Premier Rock Forum

Why isn't the concept of musical training as absurd as the concept of eating training. People don't need training to like food.

Why does the sense of taste not need human translation while the sense of hearing supposedly does?

I'd compare musical training to culinary training, rather than eating training. Anyone can enjoy good food, just like anyone can enjoy good music, but not everyone can prepare good food, and the same goes for music.

jupiter wrote:I'd compare musical training to culinary training, rather than eating training. Anyone can enjoy good food, just like anyone can enjoy good music, but not everyone can prepare good food, and the same goes for music.

Yeah, there are food snob analogies, Homer Simpson at Le Cirque...but I think often it's the most complicated combinations of food that are easiest to like, i.e. the less training you'll need to like them. Its complicatedness makes it more palate-able. Whereas I think the idea that the masses are impervious to complicated or "high" music because they lack training is a much more pervasive and insidious conceit than its food analog.

Alex,
It seems like waht you're talking about here is training people to like "good" music. Never heard of it. Unfortunately, what one person thinks is good, another thinks is poo-crap. Same goes for food. I love toasted brie on a bagel, my girlfriend thinks it's shit. My mother tried training me to like cottage cheese, and I puked all over her.

I have met many people who would benefit from culinary training. Some of the finest tasting foods in the world are "acquired tastes." I know that I can enjoy a great bottle of wine, but I doubt that I can appreciate it as much as someone who has a better sense of the subtleties involved.

I'm not sure what the subject of this thread is, but I wanted to be sure and disagree with someone before lunchtime.

I definitely started the thread before I thought it through fully because the process of thinking it through fully seemed like it might be funner with all o' youse.

And my analogy is falling to pieces in some ways but what still holds is that people don't get questioned or spurned when they say "I like satay chicken" nearly as much as they get questioned or spurned when they say "I like Interpol". Why is the second one so much more controversial?

alex wrote:And my analogy is falling to pieces in some ways but what still holds is that people don't get questioned or spurned when they say "I like satay chicken" nearly as much as they get questioned or spurned when they say "I like Interpol". Why is the second one so much more controversial?

being fat is not cool
being in a great rock band is

I think the main difference is that music is part of popular culture (even obsucure or "indy" music). Eating is a nessescity for survival, so do what you gotta do. Music is entertainment rather than a nessescity.

alex wrote:people don't get questioned or spurned when they say "I like satay chicken" nearly as much as they get questioned or spurned when they say "I like Interpol". Why is the second one so much more controversial?

I think it might have something to do with the kind of people who visit this message board. People are more likely to get uppity about a rock group than about a food item, unless it is bbq.

people don't get questioned or spurned when they say "I like satay chicken" nearly as much as they get questioned or spurned when they say "I like Interpol". Why is the second one so much more controversial?

The difference is:

One is a group of people who may or may not be riding the coattails of the newest phase of a NYC "scene" by copping fashion tips and sonic bits from bands (that we've all spent time listening to) into a quasi-original renedering that plays well to people who started to listen to music in the 1990's, and is not exeptionally terrible to those folks who enjoy a smooth-crafted Cure-by-way-of-Joy-Division pastiche.

One is a bird, delightfully and lovingly killed, treated with special flavors and prepared and served in an interesting manner.

There are a couple like/dislike points with chicken satay:

I like/dislike meat
I like/dislike chicken
I like/dislike Asian-style chicken
I like/dislike chicken satay

I think that an appropriate like/dislike point that would balance the Interpol/chicken satay comparison would be the difference between chicken satay prepared by a multi-star Asian restaurant, versus 6 sticks for $2.99 at Big Nick's Satay Hut.

As in:

"You actually eat that chicken satay from Big Nick's? I can't stand it.....I only eat chicken satay from (random multi-star Asian restaurant)."

But there's much less opprobrium heaped on people who declare the superiority of their obscure little neighborhood satay joint precisely because of its multi - star spurning simplicity than there is for people who declare a preference for its musical analog. Yes, there are a lot of people who like their neighborhood joint precisely because of its punk rock simplicity but I dare you to go over to chowhound.com and get a fucking quorum to back an "I love the Ramones" lobby. Yet they all shit themselves over how cheap and untrained, how DIY their favorite satay joint is.

(I'm exagerrating for effect. Chowhound's okay.)

But with your analogy, Mr. Chimp, why doesn't Big Nick's satay get dissed for "riding the coattails" of the multi - star restaurant a la Interpol of Joy Division? (that they don't sound like JD is another thread)

spoot wrote:People are more likely to get uppity about a rock group than about a food item, unless it is bbq.

But why?

I think maybe high quality tail is more at stake when it comes to music appreciation than food / drink appreciation. Even so, I'd like to know why. Or at wine tasting conventions or whatever do they fuck each other because "oh, your take on that merlot was sooooooooooo hot"?