about being in a similar situation where you are subjected to music from your peers that you have no use for. Do you play nice or just come right out and tell them you think their musical taste is shit?

Courtesy and manners are always in style. Ummmm, at least that's what i tell my kids.

As TC notes, sometimes we have friends where a substantial portion of the relationship is based upon talking/arguing about music. In that case, pretty much anything can be appropriate, but absent that, just grin and bear it.