Could You Train Yourself To Enjoy...

[glassjester]

you noticed too, eh?

Well... I would not intentionally seek to annoy Arthur (or anyone).

I hope you don't either.

 

[ok doser]

Well... I would not intentionally seek to annoy Arthur (or anyone).

I hope you don't either.

moi? :angel:

 

[glassjester]

moi? :angel:

Yeah, man.

It's no fun talking with somebody who's in a bad mood. So purposely bringing that about - not so good.

At the same time, the onus is just as much on the person who gets worked up over things they could just as easily ignore without consequence.

 

[glassjester]

Also - Happy New Year!

I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this conversation. So thanks - Arthur, Town Heretic, and (why not) even Doser.

 

[ok doser]

Yeah, man.

It's no fun talking with somebody who's in a bad mood. So purposely bringing that about - not so good.

At the same time, the onus is just as much on the person who gets worked up over things they could just as easily ignore without consequence.

i've always viewed this place as a great big playhouse of bizarre psychology :idunno:



as fool said many years ago "they must like it or they'd stop"

 

[glassjester]

as fool said many years ago "they must like it or they'd stop"

A reasonable conclusion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

At least the campfire example appears in a published, peer reviewed article on the psychology of musical preferences. Where do your examples come from?

It's more an article about positive associations which is fair enough to a point. If you had a wonderful date in a restaurant where the meal left a lot to be desired you might have fond memories of the place for reasons besides the food. It's unlikely that you'd book the same place to eat out again though isn't it?

Some things, yes. But not musical preferences, and not food preferences either.
I've cited multiple pieces of evidence pertaining to each of those. What have you got, but your own personal experiences and opinions?

Are you partial to pouring coffee on a Sunday roast dinner or gravy? Of course certain things are innate and unchangeable. How many restaurants do you suppose would stay open for business if their menu consisted of savoury products served with whipped cream and deserts in wholegrain mustard? Now hey, there may be some people who enjoy a lasagne covered in custard but there's a reason why foods are generally served with the condiments they are don't you think? The palette develops and that can obviously encompass music as well but if the things that catch your ear are away from basic harmony then a Beyonce song or 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' is not gonna do much for you.

It won't change the song one bit. But your actions can change your perception of a thing, surely.

There's no action I could take to make something bland either sound or taste interesting, short of altering the thing to make it virtually unrecognizable which would defeat the point. I could probably tolerate peanut butter as an ingredient in something provided it was masked enough but what would be the point? Some people love the stuff, I'm just not one of them. I tolerated all manner of pop music at work but constant exposure and familiarity with it didn't lead to enjoyment. I don't expect everyone to enjoy Ligeti's music and I don't insist that they can.

I don't enjoy Beyonce's music at all. I find "Single Ladies" particularly annoying. Not that my personal opinion of the song should matter for the purpose of this discussion.


Just a side note - you've mentioned a few times that you find my comments infuriating, irritating, etc. Just know that I really intend no offense, here.

What I find irritating is your insistence that I can enjoy something that I know fine well I can't, much as how TH has explained in turn. I'm not saying you mean offense with your argument but it seems you're that fixed that there's no room for maneuver with you even acknowledging that you could be wrong?

Anyway, happy new year.

:cheers:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sophisticated structure does not equate to beauty, does it?

Who's to say whether the structure of a work of art is too sophisticated, or not sophisticated enough to be "great," and how would that not be a matter of purely subjective, personal preference?

Not necessarily but there's few people I wager who would argue that the Sistine Chapel looks like it was painted by a chimp or that Beethoven's Moonlight sonata was composed by a two year old. Do you not accept that there's reasons as to why certain people are venerated as geniuses and their works masterpieces?

 

[ok doser]

...What I find irritating is your insistence that I can enjoy something that I know fine well I can't ...

you could if you wanted to

... there's reasons as to why certain people are venerated as geniuses and their works masterpieces?

and what measurable, objective reasons would those be?

 

[glassjester]

It's more an article about positive associations which is fair enough to a point. If you had a wonderful date in a restaurant where the meal left a lot to be desired you might have fond memories of the place for reasons besides the food. It's unlikely that you'd book the same place to eat out again though isn't it?



Are you partial to pouring coffee on a Sunday roast dinner of gravy? Of course certain things are innate and unchangeable. How many restaurants do you suppose would stay open for business if their menu consisted of savoury products served with whipped cream and deserts in wholegrain mustard? Now hey, there may be some people who enjoy a lasagne covered in custard but there's a reason why foods are generally served with the condiments they are don't you think? The palette develops and that can obviously encompass music as well but if the things that catch your ear are away from basic harmony then a Beyonce song or 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' is not gonna do much for you.



There's no action I could take to make something bland either sound or taste interesting, short of altering the thing to make it virtually unrecognizable which would defeat the point. I could probably tolerate peanut butter as an ingredient in something provided it was masked enough but what would be the point? Some people love the stuff, I'm just not one of them. I tolerated all manner of pop music at work but constant exposure and familiarity with it didn't lead to enjoyment. I don't expect everyone to enjoy Ligeti's music and I don't insist that they can.



What I find irritating is your insistence that I can enjoy something that I know fine well I can't, much as how TH has explained in turn. I'm not saying you mean offense with your argument but it seems you're that fixed that there's no room for maneuver with you even acknowledging that you could be wrong?

Anyway, happy new year.

:cheers:

Of course I could be wrong. So could you.

 

[glassjester]

Not necessarily but there's few people I wager who would argue that the Sistine Chapel looks like it was painted by a chimp or that Beethoven's Moonlight sonata was composed by a two year old.

Few people? I doubt that anyone at all would argue such. I know I wouldn't.

Do you not accept that there's reasons as to why certain people are venerated as geniuses and their works masterpieces?

Sure, because people consider their work to be beautiful.

 

[ok doser]

Sure, because people consider their work to be beautiful.

subjectively

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course I could be wrong. So could you.

Then why don't you address my post point by point as I do with you? I give you examples and you just ignore them, along with my own questions in light of that. You just give a one sentence 'answer' so how is that conducive to a proper debate? Do you think I made the effort to type out all of the above just for a 'laugh'?

If you're serious about this then you'll take the same effort in turn else what really is the point of this. I get tired of giving detailed responses to you when I'm met with this type of *response* in turn.

 

[ok doser]

... a proper debate...

dude - what makes you think GJ is interested in a "debate, on points"?


quit acting like a tard and just have a discussion, like normal folks do

 

[Arthur Brain]

Few people? I doubt that anyone at all would argue such. I know I wouldn't.

Why? You've argued that if everyone thought Beethoven's fifth was rubbish then it wouldn't be regarded as a masterpiece so why the same with the Sistine chapel? If everyone thought it was crap then it's not a masterpiece right?

Sure, because people consider their work to be beautiful.

And masterful, consummate pieces of skill and technical proficiency etc...

You may not like much of Dali but his technical prowess as an artist is beyond dispute, else you argue why not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

dude - what makes you think GJ is interested in a "debate, on points"?


quit acting like a tard and just have a discussion, like normal folks do

This, GJ, is why I have no interest in a discussion with SOD. A troll free new year works good for me so if you wanna continue debating the matter then fine, but be assured that I won't be addressing the likes of this pot stirrer either directly or indirectly from here on in.

:e4e:

 

[ok doser]

This, GJ, is why I have no interest in a discussion with SOD. A troll free new year works good for me so if you wanna continue debating the matter then fine, but be assured that I won't be addressing the likes of this pot stirrer either directly or indirectly from here on in.

:e4e:

instead of acting like a whiny crybaby, why not answer the question i asked, on point?

... there's reasons as to why certain people are venerated as geniuses and their works masterpieces? and what measurable, objective reasons would those be?

 

[glassjester]

Then why don't you address my post point by point as I do with you? I give you examples and you just ignore them, along with my own questions in light of that. You just give a one sentence 'answer' so how is that conducive to a proper debate? Do you think I made the effort to type out all of the above just for a 'laugh'?

Point out a question you say I've ignored, and I'll answer it.

If you're serious about this then you'll take the same effort in turn else what really is the point of this. I get tired of giving detailed responses to you when I'm met with this type of *response* in turn.

You can write as much or as little as you'd like, man.

 

[glassjester]

Why? You've argued that if everyone thought Beethoven's fifth was rubbish then it wouldn't be regarded as a masterpiece so why the same with the Sistine chapel? If everyone thought it was crap then it's not a masterpiece right?

Darn right.

But that isn't what you said. You said no one would argue that the Sistine Chapel was painted by a chimp. Why would anyone think that? Come on.

You also said no one would argue that the Moonlight Sonata was written by a two-year-old. Clearly no one would think a two-year-old is capable of doing something like that.

Similarly, if I see a giant turd floating, unflushed in the toilet - I'm not going to blame the nearest 2-year-old. I simply know that a 2-year-old wasn't capable of producing it. But that doesn't make it a masterpiece, does it?

And masterful, consummate pieces of skill and technical proficiency etc...

You may not like much of Dali but his technical prowess as an artist is beyond dispute, else you argue why not.

I've never argued that someone can't have technical skill.
But there are plenty of skilled painters - that does not mean that what they produce is considered to be beautiful. If no one likes their paintings, then they die unknown - none of their works "masterpieces."

 

[glassjester]

This, GJ, is why I have no interest in a discussion with SOD. A troll free new year works good for me so if you wanna continue debating the matter then fine, but be assured that I won't be addressing the likes of this pot stirrer either directly or indirectly from here on in.

:e4e:

It doesn't much matter to me if you communicate with Doser or not. :idunno: