We've had a new person start here at work. She's going to be our office administrator/administrative assistant. I'm pretty excited to have her on board. I'm hoping she'll work out better than the past one did. :( At least, I hope she stays longer than four months.
As part of the inevitable get-to-know-you conversations, I was asked what kind of music I like, and if I minded if she played some music. The standard - oh, I like everything - escaped my lips. After which, she turned on Keith Urban.
So I came into my office and turned on some ska.
Battle of the bands, indeed.
When I was in architecture class at the U, there were 40 of us in our year, and we all had disparate views and tastes in music. Most of us would plug into our headphones and listen that way. There were inevitably a few, however, who felt that they were the self-appointed DJs for the studio, and their music would be loud and ever-present.
So I'm curious about that dynamic.
First off, the response that we like anything is like asking someone where they want to go eat, having them say that anywhere is fine, only to discover that there is a specific set of things that they do NOT want to eat. I don't think that their response was a deception - rather, once certain options were presented the choice could be made and certain options could be eliminated. The response really is - I'm not sure what I feel like eating. But that doesn't preclude exclusionary responses to choices. I may not want to eat at Taco Bell, but I could easily eat chinese, burger, whatever.
The same would seem to hold true with music. I don't mind Keith Urban. He's maybe not my favorite, but I don't mind. However, that's not what I am interested in listening to this morning. So, Bim Skala Bim is playing. :) Besides, my speakers are bigger and closer to my own head.
I am also interested in how people get to enjoy a particular genre of music over another. As a musician, I feel that I have experience and training in music that enables and informs my choices. But my choices are just as valid as anyone else's, experienced/trained or not. People know what they like, and I'm not sure that training/experience can necessarily change that.
I say that, but then I think back to how I felt about Picasso, Pollock, etc. before I came to understand how their art was created and what it was trying to do. I came to appreciate their work as I understood what they were trying to convey. Their work became infused with meaning, and that meaning deepened and attenuated my understanding.
But that doesn't mean that I like it. I don't have to like something to appreciate, or even enjoy it. Some medicines are very healthy, if bitter. And eating ice cream all the time might be tasty, but it's not nutritious.
I wonder why we actually "like" certain things. Why we can't stand some things. What set of parameters go into our decisions - many of which are formed instantly and irrevocably. This seems to hold true of art and music, as it does with people and places. I also wonder why there is such a wonderful variety of things that people like and dislike, and why some people like something others can't stand.
Sometimes the things we can't stand merely function to demonstrate that we are alive to loathe something.
I bit the inside of my mouth the other day. As a result of the swelling I can't eat for fear of biting again that swollen and painful lump, which in turn tends to make me irritable and cranky. As I was bemoaning my fate, I was reminded of Dostoevsky who wrote about how pain merely enforces the idea that we are alive. While the purpose of life is not to experience pain, it is nevertheless an unavoidable part of being mortal. After all, only the living feel pain. And perhaps the pain serves also to help us with our appreciation of the lack thereof when we are healed and whole.
As part of the inevitable get-to-know-you conversations, I was asked what kind of music I like, and if I minded if she played some music. The standard - oh, I like everything - escaped my lips. After which, she turned on Keith Urban.
So I came into my office and turned on some ska.
Battle of the bands, indeed.
When I was in architecture class at the U, there were 40 of us in our year, and we all had disparate views and tastes in music. Most of us would plug into our headphones and listen that way. There were inevitably a few, however, who felt that they were the self-appointed DJs for the studio, and their music would be loud and ever-present.
So I'm curious about that dynamic.
First off, the response that we like anything is like asking someone where they want to go eat, having them say that anywhere is fine, only to discover that there is a specific set of things that they do NOT want to eat. I don't think that their response was a deception - rather, once certain options were presented the choice could be made and certain options could be eliminated. The response really is - I'm not sure what I feel like eating. But that doesn't preclude exclusionary responses to choices. I may not want to eat at Taco Bell, but I could easily eat chinese, burger, whatever.
The same would seem to hold true with music. I don't mind Keith Urban. He's maybe not my favorite, but I don't mind. However, that's not what I am interested in listening to this morning. So, Bim Skala Bim is playing. :) Besides, my speakers are bigger and closer to my own head.
I am also interested in how people get to enjoy a particular genre of music over another. As a musician, I feel that I have experience and training in music that enables and informs my choices. But my choices are just as valid as anyone else's, experienced/trained or not. People know what they like, and I'm not sure that training/experience can necessarily change that.
I say that, but then I think back to how I felt about Picasso, Pollock, etc. before I came to understand how their art was created and what it was trying to do. I came to appreciate their work as I understood what they were trying to convey. Their work became infused with meaning, and that meaning deepened and attenuated my understanding.
But that doesn't mean that I like it. I don't have to like something to appreciate, or even enjoy it. Some medicines are very healthy, if bitter. And eating ice cream all the time might be tasty, but it's not nutritious.
I wonder why we actually "like" certain things. Why we can't stand some things. What set of parameters go into our decisions - many of which are formed instantly and irrevocably. This seems to hold true of art and music, as it does with people and places. I also wonder why there is such a wonderful variety of things that people like and dislike, and why some people like something others can't stand.
Sometimes the things we can't stand merely function to demonstrate that we are alive to loathe something.
I bit the inside of my mouth the other day. As a result of the swelling I can't eat for fear of biting again that swollen and painful lump, which in turn tends to make me irritable and cranky. As I was bemoaning my fate, I was reminded of Dostoevsky who wrote about how pain merely enforces the idea that we are alive. While the purpose of life is not to experience pain, it is nevertheless an unavoidable part of being mortal. After all, only the living feel pain. And perhaps the pain serves also to help us with our appreciation of the lack thereof when we are healed and whole.
Comments