RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

Which part is from my imagination?  The part where I just copied and pasted what you wrote?  Or the part where I inferred your condescending attitude towards women in regards to what they get from music, movies and television?

If you think what I wrote below is being condescending towards women, then that's on you. There are two primary components to art- the technical and the emotional. Both are just as important and I think I make that clear. You do realize I am in fact pointing out how people who find ballads inaccessible likely have some sort of emotional resistance/intelligence to deal with them. Feelings of "love" or "sadness" or whatever make them extremely uncomfortable, whereas other people can explore those feeling for 4 minutes and be fine. Their reaction to hearing someone express pain or whatever is to listen and empathize rather than change the channel.

If this is not how you listen to music, and instead rely almost exclusively on the structural aspects, then I can see how it is inaccessible, just as technically sophisticated but comparatively emotionally barren or vocal-less music would have little appeal to a ballad listener. It can be hard for people more comfortable in technical things to have the emotional sensitivity and acceptance and comfort to be able to listen to songs that express pain, sadness, longing, regret, hope, love, passion, anger, etc. where those emotions can shift and might be subtle, and are often uncomfortable to observe and certainly uncomfortable to experience for people who pride themselves on dispassion and self-control.

The clueless people aren't women. It's people who can't understand the appeal of ballads yet claim to be experts on music. If you can't even grasp why people listen to ballads then I don't care how tecnically gifted you are, you are deeply flawed as an artist.

I think you're projecting in this case. I'm the one perfectly fine with ballads and understands why people listen to them. Your reaction to my perfectly reasonable explanation was to hallucinate something that wasn't there in order to win an argument and then frame it in a sexist manner.

Which part is from my imagination?  The part where I just copied and pasted what you wrote?  Or the part where I inferred your condescending attitude towards women in regards to what they get from music, movies and television?

If you think what I wrote below is being condescending towards women, then that's on you. There are two primary components to art- the technical and the emotional. Both are just as important and I think I make that clear. You do realize I am in fact pointing out how people who find ballads inaccessible likely have some sort of emotional resistance/intelligence to deal with them. Feelings of "love" or "sadness" or whatever make them extremely uncomfortable, whereas other people can explore those feeling for 4 minutes and be fine. Their reaction to hearing someone express pain or whatever is to listen and empathize rather than change the channel.

If this is not how you listen to music, and instead rely almost exclusively on the structural aspects, then I can see how it is inaccessible, just as technically sophisticated but comparatively emotionally barren or vocal-less music would have little appeal to a ballad listener. It can be hard for people more comfortable in technical things to have the emotional sensitivity and acceptance and comfort to be able to listen to songs that express pain, sadness, longing, regret, hope, love, passion, anger, etc. where those emotions can shift and might be subtle, and are often uncomfortable to observe and certainly uncomfortable to experience for people who pride themselves on dispassion and self-control.

The clueless people aren't women. It's people who can't understand the appeal of ballads yet claim to be experts on music. If you can't even grasp why people listen to ballads then I don't care how tecnically gifted you are, you are deeply flawed as an artist.

I think you're projecting in this case. I'm the one perfectly fine with ballads and understands why people listen to them. Your reaction to my perfectly reasonable explanation was to hallucinate something that wasn't there in order to win an argument and then frame it in a sexist manner.

What you wrote is generally condescending, not just to women. The idea that people don't like coffee shop Korean ballads because they lack the necessary emotional depth or intelligence is risible. These songs sound like Richard Marx or Michael Bolton at their absolute worst. If you're still into that stuff, or late-period Rick Astley, then good for you, enjoy it. There's a reason other people mock it, though. And Korean ballads are fully deserving of the same mockery.

Not being able to perfectly understand the lyrics makes no difference. I listen to music in many languages, including Korean. Nina Simone singing a French chanson doesn't fall into the same category as a modern Korean ballad just because I can't understand all the lyrics. I love hip hop but will freely admit that a lot of the stuff that's been released in the last 10-15 years has been profoundly annoying and shallow. Likewise, I like old country like Slim Whitman, Hank Williams, Charlie Feathers, Patsy Cline, Johnny Cash and Kris Kristofferson. I hate 21st Century country. For the most part it's shiny, overproduced and lyrically vapid. Korean ballads irritate me the same way that bad hip hop and new country do. Or maybe 80s power ballads are a better comparison. I know it's fun to hear Nelson's After the Rain or Extreme's More than Words or that Mr. Big song from time to time, but do you really want them to serve as your general social ambiance?

Do you think that Koreans with broad musical tastes and deep knowledge of musical history are really into the ballads getting pumped out of your average Twosome Place like some kind of malfunctioning sewer pipe? The same stuff that high schoolers go and warble in the noraebang? I very much doubt it. It's as likely as Greil Marcus being a huge Michael Bolton fan. And that's not because the former group of Koreans lacks emotional depth and intelligence. 

DMart: I think you're projecting in this case. I'm the one perfectly fine with ballads and understands why people listen to them. Your reaction to my perfectly reasonable explanation was to hallucinate something that wasn't there in order to win an argument and then frame it in a sexist manner.

OK, so a male definitively stating how women view songs, film and art in a different manner is not sexist?  Got it. 

Again, just your words:DeMartino: The audience for ballads is primarily women, who tend to listen to music differently (and view movies, TV, etc). As I mentioned for them they are much more interested in experiencing the emotions of the performer or actor than say in structure/technique/or even story.
 

This is admittedly an unscientific sample, but among my adult and university students, I was surprised to find a stronger pull toward ballads among men. Lots of them go on their own to the coin noraebang and belt this crap out on a regular basis. Interestingly, more women (again, in my small sample population) seem attracted to traditional Korean music, which is highly technical, structurally complex and often awesomely psychedelic.

What you wrote is generally condescending, not just to women. The idea that people don't like coffee shop Korean ballads because they lack the necessary emotional depth or intelligence is risible. These songs sound like Richard Marx or Michael Bolton at their absolute worst. If you're still into that stuff, or late-period Rick Astley, then good for you, enjoy it. There's a reason other people mock it, though. And Korean ballads are fully deserving of the same mockery.

First, there's nothing wrong with having that. Many music listeners lack the musical theory background or technical familiarity or even just "the ear" to appreciate technical/complex music. There's nothing wrong with them either. I find it odd that some people will gleefully rip kpop or other music for it's lack of technical complexity and the poor taste of the listener, but the second you suggest that someone who doesn't like ballads may have some differences in aptitude, they go ballistic. If you're going to dish it out, be able to take it.

I think this paragraph proves my point- People who mock other people over something as subjective as music potentially have really low emotional maturity/intelligence.

but do you really want them to serve as your general social ambiance?

Who cares? People can play whatever they want.

Do you think that Koreans with broad musical tastes and deep knowledge of musical history are really into the ballads getting pumped out of your average Twosome Place like some kind of malfunctioning sewer pipe? The same stuff that high schoolers go and warble in the noraebang? I very much doubt it. It's as likely as Greil Marcus being a huge Michael Bolton fan. And that's not because the former group of Koreans lacks emotional depth and intelligence.

I'm sure some do and some don't. Plenty of people with broad and deep taste also like some generic stuff.

Have you ever noticed the more someone tends to give a shit about music taste (outside of musicians) and judges people on music, the more spectacularly mediocre their life? Even food snobs tend to have fairly even dispersal across successful backgrounds. It seems a lot of music snobs are compensating for their own mediocrity by latching on to something that is free- good taste in music. Look at how they carry on- it's done as some sort of validation of their superior taste and intellect.

OK, so a male definitively stating how women view songs, film and art in a different manner is not sexist?  Got it. 

Again, just your words:DeMartino: The audience for ballads is primarily women, who tend to listen to music differently (and view movies, TV, etc). As I mentioned for them they are much more interested in experiencing the emotions of the performer or actor than say in structure/technique/or even story.

Definitively and Primarily/Tend to are not the same thing.

Also, women tend to have better things to do than argue over whether or not it's okay for someone to enjoy listening to ballads and tend not to get bent out of shape over such a thing. That and not use taste in music as a way to compensate for their mediocrity. Ever notice how in these kinds of arguments, the participants are overwhelmingly male, all of them proclaiming their great expertise and taste on the matter?

So what things are OK to have strong opinions about?

Music? Failures at life, over compensating for their shortcomings. Apparently.
Food? An even dispersal across successful backgrounds.

Literature?
Art?
Movies?
Architecture?
Cars?
Sports?

There are two primary components to art- the technical and the emotional. Both are just as important and I think I make that clear.

Wow! When we were discussing K-pop, I approached it from an actual musical perspective, discussing the theory behind the genre and compositions. You went on to retort that "technique isn't everything"... "technical", is a musical term invented by armchair experts, like yourself, to refer to anything they have not studied or are unable to understand. Music is about expressing what you want to the listener. Any technique involved in playing an instrument functions for the purpose of expressing what the musician wants to express more effectively. As for emotion, well, we can all feel that so that puts you in a total position of authority to judge anything music related... No, since us "technical" musicians have become desensitised to music because of our knowledge of all the musical, technical and theoretical mumbo-jumbo, we've lost touch with emotion. That places you, who doesn't know too much and not too little, as the expert of music... who the heck do you think you are?

You do realize I am in fact pointing out how people who find ballads inaccessible likely have some sort of emotional resistance/intelligence to deal with them. Feelings of "love" or "sadness" or whatever make them extremely uncomfortable, whereas other people can explore those feeling for 4 minutes and be fine. Their reaction to hearing someone express pain or whatever is to listen and empathize rather than change the channel.

Any feeling, be it "love", "sorrow", "anger" or whatever is easily expressible by a skilled musician. Not only that, they're also able to control the degree of expression. With Korean ballads, the "love" and "sorrow" dial is usually turned up to 11... and kept there.  Now, there might be some people who enjoy this, just as there are people who enjoy pouring chocolate, honey and 4 cups of sugar over ice-cream, but I'm not one of them. When you turn the dial up to 11, you easily run the risk of crossing the line into contrived, ridiculous and camp, this is one of the reasons people dislike ballads and find them cringey to listen to. At times, K-pop still has an element of creativity in it, Korean ballads do not; they're extremely formulaic, same structure, same guitar solo mirroring the melody, same modulation up the circle of 5ths for the final chorus. They're clones, devoid of almost all creativity and THIS is the main reason for my discomfort.

Again, it's rather pompous for you to assume that people who dislike ballads in general have emotional immaturity.

I generally stick to instrumental music because even lyrics are usually too to obtrusive for my musical palate, I find instrumental expressions of emotion to be more abstract and have the ability to express in a less clumsy way; Does this make me emotionally stupid?

So what things are OK to have strong opinions about?

Music? Failures at life, over compensating for their shortcomings. Apparently.
Food? An even dispersal across successful backgrounds.

Literature?
Art?
Movies?
Architecture?
Cars?
Sports?

I guess if Martin Scorcese had said this about a certain kind of music he would have just been displaying  his mediocrity

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/martin-scorsese-marvel-theme-park-films-205155432.html

Have you ever noticed the more someone tends to give a shit about music taste (outside of musicians) and judges people on music, the more spectacularly mediocre their life? 

Have you ever noticed the more someone complains about others judging other people while doing just that, and by doing post after post on a subject he knows very little about, other than being unable to let something go, the more spectacularly mediocre their life seems? 

It always surprises me how quickly people's opinions will change about others whenever another fellow Korean comes in and starts talking shit. I just can't get over how fast people will flip on each other over nothing but bias.

How some people can be so miserable all of the time, and how others can not only tolerate it but will also feed right into it, is beyond me. Makes me all the more grateful that I don't have to share an office with those people. God knows what they're saying about me BECAUSE I'm not sharing an office, though.

**** them, though.

With Korean ballads, the "love" and "sorrow" dial is usually turned up to 11... and kept there.  Now, there might be some people who enjoy this, just as there are people who enjoy pouring chocolate, honey and 4 cups of sugar over ice-cream, but I'm not one of them. When you turn the dial up to 11, you easily run the risk of crossing the line into contrived, ridiculous and camp, this is one of the reasons people dislike ballads and find them cringey to listen to.

Exactly. If your expression of sorrow or love consists of wailing "I'm so sad!" and "I really love you!" over an off-the-shelf piano melody, the problem with your music isn't that its emotional depth is too challenging. The problem is that you've created schmaltz. Lots of cultures have it, but the Korean variant is notable for its ubiquity and intrusiveness. I mean, I never really have to hear some audience-rousing American Idol performance of "The Lady in Red" if I don't want to. Sadly, I can't say the same about Korean ballads.

The fact that there is a market for schmaltz doesn't exempt if from criticism. The backlash against music snobbery comes with its own set of baggage. As in politics, anti-elitist populism is ironically rooted in a sense of superiority, one in which the "common man" makes sensible decisions based on sincere motives, "real" life experience and tried-and-tested products. Decadent elites, on the other hand, are motivated by some corrupted desire to flaunt their superiority and shame the lower orders. Their opinions aren't worth anything because if something's worth knowing then Joe Six-Pack will already know it.  This is BS for so many reasons. In any case, no style of art really comes in for harsher criticism than the experimental and conceptually difficult, mainly because of this inverse snobbery - I don't understand it so it must be garbage. Criticize something popular, though, and you're instantly cast as some kind of posturing elitist.

Defending Korean ballads is on a par with claiming that Koreans are excellent drivers and more online services should be restricted to Internet Explorer.

So what things are OK to have strong opinions about?

Music? Failures at life, over compensating for their shortcomings. Apparently.
Food? An even dispersal across successful backgrounds.

Literature?
Art?
Movies?
Architecture?
Cars?
Sports?

How many people do you see go "He drives a Ford Escort, what's he thinking???" Aside from Prius snobs or something, most people don't care. Book and art snobs are pretty rare. Heck, most people are just happy you vaguely recognize something.

Movies and TV you sometimes get those, but nowhere near the degree of music snobs. But yeah, you have to wonder why some people make such a big deal about how great their taste in music is and why other music is awful.

No, since us "technical" musicians have become desensitised to music because of our knowledge of all the musical, technical and theoretical mumbo-jumbo, we've lost touch with emotion. That places you, who doesn't know too much and not too little, as the expert of music... who the heck do you think you are?

Lots of times you make tradeoffs between technique, accessibility, emotional expression, innovation, etc. Music that leans more towards the technical is simply one part and people can listen to and enjoy it just as much as someone who is into innovation or someone who wants something that is more accessible and emotional.

Any feeling, be it "love", "sorrow", "anger" or whatever is easily expressible by a skilled musician.

Easily expressed, not necessarily expressed well.

With Korean ballads, the "love" and "sorrow" dial is usually turned up to 11... and kept there. 

This is based on your extensive listening of Korean ballads and familiarity with the genre, as well as your superb Korean language skills?

Korean ballads do not; they're extremely formulaic, same structure, same guitar solo mirroring the melody, same modulation up the circle of 5ths for the final chorus. They're clones, devoid of almost all creativity

Did it ever occur to you that you are not the target market, that the people on this Earth don't exist to make music to satisfy you, and you are not the king of music? Besides that, perhaps "creativity" is not the objective with those songs, but rather something else is the goal.

"I'm feeling sad"
"Don't worry, I have something new and creative for you."

You see what I mean about low emotional intelligence and perhaps some trouble with empathy?

Again, it's rather pompous for you to assume that people who dislike ballads in general have emotional immaturity.

Why? Given the extensive criticism over something as benign as a music choice, examples of utter cluelessness as illustrated above, and the blindspot that for some who are fine with angry rock music, which is fine, but sad ballad music is somehow wrong, yeah I'd say that some people don't have emotional immaturity, but perhaps have some...difficulties with that end of things. As I said, many people place a significant emphasis on maintaining emotional control or stability or avoiding certain feelings, that when some music or something has those, it makes them intensely uncomfortable. Which isn't necessarily any more wrong that certain instruments producing discomfort or someone not liking "angry rock music", just that maybe you shouldn't be so judgmental.

I generally stick to instrumental music because even lyrics are usually too to obtrusive for my musical palate, I find instrumental expressions of emotion to be more abstract and have the ability to express in a less clumsy way; Does this make me emotionally stupid?

You do realize that the human voice is an instrument and can be incredibly nuanced in the way it expresses emotion, right?

Exactly. If your expression of sorrow or love consists of wailing "I'm so sad!" and "I really love you!" over an off-the-shelf piano melody, the problem with your music isn't that its emotional depth is too challenging. The problem is that you've created schmaltz

That's what YOU hear. That's not what is being said. The lyrics are more than that, then you also have to add in the vocalist's performance.

As I said, many listeners, often men, are simply not comfortable with those kinds of emotions and their reactions can be avoidance, disgust, anger, confusion, ridicule, and all the other reactions humans typically have to the unfamiliar and uncomfortable.

It's funny how those things are considered schmaltz, yet some rock song that has anger and rage and destruction dialed up to 11 is somehow fine both musically and emotionally.

Sadly, I can't say the same about Korean ballads.

Yes living in Korea, you are likely to hear Korean music. Also, back home you probably hear American pop music or ballad-y type stuff you just aren't as aware of it because it's more familiar.

Decadent elites, on the other hand, are motivated by some corrupted desire to flaunt their superiority and shame the lower orders. Their opinions aren't worth anything because if something's worth knowing then Joe Six-Pack will already know it.  This is BS for so many reasons.  In any case, no style of art really comes in for harsher criticism than the experimental and conceptually difficult, mainly because of this inverse snobbery - I don't understand it so it must be garbage. Criticize something popular, though, and you're instantly cast as some kind of posturing elitist.

The people on here are decadent elites?

Most people here are pretty normal. That was kind of my point- music snobbery is a way to compensate for mediocrity and lack of accomplishment in other phases of life. Who gives a crap what people listen to? I know people who do good, brave, charitable work, who listen to utterly generic work. People who are extremely successful who have generic taste in music. And usually these people don't really give a crap about what other people listen to.

Do you notice who comes on here and rants about people's music taste? It's not Kpop fans. It's not young people who are going out and clubbing and having fun with their friends. It's almost never women. Why is that?

As I said, there's a lot of similarity here to Disco Demolition, where the reaction of a group of people to new music was to get angry, blow stuff up, and start a riot.  Not something normal, sane, and emotionally mature like- "People like different music, that's cool."

Sigh.

So what things are OK to have strong opinions about?

Music? Failures at life, over compensating for their shortcomings. Apparently.
Food? An even dispersal across successful backgrounds.

Literature?
Art?
Movies?
Architecture?
Cars?
Sports?

How many people do you see go "He drives a Ford Escort, what's he thinking???" Aside from Prius snobs or something, most people don't care. Book and art snobs are pretty rare. Heck, most people are just happy you vaguely recognize something.

Movies and TV you sometimes get those, but nowhere near the degree of music snobs. But yeah, you have to wonder why some people make such a big deal about how great their taste in music is and why other music is awful.

Martin, you need to learn to quit while you are ahead. Or behind. You are talking utter rubbish here mate.
Either you are lying or you have had an incredibly sheltered or restricted social life.

I've heard people give each other shit for movies, cars, books, beer, wine, food, choice of holiday destination, sports and countless other things. I'd say the most common is food. The vast majority of people beyond a certain age just don't care enough about music to even discuss it. I can't remember the last time i had an actual conversation with someone about music. Most people just say they "like everything." You are arguing with Aristocrat, who, though can come off as a tad pompous, obviously knows his stuff and then some, when it comes to music. LIC, some 65 year old boomer living in Pattaya. And fka, who is simply giving you his personal opinion on a particular kind of music.

I've said it before and i'll say it again your mind seems to be trapped in this high school/90s sitcom time warp and you are constantly tilting at windmills that don't exist. Where the bullies/elitists/whoever are pushing around and hassling the other kids for their music taste thinking they are better then them. This manifests itself in you, a university educated person, willingly voting for Donald Trump.

Book and art snobs are pretty rare.

I remember the Harry Potter craze in the early part of the century where people were talking about whether it was OK for adults to be seen reading children's books in public. A lot of people with mediocre lives around back then. Not completely dissimilar to asking whether it's embarrassing for adults to be caught listening to kids' pop music.

Or when Dan Brown's Davinci Code was huge. And people saying it was for low brow plebs.

Martin, you need to learn to quit while you are ahead. Or behind. You are talking utter rubbish here mate.
Either you are lying or you have had an incredibly sheltered or restricted social life.

I've heard people give each other shit for movies, cars, books, beer, wine, food, choice of holiday destination, sports and countless other things. I'd say the most common is food. The vast majority of people beyond a certain age just don't care enough about music to even discuss it. I can't remember the last time i had an actual conversation with someone about music. Most people just say they "like everything." You are arguing with Aristocrat, who, though can come off as a tad pompous, obviously knows his stuff and then some, when it comes to music. LIC, some 65 year old boomer living in Pattaya. And fka, who is simply giving you his personal opinion on a particular kind of music.

I've said it before and i'll say it again your mind seems to be trapped in this high school/90s sitcom time warp and you are constantly tilting at windmills that don't exist. Where the bullies/elitists/whoever are pushing around and hassling the other kids for their music taste thinking they are better then them. This manifests itself in you, a university educated person, willingly voting for Donald Trump.

I'll agree that beer snobbery has approached music snobbery levels. There's certainly snobberies and hipsterdoms with other stuff but it's not near as rampant.

I think most people by 35 stop judging people based on if they drive a minivan or a sports car. Sure some do, but most people grow up.

But music seems to be the dominant one. Why not? It's virtually free, so easy for someone to choose it as a way to distinguish themselves.

Anyways, I dont think your assesment is fully accurate (probsbly has a touch o truth somewhere though). I think I'm trying yo explain why ballads and music appeal to other people and I genuinely think some people don't understand why. They just think it's wrong and stupid that someone has different taste.

Do you think I'm truly wrong in what attracts people to ballads or the different listening styles? Am I wrong in pointing out that there might be some discomfort in the emotions expressed in ballads and those can be discomforting to some people?

But yeah it is kind of a silly argument, which is kind of mh point- Who gives a shit what other people listen to?