beerijuana

With one exception, ...I may suggest things you might like, that you would otherwise be unaware of because my potential source pool may be that much wider. No guarantees that you'll like it because I do, or for the same reasons, ...but one never knows if they like the taste of something until they taste it, ...and we can't taste things we aren't exposed to. I've been privileged to work with a lot of different musicians, producers, songwriters from around the world (I used to be a session musician), from diverse ethnic backgrounds, cultures, etc. In this sense, ...I'm a node in a network that has a huge upstream structure, which is why I've never used the term "my music" (unless it's actually my compositions), ...so if you do give the Silk Road Ensemble (itself a node in a huge upstream network of ethnically diverse music), a listen; whether you like it or not, ...you have just become a node (in THAT particular network) yourself, at least in that you can experience something you otherwise would not (if you hadn't otherwise heard of it). This is why I find the thread title a bit of a loaded question, especially in regards to the qualifier, "type". What type of music do I prefer? In the words of the immortal Duke Ellington: "there are two types of music: good music and bad music, I like good music" From the standpoint of "tasting" it? ...I would think that a major factor would be how broad ones source pool is. The more things one can contrast and compare, the more refined their taste (however subjective it may be) will be.

Of which there are roughly 6+ Billion... yes. Better, quality, complexity, ...all relative. When it comes down to it, ...objectively, there are no "genres", ....if you think about it, they're more a marketing tool than any kind of real measure of complexity or quality. People take their taste in music personally, ...often calling pet genres, bands and songs, "my music", as in, "...I'd rather listen to my music", your average Joe or Jane anyway. Interesting choice of words, ...and just as snobby? "Their music", not written/composed by them, ...just what happens to turn their crank. There's also the probability that they probably won't be able to explain their preference beyond their own understanding of it, ...same as anyone else. If one's brain is better developed via an acquired skill, for any skill, ...they are probably better at it than someone who didn't have the desire, didn't put in the time and effort to acquire it. If you were a heart surgeon, and you needed heart surgery, who would you prefer getting advice from; another heart surgeon, or an insurance salesman? If you go with the former, ...would that be snobbish? Elitist? Nice heart, Mr. Clark, ...it's got a good beat and you can dance to it. So, yeah, ...if someone I have reason to respect, musically (because they've earned it, ...respect being one of those snobby earned things), ...makes a listening suggestion to me, ...I'm more likely to take it seriously even if it's something I've never heard of -> than if my insurance salesman, ...or a heart surgeon for that matter, tells me to check out the new Lady Gaga track (popularity notwithstanding).

You missed the winky face... Assuming my point was an appeal to authority (it was not). The frame of reference is absolute, and unique to individuality. The terms governed by the frame set by each who perceive it, which in turn is (with the exception of the 5% of the population genetically incapable of perceiving music as ...music. See: McGill -> Daniel J. Levitin ) what establishes the depth and scope of the terms and frame available to the individual. Had you read my comments and fought the reflex that leaves knee-bruises on chins you would've picked up on that very point being made. We are "wired for sound" for the basics of root tone and diatonic (with the starting point at enharmonic 4th/5th intervalic degrees) at birth, everything else develops via exposure, ...it's acquired. If what is acquired (skill wise) reaches a certain point of "learned", the brain gets wired for "extra" ability, ...both in the expression and perception of music, most notably in regards to the way both sides of the brain communicate in regards to the harmonic/melodic and rhythm (which in turn are processed by different parts of the brain anyway, rhythm is perceived/processed in the motor-control areas of the brain associated with arms and legs). Indeed, one man's meat, ...as they say. Mmmmm.... meat. As an analogy, a person whose entire experience of cuisine is based on the frame (and terms) of 2 or 3 purveyors of fast-food, is not going to be able to relate well to the issues of "taste" with that of a person whose "taste" experience and knowledge is exponentially more varied. ...and vice versa. As well as conclusion jumping of Olympic proportions.

Nonsense, there are three of those fingers pointing back, just sayin' Yes, ...this is much like how I also understand it. Perception is also dependent on whether or not the brain of the listener is up to crunching the numbers. Recent fMRI research into the brain and music (McGill -> Daniel J. Levitin) has confirmed a lot of things I already thought were true. Yes, it is a combination of predictability and unpredictability that our (individual, as per early developmental wiring) brains need to perceive music as pleasurable. From birth we come already equipped to recognize the enharmonic intervals of 4th and 5th, ...the rest gets wired in as we develop, ...with a big slow-down (near stop) in the wiring process at puberty. Preferences? Well, the more you are trained in music at a young age, ...the more likely you are to be able to draw from a wider range of genres and eras and find things TO like. To the average Joe, ...your taste may look "snobbish" or "elitist", but the average Joe may hear Coltrane's "Giant Steps" as noise, a virtuosic Syrian Oud performance as out of tune, Miles Davis' muted horn as sounding amateur, Tuvan throat singing as novelty, ...etc. I've been playing music all but the first -/+5 years of my life and I'm rounding the corner towards 50. So far, there seems to be a certain level of musicality in the skill of listening, of listeners ...that to me, "have good taste" in music. With very few exceptions, these are musicians, ...and I'm not talking about fist-picker headbangers or I-IV-V strummers. Those rare non-musicians who get it, ...have learned to understand the depth and bredth of what music is, as an art, ...and a science. They're the ones who don't talk when something profound is being played. Suggested listening: Yoyo Ma's Silk Road Ensemble, "Silk Road Journeys: Beyond the Horizon" ...If this doesn't give you goosebumps, ...your ears, are dead to me.

The only point I'm trying to make is that, the distinction between a valid ad hominem argument and an ad hominem fallacy is black & white. If, for example, ... if you point out a person's M.O. in regards to repeatedly employing intellectual dishonesty in a debate (say, a C/ID proponent), ...when they perpetuate it, ...calling them on it isn't an ad hominem fallacy, it's pointing out a known modus operendi. But, (big but): Personally, I'm more offended when someone, ...trying to bully theists in a atheism vs theism debate (for example), ...loads their own declarative statements, questions and refutations with nonsense. It's a common ploy, ...many self proclaimed "rational" people, are some of the worst transgressors of logic. They do it for the simple reason that they think their "opponent" won't "get it". Sorry, ...I feel more of a responsibility in pointing their liberties with reason than those who cling to emotional and cherished beliefs, at least they have an excuse. Logic, reason and critical thinking should be wielded as a commonality, not as a weapon, ...those who indulge in the latter usually have no familiarity with logic, ...other than bully buzzwords. This isn't an us vs them proposition, ...it's a frame of reference. Logical fallacies (more so the informal as opposed the the formal) are supposed to be explained, and proved when used as a debate tactic, ...it's important to distinguish between logic (post hoc ergo propter hoc for example) as a causality of an if/then, and a fallacy, ...the difference is in the proof. Same goes for an ad hominem (dependant on which). Just sayin'

Just a quick interruption. There are a few important distinctions here, not ALL ad hominems are fallacies. "Calling" someone out on a fallacy carries with it, the expectation of proof. (there are more, ...but these two = a good start) If this is a consideration for site admins/moderators, ....is it a "given" that they know the difference? "if someone says "here's five excellent reasons why you're wrong, and by the way, you're an idiot," that's not an ad hominem because the insult isn't being used as the reasoning." Yes it is, see "Poisoning the well". Because it is "black and white", ...and sometimes it "ain't pretty" when it is valid, it's just not often as simple as some think (even for science-y folk). I'm actually surprised when those who throw the buzzwords of logic and (formal and informal) logical fallacy around, ... actually have a clue as to what they mean, in regards to the "nuts and bolts". Just sayin'...