Is there a correlation between education/intellect and musical tastes?

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ViciouS

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: ViciouS

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
This thread got me thinking, I wonder if education and/or intellect directly affects listening habits.

I noticed that I despise most country, hip-hop, rap and some pop & r&b. In my experience the people that both make and listen to those types of music are younger, have less education (at least less broad/liberal education) or have not yet reached highly developed cognitive functions. I'm not saying everyone, just in general in my own experiences.

That thought led me to realize that a large number of highly educated or very intellectual people listen to classical, opera, jazz, new age and heavy metal.

That leaves the bulk of the population in the middle, and in the middle is where pop, rock etc are located, which are also the most common musical forms in America.

The one type that really doesn't fit as far as I can see is pure blues, since it was generally made by the uneducated, but enjoyed by many.

So, is there an actual correlation between musical taste, education and/or intelligence? If there is, why?

I realize a BIG part of it is age (teens seem to suddenly 'discover' rebellion music (rap, punk, heavy metal) and oldies), but is it a developmental issue tied to age, or just a symptom of lack of education/knowledge/experience?

What about other countries? Why the difference (if there is any)?

Wow you are incredibly ignorant. I got a few things for you to do.

1. Move out of your mom's house to a big city, where the local hang out spot is not a Wallmart, and attempt to salvage some sort of social life that doesn?t involve typing or leveling up.

2. Ask your mom if its ok to remove your head from your a$$. Because we all know you can't do anything without checking with her.

3. Call my brother who is a huge rap fan, and ask him for a job. Last time i checked his very successful company was looking for a fck-tard to clean the bathrooms. Oh yeah, he has a degree in computer science.

Who knows, complete these tasks and you might even get laid. Never mind I doubt it. Judging by your signature, and your nickname, you?re probably a 400 lb. Dungeons and Dragons freak who has more food stuck in his keyboard than I have in my entire house. Stupid mother fckers like you make society go backwards.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA...I love it when ignorant fools try and talk down to people.

By your reply we must all assume that you are utterly incapable of any form of coherent thought, therefore we will excuse your baseless attacks and attempts at nefness. Should your unfounded anger have need of immediate release I'd be happy to PM you my address and you can come see how much you know with my foot planted fully up your a$$.

BTW, you might want to consider that remarks like yours are incredibly insensitive to people who's mother (in the case of your statement) have passed away. Not that you care, because it's obvious you're a 100% self-centered egocentric insignificant little pr1ck, but I just wanted to offer you the opportunity of some minor form of evolution at least once in your pitiful life.

And why exactly haven't you been banned yet? Oh well, all in due time.

Peace.

I'm the ignorant one, when you point out the music listened to by anyone who wasn?t born with a silver spoon in there mouth, and call them stupid? I think anyone who comes from nothing and makes something of themselves is 100x more intelligent and successful than anyone who came from a big money background.

* Edit I'm going out, thats why im not responding for a while.

I don't believe I called anyone stupid, except for you...and that was based on your response (which, I might point out, others also considered ignorant).

I fail to see where the money thing comes in. Since when did only rich people have the potential to further their education? Moreover, last time I checked IQ points weren't given out along with dollars.

If you think economic or social success is a measure of intelligence, well, that's up to you I guess. I think it shows dedication, ability, etc...but intelligence is the ability or potential for thought...and your measures don't in any way relate as far as I can tell. I'm not downplaying their importance in the world, only that we're talking about two entirely different concepts.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurrence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

I see where you are coming from. It seems that those who are more involved with intellectual endeavors also seem to march to a different drummer than the norm when it comes to artistic tastes. That's probably due to the fact that they were never influenced by societal norms as much as they were by those, who like themselves, thought outside of the box and weren't influenced by society as much as they were by their own curiosity.
That would explain why a genius is math could and would appreciate the genius of someone like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky though one doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to appreciate their genius.

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Stopping terrorism is kinda of like squeezing mercury.

I think you need to fix your sig. "Kinda of" just isn't right.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Stopping terrorism is kinda of like squeezing mercury.

I think you need to fix your sig. "Kinda of" just isn't right.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

That's been there since just after 9/11 and I never noticed it before. I copy/pasted from someones statement on the forum. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

thanks, I'll go change it now.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

Your parents were "against music" and look how you turned out. There's your environmental influence.

Seriously though, I think it's clear that environment has the most impact on how someone turns out. We aren't born with any innate knowledge. It has to be accrued.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurrence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

I see where you are coming from. It seems that those who are more involved with intellectual endeavors also seem to march to a different drummer than the norm when it comes to artistic tastes. That's probably due to the fact that they were never influenced by societal norms as much as they were by those, who like themselves, thought outside of the box and weren't influenced by society as much as they were by their own curiosity.
That would explain why a genius is math could and would appreciate the genius of someone like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky though one doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to appreciate their genius.

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Woah there brother; no, he was most certainly NOT the Britney of the age. I would encourage you to do a little more research into the later Classical and early Romantic periods. Beethoven was highly revered in his own time, and his influence remains incredibly pervasive today. His genius was never questioned, and the profundity of his intellect and music extends well beyond his lifetime.

I still can't quite believe you just said that....

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Trust me, if it weren't for commercialism and the influence of the Recording Industry Spears and the rest of those garbage producing pseudo artists wouldn't be as popular as they are today. Back in the time of the great classical artists there wasn't an industry determining the tastes of society as there is today. To be popular back then and even just a few years ago you really needed a lot of talent and creativity. You don't see that with most Rap/Pop and even Rock Groups though there are some.

 

[PrinceofWands]

deleted because it reposted below when i tried to edit it.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

Your parents were "against music" and look how you turned out. There's your environmental influence.

Seriously though, I think it's clear that environment has the most impact on how someone turns out. We aren't born with any innate knowledge. It has to be accrued.

I agree. I've seen the effect environment has on people. I've been in foster care for about 3 and a half years now, and let's just say I've met people who come from quite a variety of backgrounds.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurrence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

I see where you are coming from. It seems that those who are more involved with intellectual endeavors also seem to march to a different drummer than the norm when it comes to artistic tastes. That's probably due to the fact that they were never influenced by societal norms as much as they were by those, who like themselves, thought outside of the box and weren't influenced by society as much as they were by their own curiosity.
That would explain why a genius is math could and would appreciate the genius of someone like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky though one doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to appreciate their genius.

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Woah there brother; no, he was most certainly NOT the Britney of the age. I would encourage you to do a little more research into the later Classical and early Romantic periods. Beethoven was highly revered in his own time, and his influence remains incredibly pervasive today. His genius was never questioned, and the profundity of his intellect and music extends well beyond his lifetime.

I still can't quite believe you just said that....

hahahah, ok, i was in a hurry and making a point. First of all I was lumping all music heard on 'classical' stations into one lump, which is silly since they play everything from middle ages up to modern showtunes. My point was that there was no media music at the time (no radio or tv) so that left live performances of music that we today call classical. It's not like you had a choice between stations; rock, heavy, ska, classical, etc. Instead what did we have; church, symphony, opera, chamber, folk...most of which we today call classical (except maybe folk, and even much of that).

Also, Britney is HIGHLY revered in this time...otherwise she wouldn't make money now would she? Popular music is what most people listen to...600 years ago most people listened to what we today call classical.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Trust me, if it weren't for commercialism and the influence of the Recording Industry Spears and the rest of those garbage producing pseudo artists wouldn't be as popular as they are today. Back in the time of the great classical artists there wasn't an industry determining the tastes of society as there is today. To be popular back then and even just a few years ago you really needed a lot of talent and creativity. You don't see that with most Rap/Pop and even Rock Groups though there are some.

Oh yes you did...the church or the aristocracy, that was your industry. Granted, that changed later, but pre-classical at least that's what you had.

 

[johnjbruin]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
No. I have met plenty of smart people that like rap.

Same here.

I don't think there is any correlation at all.

I have also met so many educated people that listen to classical because they think that they are supposed to listen to it - but they don't understand jack sh!t about the actual classical music.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PHiuR
i like alll sorts of music, and i do mean everything...except for country...i like classical, jazz..hip hop, ska, punk, rock, alternative rock. music that does not have genres...and im dumb as hell.

Given that you like everything, perhaps it's not that you're dumb; rather, just not focused

:beer:

wow, i think you figured me out. I'm in school and it's not that i don't like doing the work. it's jus that I don't want to. I defintely need to get focused...dont know how tho.

:beer:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

Your parents were "against music" and look how you turned out. There's your environmental influence.

Seriously though, I think it's clear that environment has the most impact on how someone turns out. We aren't born with any innate knowledge. It has to be accrued.

Bad argument, easily disproven. My parents listened to no music. They didn't personally enjoy it very much. I grew up and learned about it on my own, and made my own choices. In what way is that environmental?

If people are subjects of their environment, then kids of catholics should stay catholic, or they should all not be catholic...instead they're spread out the same as kids born to non-catholics (mostly). The same is true of every trait and influencer. There appears to be a very low correlation between environmental influencers and some eventual outcomes, decreasing the longer you go of course. People are born with a raw IQ potential. Certainly upbringing affects this, but if they're born with genetically elevated potential, even if they are in an environment which doesn't foster intellect they'll end up smarter than average. If it's fostered, then of course it goes even higher. Personalities are another example. It's largely impossible to decide personality traits by lineage or upbringing (I'm talking about things like Meyers/Briggs/Keirsey temperment here).

Saying that environment IS the great causer negates the possiblity for anyone to ever change their state. There could be no inner city doctors, no hillbilly philsophers, etc.

Yes environment can have some affect, but individuals are born individuals...everything else seems to be minor.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurrence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

I see where you are coming from. It seems that those who are more involved with intellectual endeavors also seem to march to a different drummer than the norm when it comes to artistic tastes. That's probably due to the fact that they were never influenced by societal norms as much as they were by those, who like themselves, thought outside of the box and weren't influenced by society as much as they were by their own curiosity.
That would explain why a genius is math could and would appreciate the genius of someone like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky though one doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to appreciate their genius.

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Woah there brother; no, he was most certainly NOT the Britney of the age. I would encourage you to do a little more research into the later Classical and early Romantic periods. Beethoven was highly revered in his own time, and his influence remains incredibly pervasive today. His genius was never questioned, and the profundity of his intellect and music extends well beyond his lifetime.

I still can't quite believe you just said that....

hahahah, ok, i was in a hurry and making a point. First of all I was lumping all music heard on 'classical' stations into one lump, which is silly since they play everything from middle ages up to modern showtunes. My point was that there was no media music at the time (no radio or tv) so that left live performances of music that we today call classical. It's not like you had a choice between stations; rock, heavy, ska, classical, etc. Instead what did we have; church, symphony, opera, chamber, folk...most of which we today call classical (except maybe folk, and even much of that).

Also, Britney is HIGHLY revered in this time...otherwise she wouldn't make money now would she? Popular music is what most people listen to...600 years ago most people listened to what we today call classical.

I knew what you meant, but I thought I'd protest anyway.

I wouldn't say Britney is revered, but if she is it's for all the wrong reasons; there are more appeals to her body than her musical affluence, and this simply wasn't the case in earlier periods of music. If I were to qualify the period of music we have been experiencing as of late I would likely call it a period of music that wasn't about the music.

Also, let us not excuse some of the incredible music that is still being composed today. There are many artists still composing operas, symphonies, etc. that are performed at venues throughout the world. I've seen two premieres just in the last three weeks!

Also understand that the term "classical" is often misapplied, and even when done so it's sometimes a superficial demarcation that serves only to better study the period.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Ones musical tastes usually is set by ones environment. Prior to getting married to a woman with three teenage boys I really wasn't into Heavy Metal. After a few years living with them I went from a New Wave Fan to a Metallica/Faith No More/White Zombie fan. Now I like music that gets my adrenaline going (and at age 50 it really has to rock to do that):laugh:

Ok, that's a pretty common response too, but here's where it seems to break down.

My family was mostly against music, so I had no exposure at home. I didn't have a 'clique' at school, so I wasn't exposed to any one type of music. However, I formed specific musical tastes. Those tastes changed when I was older. Why?

This isn't a rare occurrence by any stretch. Everyone knows that kids tend towards rebellious music, but why do adults listen to what they do? Ok, adults soften as they age somewhat...but that doesn't address genres like we're discussing now. Why classical, why rock, why hip-hop?

That's more what I was getting at. I could just be biased because I'm firmly anti-environmental influence camp, regardless of what's being discussed. I believe much more that people are individuals first and products of their environment second.

I see where you are coming from. It seems that those who are more involved with intellectual endeavors also seem to march to a different drummer than the norm when it comes to artistic tastes. That's probably due to the fact that they were never influenced by societal norms as much as they were by those, who like themselves, thought outside of the box and weren't influenced by society as much as they were by their own curiosity.
That would explain why a genius is math could and would appreciate the genius of someone like Beethoven or Tchaikovsky though one doesn't necessarily have to be a genius to appreciate their genius.

YES! That's it exactly. I'm curious as to if this is an actual phenomenon, or merely a perceived one, and either way, why. I agree it probably has a lot to do with social influencers.

I also find it interesting that so much of what we consider 'intellectual' today, was popular at the time. It's not like they called classical, 'classical' while Beethoven was alive. It was just the Britney of the age.

Woah there brother; no, he was most certainly NOT the Britney of the age. I would encourage you to do a little more research into the later Classical and early Romantic periods. Beethoven was highly revered in his own time, and his influence remains incredibly pervasive today. His genius was never questioned, and the profundity of his intellect and music extends well beyond his lifetime.

I still can't quite believe you just said that....

hahahah, ok, i was in a hurry and making a point. First of all I was lumping all music heard on 'classical' stations into one lump, which is silly since they play everything from middle ages up to modern showtunes. My point was that there was no media music at the time (no radio or tv) so that left live performances of music that we today call classical. It's not like you had a choice between stations; rock, heavy, ska, classical, etc. Instead what did we have; church, symphony, opera, chamber, folk...most of which we today call classical (except maybe folk, and even much of that).

Also, Britney is HIGHLY revered in this time...otherwise she wouldn't make money now would she? Popular music is what most people listen to...600 years ago most people listened to what we today call classical.

I knew what you meant, but I thought I'd protest anyway.

I wouldn't say Britney is revered, but if she is it's for all the wrong reasons; there are more appeals to her body than her musical affluence, and this simply wasn't the case in earlier periods of music. If I were to qualify the period of music we have been experiencing as of late I would likely call it a period of music that wasn't about the music.

Also, let us not excuse some of the incredible music that is still being composed today. There are many artists still composing operas, symphonies, etc. that are performed at venues throughout the world. I've seen two premieres just in the last three weeks!

Also understand that the term "classical" is often misapplied, and even when done so it's sometimes a superficial demarcation that serves only to better study the period.

Agreed in total...I spoke merely for expediency.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Also, Britney is HIGHLY revered in this time...otherwise she wouldn't make money now would she? Popular music is what most people listen to...600 years ago most people listened to what we today call classical.

600 years ago most people listened to ethnic folk music, not the great classics as they didn't have access to it.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: johnjbruin

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
No. I have met plenty of smart people that like rap.

Same here.

I don't think there is any correlation at all.

I have also met so many educated people that listen to classical because they think that they are supposed to listen to it - but they don't understand jack sh!t about the actual classical music.

Very true, and you see that a lot when you go to performances; of course, it's like that with everything, and at least they pay to help keep the interest alive.

Granted, I think there are several elements to an appreciation of earlier culture: The products of the culture itself (art, music, science, ...) or participating in the culture. Given that we're a few hundred years hence from these periods some simply choose to try and understand as much as possible, and to do that they attend performances in a manner that the period contemporaries would. I can't fault them for this, but I do wish more people could have an intense appreciation, and understanding, of the music.

 

[SWScorch]

Well, in my opinion, classical, jazz and heavy metal are all very complex, deeply layed genres of music. I think some people listen to music for social or popular reasons, while others listen to music for the sake of hearing the instruments and what is happening. Is there a correlation between education and/or intelligence and listening styles? I'm not sure. Using myself as an example, I'm not sure if I would fit the "educated/intelligent" mold or not. Supposedly I'm pretty bright and I have some intellectual talents, but other times I feel like I'm no smarter or well-educated than the common person. However, I listen to a broad broad range of music, with my favorites being the more complicated arrangements; classical, metal and the like. On the other hand, I can also enjoy simpl music, like pop or 3-chord rock, simply because it's fun music, easy to listen to and great to sing along with. I listen to one or the other depending on what kind of mood I'm in. When I want to hear complex, technical music with lots of profound subtleties, I'll play some Bach or Opeth. When I just want to chill and relax and listen to some good tunes, I'll play Tom Petty or Jack Johnson. So I think music preferences are based on listening style, which may be a sign of intelligence or education.

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: amcdonald
OP, you sound like a pompous ass.

I'm sure there's a pattern that can be mapped between IQ/education and what style of music an individual prefers...
But I don't think it's wise to form an opinion on someone when they say the listen to country/rap/blues/classical

I happen to listen to and enjoy every type of music listed here.. they all have a time and a place for me..
Maybe it's because I'm a musician and I listen to and appreciate music in a different way than most..

Strictly for debunking purposes, I'm really smart and I love rap and country (at times)... also I consider new age to be a psuedo-intellectual style at best.
I don't consider heavy metal to be intellectual, since mostly the lyrics involve basic emotion in less than eloquent lyrics, and the music is more simple than complicated most of the time.
That being said I love metal/hardcore.
I'm not a fan of opera, but I love most classical music.

I'm not trying to use it as a judgement tool, only a curiosity. I really have noticed what appears to be a correlation along the lines I mentioned and I'd like to understand it better. If I don't understand what is, I can never work towards what should be.

I listen to everything as well, just not very much country, rap, hip-hop (and very little pop). I personally don't enjoy it. I'm not a musician by any stretch, but when I do dink around it's purely classical. I don't know why, just the way I am. When I go to society meetings it's 99% classical and opera as background music. I smile at the media-fed stererotyping of Japanese business leaders as country karioke fanatics. Why? Why are these things true or presumed? These are the observations that drive me to figure things out. I can't help it, just the way I'm built.

I completely understand.. and when I said you sound like a pompous ass I didn't clarify.
The post just sounded elitist when reading 'have not yet reached highly developed cognitive functions'.

I see the music that people listen to as mainly a product of their environment, combined with what they naturally relate to and what they think they should relate to.

As the son of an organist and a music teacher, am I inclined genetically towards classical music? or is my love for it simply a factor of my being raised around it?
Who knows.. one of my brothers listens mainly to oldies and classical, and the other listens to punk, rap, and electronic music.. and he's the smartest of us all.

I see music foremost as an mode of communication.. and obviously people relate to what they know.
I believe your exception with blues is what you should be focusing on. Country/Blues/Hip hop are very similar.
It's simple music made with sincerity.. the whole point is to convey a feeling, a story, a mood.
And when Johnny Cash sings about killing a man just to watch him die, Conor Oberst sings about loneliness, Bach plays a fugue, or Mos Def rhymes about inner city life, they are all accomplished in that they can connect with their listener. The fact that it might be gibberish or annoying to other people shouldn't reflect on the intelligence of the music.
Education is a relative term, and there are things you can't learn through getting a doctorate that you would learn living through a divorce, seeing a friend die, falling in love, etc.
These aspects of simpler music are what draws me to them. It's real. Far more personal than a 5 minute Victor Wooten solo.
Keep in mind I'm not referring to bubblegum country, or unintelligent hip hop.. which I think falls more into the 'pop' category...

Basically, I know plenty of educated, intelligent people who cannot stand classical music, or would rather hear madonna than dream theater.
Likewise I know musicians who live for technical music, who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, or barely made it out of high school.

I'm officially rambling now, I'll stop.

 

[iversonyin]

This is so sterotypical.....the thread starter must be living in a box...

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

A lot of people 'think' other people are 'smart'. When I say 'smart' I mean truly exceptional intellect or cognitive functions. Like over 140IQ's. Actually over that, and not supposed to be that from some ridiculous internet test..... There are only 200,000 on the planet who qualify at these levels and since only a small portion of the population is ever tested MOST of those able to participate never will. There are only 6000 on the planet at or above 168IQ. We're talking about a very VERY small number of people..... By educated I don't mean a BA in basketweaving, nor even an MBA. I'm talking about TRUE broad education. Either multiple degrees or broad study within their college careers. This usually (but not always) rules out ANYONE who went to college purely to get a degree specifically to get the job they wanted.

The problem I see with this stance is that the people with the highest level of intelligence are often crazy... it's as if the human brain isn't meant to have that kind of capacity and they're usually mentally unstable.

Many of the smartest people on the planet don't go to school because they don't function well on a social level.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

A lot of people 'think' other people are 'smart'. When I say 'smart' I mean truly exceptional intellect or cognitive functions. Like over 140IQ's. Actually over that, and not supposed to be that from some ridiculous internet test..... There are only 200,000 on the planet who qualify at these levels and since only a small portion of the population is ever tested MOST of those able to participate never will. There are only 6000 on the planet at or above 168IQ. We're talking about a very VERY small number of people..... By educated I don't mean a BA in basketweaving, nor even an MBA. I'm talking about TRUE broad education. Either multiple degrees or broad study within their college careers. This usually (but not always) rules out ANYONE who went to college purely to get a degree specifically to get the job they wanted.

The problem I see with this stance is that the people with the highest level of intelligence are often crazy... it's as if the human brain isn't meant to have that kind of capacity and they're usually mentally unstable.

Many of the smartest people on the planet don't go to school because they don't function well on a social level.

Or maybe they're vegetables because society abuses and rejects them from lack of understanding. I know I suffered TERRIBLY at the hands of my peers, and unfortunately my parents and teachers were unable to rectify the situation due partially to their lack of understanding, and partially to variances in personality. It can make it VERY difficult to have relationships and/or form bonds, and it's nearly impossible to ever truly be understood.

Another slant on this is that what many see as crazy is actually just a form of cognition that those of lesser ability are unable to comprehend (I don't believe that, but it is an argument with some merit).

I agree about social function and school, which I why I seperately mentioned education and intelligence. The two aren't the same, but often have similar effects on the person.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: iversonyin
This is so sterotypical.....the thread starter must be living in a box...

Well, let's see:

Lived in about ten states, veteran, father, been married, currently enrolled in three different colleges (granted two of them don't start until fall)...that's a mighty big box.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: amcdonald

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: amcdonald
OP, you sound like a pompous ass.

I'm sure there's a pattern that can be mapped between IQ/education and what style of music an individual prefers...
But I don't think it's wise to form an opinion on someone when they say the listen to country/rap/blues/classical

I happen to listen to and enjoy every type of music listed here.. they all have a time and a place for me..
Maybe it's because I'm a musician and I listen to and appreciate music in a different way than most..

Strictly for debunking purposes, I'm really smart and I love rap and country (at times)... also I consider new age to be a psuedo-intellectual style at best.
I don't consider heavy metal to be intellectual, since mostly the lyrics involve basic emotion in less than eloquent lyrics, and the music is more simple than complicated most of the time.
That being said I love metal/hardcore.
I'm not a fan of opera, but I love most classical music.

I'm not trying to use it as a judgement tool, only a curiosity. I really have noticed what appears to be a correlation along the lines I mentioned and I'd like to understand it better. If I don't understand what is, I can never work towards what should be.

I listen to everything as well, just not very much country, rap, hip-hop (and very little pop). I personally don't enjoy it. I'm not a musician by any stretch, but when I do dink around it's purely classical. I don't know why, just the way I am. When I go to society meetings it's 99% classical and opera as background music. I smile at the media-fed stererotyping of Japanese business leaders as country karioke fanatics. Why? Why are these things true or presumed? These are the observations that drive me to figure things out. I can't help it, just the way I'm built.

I completely understand.. and when I said you sound like a pompous ass I didn't clarify.
The post just sounded elitist when reading 'have not yet reached highly developed cognitive functions'.

I see the music that people listen to as mainly a product of their environment, combined with what they naturally relate to and what they think they should relate to.

As the son of an organist and a music teacher, am I inclined genetically towards classical music? or is my love for it simply a factor of my being raised around it?
Who knows.. one of my brothers listens mainly to oldies and classical, and the other listens to punk, rap, and electronic music.. and he's the smartest of us all.

I see music foremost as an mode of communication.. and obviously people relate to what they know.
I believe your exception with blues is what you should be focusing on. Country/Blues/Hip hop are very similar.
It's simple music made with sincerity.. the whole point is to convey a feeling, a story, a mood.
And when Johnny Cash sings about killing a man just to watch him die, Conor Oberst sings about loneliness, Bach plays a fugue, or Mos Def rhymes about inner city life, they are all accomplished in that they can connect with their listener. The fact that it might be gibberish or annoying to other people shouldn't reflect on the intelligence of the music.
Education is a relative term, and there are things you can't learn through getting a doctorate that you would learn living through a divorce, seeing a friend die, falling in love, etc.
These aspects of simpler music are what draws me to them. It's real. Far more personal than a 5 minute Victor Wooten solo.
Keep in mind I'm not referring to bubblegum country, or unintelligent hip hop.. which I think falls more into the 'pop' category...

Basically, I know plenty of educated, intelligent people who cannot stand classical music, or would rather hear madonna than dream theater.
Likewise I know musicians who live for technical music, who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, or barely made it out of high school.

I'm officially rambling now, I'll stop.

I understand what you're saying. I apologize for how I come across, it does sound pompous but I don't intend it to. I spend so much of my time studying and in academic surroundings that I honestly just naturally speak and write like that. It's a hard habit to break. However you need to understand that there is truth to my statement...the majority of people don't reach the highest developmental levels (as defined by maslow, perry, piaget, erikson, etc) without either intellect, education, age or some of all. It's not my rule, it's just what research has thus far indicated.

The Gardner theory of intelligences combined with existing knowledge of intellect (especially that from twin studies) indicates that it's very plausible to pass on musical talent and/or appreciation genetically. Again, that doesn't account for taste, just predisposition.

Anyway I hope throughout the thread I've clarified somewhat what I mean. I wasn't so much stating a hypothesis as looking for possible explanations as to why my observations have been as they are.