Help, I'm not esoteric enough (or: how important is "bucking the canon"?)

I personally don't have that much thought to whether something is critical consensus or not, I mean obv. I know the big CRITICAL BIG SHOTT WE LOVE YOU SO MUCH acts because everyone does, but other than that? *shrugs* I have no idea what the critical consensus is because I don't really read up on it. I think Sterling's view point of doing the exact opposite of the critical consensus is just as boring as studied as what he's telling you NOT to do.

Media Inputs include: radio listening, web radio, mp3s, exchange of mix tapes, read different websites, tune into different radio stations/shows, read different music magazine(s) outside of your existing interests.

Outputs: the music/tracks/songs/sounds/artists you enjoy listening will develop/change ..but also you will develop a better understanding of what your dislikes are - as time goes by.

Therefore you need to take responsbility for your Media Inputs if you want your music listening to change/develop/expand.

(though I think everyone should try other types of music just to see what it is like, you might be pleasantly surprised and the way to go abt selecting things is to read up on it and see if any of the arguments are compelling enough for you investigate further).

or even bits of records are a guide: do you like the sitar on norwegian wood? have you tried indian classical?

what abt revolution no9 => musique concrete etc etc

I'm definitely open to new things, but of course it's the whole "knowing where to start" problem that trips me up (though looking at the lists that often unnerve me ironically also help to clue me in; I plan on slsking everything on Matos' list that I don't know ASAP). Usually if enough people talk about it (i.e. LCD Soundsystem, and boy howdy does "Beat Connection" rule everything in the universe) I can get a good idea of what it's like, but it seems to apply only to new stuff.

Custos: fuck that shit. It's cool ranch or nothing.

the point is the sitar does produce a diff sound to any other stringed instrument and that you might want to check out other recs with it (indian classical, soundtracks etc etc)

(I started being more open to wards free jazz when i heard captain beefheart playing sax on TMR)

that was a way in

The feeling that one's taste is not esoteric enough can be a good thing if it drives one to search out music unlike anything one currently enjoys, or at least unfamiliar. I have found that ILM is an excellent resource for this, especially since intelligent people tend to discuss artists I am unfamiliar with and give me vague ideas as to what they might sound like.

Is one's taste more "worthwhile" if it's atypical or goes against industry/Rolling Stone/conventional tastes?

Hell no. But if you're writing about music, one thing to think about is whether you might be better off writing re music about which you have a slightly different angle. The only bad thing about having Rolling Stone tastes is if you want to keep writing the same Rolling Stone articles about the Rolling Stone music. That's hard to defend.

& Nate I think the problem is in the question -- you need to determine yr. own internal criteria for value & constantly challenge them, or at least that's what the better rockcritics.com interviews tell me -- and I occasionally make stabs at value criteria but never consistantly enough to have made any lists ever. The closest I came to a list I liked was P&J this year where I picked the things that made me most happy and amazed.

I don't think there's any magic bullet for the "cool estoeric" stuff except finding good news sources for underground dance, bhangra, ragga, whateva and hunting down books. But its like you have to find what interests you in the first frikin' place and what you wish you knew more about -- then the second part isn't nearly as hard. A thread on ILM is usually as good a spot to start as any.

-Is one's taste more "worthwhile" if it's atypical or goes against industry/Rolling Stone/conventional tastes?

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- only because Rolling Stone tastes (at this moment, mind you) aren't very good -- not because controversy is necessarily a value in itself. For what it's worth I don't think you have particularly strong consensus-canon tastes. Anyway the real issue is the idea that anyone has one set of "taste" rather than tastes that vary between occasions, moods, weather patters, significant others, etc. -- that there is one particularly way in which music should be appreciated, or even that everyone has to find a single way in which to do it for themselves.

I can't think of too many songs that did, but for the most part, yes. I think it came down to the fact that I felt like they were going, "Look! We're using sitars!" the entire time, it's like, ok, great, but why are you using sitars? Obviously the sitar is a beautiful instrument that has been instrumental in great music (yes instruments are instrumental, that's profound), but that doesn't mean that you HAVE to somehow work it into your backcatalog. It was just like they were going to the other Brit bands, "Oh yeah! Well we went to India! Fuck you!" I mean, why not digerrydoos while yer at it? That being said, I like Norwegian Wood.

Anyway, taTu is more a 3 star album because of the sameness, it's too short an album to have a couple tracks that are indistinguishable. If you got rid of like 3 tracks and made it more of a long EP, it'd be a total 5 starrer.

And in closing of this completely disjointed post, jess is OTM and he said what I was trying to say better than I did. I'd rather read a piece (either here or in a mag) on a canon band that's well written and show true love, enjoyment, enthusiasm, than even one word on an atypical choice written by someone who is just purposely being atypical and not really LOVING that which they are propping.

I mean for me personally that's the whole basis for anything I write about music - I'm not a "music critic". I've read very little music criticism (blurbs in mags or papers, never a book written by a Big Time Rock Critic TM), I know a little more music history than the average person. I just listen to a lot of stuff. I don't see how knowing the background or even necessarily the influences of a band are very important inasmuchas what they are doing is good or bad. And that's the place where I used to write from.

And Tatu is FOUR STARS. Cuz its short, moving, and got fun beats and melodies on it!

HOWEVER if it will piss off RS, then give them FIVE stars. Because RS throws the worst Christmas party I've ever been to, and I hate them for it.

I would have agreed with you the first few spins Ally, but a lot of those "filler" tracks have really grown on me, and having the two best songs appear at the end again is fine with me.

fuck cultural appropriation, the sitar on Norwegian Wood is a fun little sound that adds some musical eccentricty (like on "Paint It Black"). I'm quite alright with it.

Hmmm...I'm not expressing myself as well as I am in my mind, I'm a little out of it today, overtired. I guess the way I see it in my head is that, despite all of her other cultural appropriation faults, I think Madonna did it right in "Frozen" - you didn't listen to the song and immediately go "Oh Christ, did she watch the travel channel or summit?", or at least I didn't. Whereas when I hear "Within You Without You" I feel like slapping George Harrison on behalf of all of India.

Though honestly, I think it was kind of noted above but I'll say it: I don't think my opinion of either song would change with an instrument change so it could just be down to lazy songwriting on the part of the George Harrison in that specific instance.

And while I was writing you posted damnit. Yes, I think that's part of my impression too - they were very SERIOUS about it because they just went to INDIA man and it was GRATE as opposed to "Wow, that's a good sound, how can we work it into this song in some way" and doing a more subtle thing.

None of which has anything to do with Nate's plight. About which I can't say much except that it's nice to live in a culture (which I mean in a transnational way) in which the elaboration and discussion of such concerns is a viable way to spend time.

Also, how cool would a review of "Get Ur Freak On" etc. be if it went after them all for their poorly-understood mystic eastern philosophies? Better yet, a review of the wu-tang which was like "These dudes don't understand Shaolin at ALL"

Ugh, except I can't think of three people I'd like to see that way less than that group. Who'd volunteer to judge?

By the way, I think that a review of the Wu-Tang that discusses whether or not ODB follows the way of the samurai would possibly be the greatest thing ever written. Who wouldn't read that? Get to work, Clover.

Digging around for stuff is good but I'm not really sure that's what is necessarily meant by the greater question here. But everyone should definitely dig for stuff, that I'm all for.

http://www.starclustermusic.de/artists/bread/folkswin/cover/dffo6701.gif

"shankar."

"whatever, groovy man."

All too true.

Great thread. Jess and Ally's comments all very worthy. :-)