NationStates Jolt Archive

Because, you know, I'm tired of Israel-Lebanon conflict/Islam threads. What do you think? I like early
70's prog, and that stuff is pretty pretentious.

Considering that I enjoy country-punk, folk music and william shatner, no.

I like Big Band, Classical, Classic Rock, Golden Oldies, some Country, Some Pop, Musicals.

Disco must DIE.

;) But as odd as my tastes are, I don't think they are focused enough to be pretentious.


As for art, I like both the old masters and newer, more innovative stuff, so I don't think I could be called pretentious there either.

(and what is it with Pollock and his paintspatters?)

I dig free jazz and modern composition. The artists abilities to crawl all the way up thier asses is only matched by the audiences ability to do the same all the while smuggly patting themselves on the back for being so sophisticated in thier tastes.

So yeah, pretty pretentious.

But I also like ska covers (and other goofy covers, like the lounge version of the Star Wars themes played by The Evil Genius Orchestra) and The Cherry Poppin' Daddies, so it balances out.

But I was working on a music degree (after my AA-the most useless degree available, I switched to film) so I have a little paper that says I can be at least a little pretentious in my taste. It has to be worth something...

I'll listen to or look at most anything.

Now that I think about it, if I like both ELP and the Ramones, what does that make me? Hard decision.

(and what is it with Pollock and his paintspatters?)

Damn, and I thought I was the only one who didn't understand the fascination with him!

My musical tastes are all over the bloody spectrum; Hard rock, heavy metal, new age, classical, early rap, country, oldies......

My art tastes tend towards CG stuff, cartoons, 3d animation, comics. But then that is my profession as well. Love Eschers work, the dude was amazing. And Frank Frazetta is my favorite painter.

I'll try any genre of music if you give me a good song (e.g. I thought country music was wierd as hell; then I listened to John Denver and I got addicted) Yeah, I switch around favorite genre's every few weeks...

As for art...I don't know really, I'm not interested in the visual arts...

I don't think my taste in music is pretentious, but neither is it mainstream (Britney, Nickleback, 50 Cent, etc).

My taste in music is pretentious because of it's pretended "lack" of pretentions.

I like punk. It puts on airs constantly about "teenage revolution" and "youth spirit".

I've got such a wide range of taste. I love progressive music like The Mars Volta, Pain Of Salvation and The Gathering, but I also love straight up hardcore like Wish For Wings, No Innocent Victim and This Is Hell. I like metal such as Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, and I like punk like Propaghandi and Rise Against. I'd say my tastes are too diverse to be labeled under one banner.

I've got a wide range in both music and art, but at the same time I find myself liking bands and artists few people ever heard of or like. I guess I'm just weird.

pre·ten·tious adj.

1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

Well, quite clearly according to the above definition my tastes are not pretentious.
I know they are of the upmost highest quality and exquisite taste. There's nothing unjustified about them whatsoever.

I listen to black metal mainly. Yeah, pretty pretentious.

i listen (among other kinds of music) to IDM and noise, probably the most pretentious genres ever.

i listen (among other kinds of music) to IDM and noise, probably the most pretentious genres ever.
Any genre that has "intelligent" in its definition is pretty much as pretentious as you can get. Me? I've just spent about an hour watching Sigur Rós music videos and practically weeping at the beauty in them. Pretentious? No. Melodramatic on my part? Maybe.

don't really know

Any genre that has "intelligent" in its definition is pretty much as pretentious as you can get. Me? I've just spent about an hour watching Sigur Rós music videos and practically weeping at the beauty in them. Pretentious? No. Melodramatic on my part? Maybe.

I always had to weep when i watched that video with the children that play in the ashes with their gasmasks on. Very touching video. I saw Sigur Rós live a month and a half ago, a very good concert.
oh, and i forgot to mention i sometimes listen to Captain Beefheart too :cool: ;)

No
I like Grandeur.

Moi?

Nah, not really.

I have pretty eclectic taste when it comes to music, good music is good, bad music is bad, I can't really pick and choose based on genre (although some genres do have a higher concentration of good, like punk, and some have a higher concentration of bad, like disco)

I have been told that the way I listen to music is pretentious, mostly by my husband. I don't just hear music like most people, I listen, I notice chord progressions, themes, symbolism, ect. It annoys the crap out of my husband, I have learned to keep my comments to myself in public. :p

I have pretty eclectic taste when it comes to music, good music is good, bad music is bad, I can't really pick and choose based on genre (although some genres do have a higher concentration of good, like punk, and some have a higher concentration of bad, like disco)

I have been told that the way I listen to music is pretentious, mostly by my husband. I don't just hear music like most people, I listen, I notice chord progressions, themes, symbolism, ect. It annoys the crap out of my husband, I have learned to keep my comments to myself in public. :p
Not doing that is like thinking ice cream is just a mold for the hard chocolate shell...

Not doing that is like thinking ice cream is just a mold for the hard chocolate shell...
my sister used to annoy me, she listened to the bubble gum pop (which there is some from the 50's that is useful, and yeah some from the 80's but she listened to the "boy bands")


anyway I would ask "why do you like that music?" and she would say "It's good" and I would say "what's that song about?" and she would say "<insert name> is really cute and he fund raises for PETA"

:headbang:

Moi?
:p

Not doing that is like thinking ice cream is just a mold for the hard chocolate shell... Erm... <.<

Erm... <.<
I already justified my pretense on the first page. So there. :p

I'm into many bands that can be called pretentious. But what's wrong with that? I feel that being pretentious isn't necessarily a bad thing... I think it only becomes bad/annoying when snobbiness is combined with it. Which is why I dislike those people who only listen to classical music and who claim that because of that they are better than me. I like classical too. I also like death metal and gothabilly. Big WOW. I don't think I am better than anyone else because of my taste in the arts and music. No one has a better music taste than yourself because it is your opinion.

By the way I get very angry about musical snobs! :sniper: I am usually a friendly person:cool:

My taste in music can only be described with one word: random.

For example, this morning I woke up to the end of Dvorak's New World Symphony, but before I got to shutting off my alarm clock, Dammit by Blink-182 came on as the next song on the CD.

No, I prefer much of the music I listen to to be kept out of the mainstream, and I could care less if the person next to me thinks my taste is crap.

I mostly like death metal/grindcore/melodicDM/etc, and punk... so, no, I'd say I have bad taste in music without being pretentious. :D

No, I prefer much of the music I listen to to be kept out of the mainstream, and I could care less if the person next to me thinks my taste is crap.
You should learn what "pretentious" means.

You should learn what "pretentious" means.

According to dictionary.com;

"Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."

"Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious."

Since I don't care that people don't listen to much of the music I do, since it is my personal preference, and nor is it "marked by an extravagant outward show", I think my previous response is justified.

I like early
70's prog.

That explains your name then :D

Since I don't care that people don't listen to much of the music I do, since it is my personal preference, and nor is it "marked by an extravagant outward show", I think my previous response is justified.
The question wasn't "is the way you listen to music pretentious?", it was "is the music you listen to pretentious?"

What d'you listen to?

The question wasn't "is the way you listen to music pretentious?", it was "is the music you listen to pretentious?"

What d'you listen to?

Meh. OK, my bad, whatever. EDIT: Actually, the question was "is my taste in music pretentious"....which I read as literally "my taste", rather than the music itself.

Usually a bit of everything, but lately i've been into doom and drone metal.

I voted 'NO' because I don't think black, death, doom, and thrash are very pretentious!!!

Is it pretentious to say that im totally secure in my belief that anyone who does not like the music I like is a fool?:cool:

Is it pretentious to say that im totally secure in my belief that anyone who does not like the music I like is a fool?:cool:
Depends, what music do you like?

I can't believe so many people listen to thrash metal on this forum.

Depends, what music do you like?

Quite a variety of stuff...used to like loud-and-slightly-scary sounding metal-type music...but prepared to give most styles of music a chance (except R&B nonsense). Mind you, i did go through a brief emo stage *is ashamed*. Apart from that, i dont think ive got any CDs id be embarassed to admit having.:D

I can't believe so many people listen to thrash metal on this forum.

yeah I was thinking the same thing... lol

I doubt it.

Most of my friends think my music is total shit.

Quite a variety of stuff...used to like loud-and-slightly-scary sounding metal-type music...
Depends on the metal. Some of it gets really pretentious.
but prepared to give most styles of music a chance (except R&B nonsense).
Translation: "I don't like black people". ;)
Mind you, i did go through a brief emo stage *is ashamed*. Apart from that, i dont think ive got any CDs id be embarassed to admit having.:D
*shrug* A lot of emo bands are actually pretty good.

yeah I was thinking the same thing... lol

It's weird, i thought that thrash metal was for angsty kids. When you grow up you usually grow out of at least the really thrashy metal. I don't really regard heavy thrash metal as music, but just loud noise to vent your anger.

When anyone thinks they have a really complex taste in thrash metal then that is automaticly pretentious because there is no musical merit to the sound.

It's weird, i thought that thrash metal was for angsty kids.
Uh... that's emo and goth metal. Thrash metal, along with death metal and punk, is for the normal white kids.

When anyone thinks they have a really complex taste in thrash metal then that is automaticly pretentious because there is no musical merit to the sound.
Anthrax, Metallica, Slayer, and Megadeth have no musical merit? I don't like Metallica, but the other three have some great music...

Translation: "I don't like black people". ;)

Wait...damn...ive been found out....

No, in seriousness, More accurate translation: I dont like the values of R&B, Rap etc. More gun-friendly even than most rednecks and I dont like the way females are represented in music videos of this type either. I over-generalise of course, but quite frankly...meh:p

EDIT: Whoops I forgot to mention that the music is rubbish too. Disliking something for its values rather than the music itself...that is pretentious. *praises self for returning briefly to topic*

Uh... that's emo and goth metal. Thrash metal, along with death metal and punk, is for the normal white kids.


Anthrax, Metallica, Slayer, and Megadeth have no musical merit? I don't like Metallica, but the other three have some great music...

Anthrax and Megadeth certainly don't. I appreciate the skill of metallica (though they arn't really thrash metal) and slayer.

Wait...damn...ive been found out....

No, in seriousness, More accurate translation: I dont like the values of R&B, Rap etc. More gun-friendly even than most rednecks and I dont like the way females are represented in music videos of this type either. I over-generalise of course, but quite frankly...meh:p
Well, the only rap I like is from the late 80's to mid-90's. Back then, rap wasn't anti-intellectual and misogynist... The stuff that's comin' out now (and for the past 5 or so years) is terrible.

It's weird, i thought that thrash metal was for angsty kids. When you grow up you usually grow out of at least the really thrashy metal. I don't really regard heavy thrash metal as music, but just loud noise to vent your anger.

When anyone thinks they have a really complex taste in thrash metal then that is automaticly pretentious because there is no musical merit to the sound.

In your opinion. I have to say there is very little thrash metal that I like but there is some... I tend not to like dance and house and all those rave clubby things (although some artists are very good!) but I do not dispute the fact that they are artists none the less. Sure they may not have very much musical merit but then neither did the beatles in their early years (holds glass of water nearby, preparing to get flamed!). Didn't stop them from being popular. By the way I do like the beatles! I agree though about people being pretentious if their uphold that their taste is superior to others!

(and what is it with Pollock and his paintspatters?)

2 or 3 things.

im going to assume that you have had the opportunity to see at least one of his famous works in person. if you havent, give it a try some time you might see the big deal right away.

the first reason is due to what i consider to be a major flaw in western art theory. he was the first one to do paint spatters. the first guy to do it is a genius, the 2nd guy is a pretentious wannabe. this is why someone like mondrian can paint some lines and squares on a canvas and be lionized when you or i could do the exact same thing and be considered idiots. the original concept (well done) is everything.

#2 have you ever tried making a paint spatter painting? its not as easy and as random as it looks. to do an enormous canvas as pollock did (lavender mist is 87x118 inches) and keeping it unified its very difficult. what looks like an easy-peasy dribbling of paint onto a canvas requires extreme energy and concentration to acheive the kind of effects that pollock did.

#3. the best ones are wicked cool. they rivet your attention. they boggle your mind with abstract detail and implied emotion.

no im not pretentious but i am very opinionated. i know what i like and i know what is good even if i dont like it and i know what is good even if the critics think its irrelevant and i know what sucks even if the critics love it.

its the fine distinctions inbetween that im not good with.

Well, the only rap I like is from the late 80's to mid-90's. Back then, rap wasn't anti-intellectual and misogynist... The stuff that's comin' out now (and for the past 5 or so years) is terrible.

I agree! I should, in the light of this, clarify my earlier post...but already edited it once, and cant be bothered:D

In your opinion. I have to say there is very little thrash metal that I like but there is some... I tend not to like dance and house and all those rave clubby things (although some artists are very good!) but I do not dispute the fact that they are artists none the less. Sure they may not have very much musical merit but then neither did the beatles in their early years (holds glass of water nearby, preparing to get flamed!). Didn't stop them from being popular. By the way I do like the beatles! I agree though about people being pretentious if their uphold that their taste is superior to others!

Despite popular belief, the early Beatles did have quite a lot of musical talent. However their early recordings were quirky so it was hard to hear. (I don't really want to go into detail about it but i could). However, the Beatles may have sounded a bit simple. But death metal just sounds like, noise. The point is to make as much noise as possible.

But death metal just sounds like, noise. The point is to make as much noise as possible.

No, that's grindcore. ;) True death metal (as opposed to the popular perception of all very-heavy metal as "death metal"), while not a real favourite genre of mine, is usually quite technical.

2 or 3 things.

im going to assume that you have had the opportunity to see at least one of his famous works in person. if you havent, give it a try some time you might see the big deal right away.

the first reason is due to what i consider to be a major flaw in western art theory. he was the first one to do paint spatters. the first guy to do it is a genius, the 2nd guy is a pretentious wannabe. this is why someone like mondrian can paint some lines and squares on a canvas and be lionized when you or i could do the exact same thing and be considered idiots. the original concept (well done) is everything.

#2 have you ever tried making a paint spatter painting? its not as easy and as random as it looks. to do an enormous canvas as pollock did (lavender mist is 87x118 inches) and keeping it unified its very difficult. what looks like an easy-peasy dribbling of paint onto a canvas requires extreme energy and concentration to acheive the kind of effects that pollock did.

#3. the best ones are wicked cool. they rivet your attention. they boggle your mind with abstract detail and implied emotion.

no im not pretentious but i am very opinionated. i know what i like and i know what is good even if i dont like it and i know what is good even if the critics think its irrelevant and i know what sucks even if the critics love it.

its the fine distinctions inbetween that im not good with.


Thanks. Pollock's one of my faves.

As far as my tastes in music and art go, I might very well be so un-pretentious as to be pretentious. After all, I appreciate Pro Wrestling, but one reason is that it's a living extension of the theatric traditions that's no longer seen in the museum theater of Shakespeare (for example). Does that make me unpretentious for enjoying "low brow" theater or pretentious for enjoying it at least partly on "high brow" grounds?

2 or 3 things.

im going to assume that you have had the opportunity to see at least one of his famous works in person. if you havent, give it a try some time you might see the big deal right away.

Yup, been to MOMA and The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Been in the room with them. ;)

the first reason is due to what i consider to be a major flaw in western art theory. he was the first one to do paint spatters. the first guy to do it is a genius, the 2nd guy is a pretentious wannabe. this is why someone like mondrian can paint some lines and squares on a canvas and be lionized when you or i could do the exact same thing and be considered idiots. the original concept (well done) is everything.
Agreed. Like Warhol-style lithos.

#2 have you ever tried making a paint spatter painting? its not as easy and as random as it looks. to do an enormous canvas as pollock did (lavender mist is 87x118 inches) and keeping it unified its very difficult. what looks like an easy-peasy dribbling of paint onto a canvas requires extreme energy and concentration to acheive the kind of effects that pollock did. I could argue the mess I made of my overalls painting my friends' apartment was very similar, but ok. ;)

#3. the best ones are wicked cool. they rivet your attention. they boggle your mind with abstract detail and implied emotion. I'll take your word for it; I prefer Seurat and Monet, El Greco, Picasso, Renoir and Michaelangelo.

no im not pretentious but i am very opinionated. i know what i like and i know what is good even if i dont like it and i know what is good even if the critics think its irrelevant and i know what sucks even if the critics love it.

its the fine distinctions inbetween that im not good with.

Hehehe, reminds me of "I can't define what porn is, but I recognize it when I see it." S'all good, though. :)

No, that's grindcore. ;)

I thought that was noisecore :D

That explains your name then :D

Heh, yeah. One of my friends who hates prog with a passion can't believe I listen to Yes, Genesis and those guys. I want to strap him to a chair Clockwork Orange style and put Relayer on infinite loop. He'll come around!

I would hardly say that it's pretentious to prefer classical music. I just demand certain qualities in my music that classical happens to fulfill. Hardly pretentious, just different from the mainstream.

I would hardly say that it's pretentious to prefer classical music. I just demand certain qualities in my music that classical happens to fulfill. Hardly pretentious, just different from the mainstream.

Classical is mainstream music, though.

Heh, yeah. One of my friends who hates prog with a passion can't believe I listen to Yes, Genesis and those guys. I want to strap him to a chair Clockwork Orange style and put Relayer on infinite loop. He'll come around!

Lol, well I quite like Yes in my opinion. They have made some great songs (as well as some horrificly bad songs, but that comes as standard for all prog rock bands).

Is it still pretentious if you constantly talk about how much the music you listen to sucks? If so, then the impressive selection of "angstcore" I have accumulated from hapless teenage girls over the past couple years is truly damning evidence against me.

Considering that I enjoy country-punk, folk music and william shatner, no.

Hey, me too! ...let's be pretentious in a different way.

I like alot of music forms but mostly Folk

Yup, been to MOMA and The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Been in the room with them. ;)


Agreed. Like Warhol-style lithos.

I could argue the mess I made of my overalls painting my friends' apartment was very similar, but ok. ;)

I'll take your word for it; I prefer Seurat and Monet, El Greco, Picasso, Renoir and Michaelangelo.



Hehehe, reminds me of "I can't define what porn is, but I recognize it when I see it." S'all good, though. :)

I'll take a crack at this with the caveat that I do not have the background in art to really be doing this kind of thing and it should be taken as such.

I think with Pollock it is this-if color, composition, 'movement', and texture are the things that we recognize within a painting, what's to say that the painting has to be anything but that? Why does it have to be a picture of something and then all those other things? Why can't it just be a dynamic approach, creating movement and kinetic feel while combining and presenting composition and texture? Pollock is art without the pretext of representation, the splatter is the drama of the painting which is what separates it from the colored boxes whatever that's called (told you I don't have the background) which is driven by order and hierarchy.

But again, never studied it all, so...