Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DJKillaQueen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think prejudice and taste are the same thing.

>

> Then you're sadly misguided.


Not really. prejudice can be defined as 'a preconceived preference or idea'. If someone decides they don't like a genre of music in it's entirety...so for arguments sake let's say R'n'B, then they'll never listen to any new R'n'B because they've already decided they don't like it - that's a preconceived idea.....and often that dislike isn't really based on any meaningful in depth exploration of that genre anyway. It's perfectly ok though...most people listen to music for fun and like music they feel affects them, or reflects them. That why there are so many different kinds of music and so many kinds of 'taste'...... ;-)


*crossed posts with Otta - but he/she makes the same point*

Every genre we dislike will probably have something, some example song which we'd really like, that doesn't make the genre any better than we originally thought, it just shows there's probably good in every genre. Which we know already.


But we're not all going to spend our time searching through comparatively 'low return' genres in the hope of finding the track or band which will convert us. There just isn't time, especially when you get past teenybop years.


I luckily have friends that filter stuff for me and lend me good music (in their opinion) and I can make up my own mind, meanwhile I have half a dozen genres which I'm still feverishly pursuing and where I find most of my musical satisfaction.

I see where you're coming from DJKQ and I take your point, though I think Otta put it better and more simply. It's true that some people just shut their ears because they don't like "that kind of music" no matter what "that" kind of music may be.

As to my own "taste" it is very eclectic and in that if I like something I like it. If I don't, I don't, no matter what genre it is from. I'm broad church and I'm broader than Broadway.


Anyway... time for lunch. dum di dum di dum. Have a pleasant afternoon.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...