Could somebody please explain


I know what the dictionary says that it means, but here's the problem....every so often - increasingly frequently because people are starting to know that I am into audio and even more into music - some aquaintance (ie., colleague, co-worker, friend of a friend, etc.) will hand me a CD and say something like: You have to listen to this disk, it's got heavy jazz/classical/latin/blues (pick one..or two) influences but it's hard to pin down just what it really is. It's very eclectic."

Invariably the disk is crap.

The disk is usually generously given to me by an individual who wouldn't know a pianissimo from a pinada, and I am left to wonder just what is meant by the "eclectic" designation. Here are some of the possible meanings under consideration:

1. I don't understand even a fragment of what is going on here musically, so this disk must be really good.

2. I paid good money for this thing and I hate it, so I'll try and pass it off on someone else and call it eclectic.

3. It sounds like world music, and world music is eclectic (the "peace, love, dope" approach).

4. It's eclectic and I like it, so if you don't, you're an idiot.

5. Since I listen to eclectic music you have to think that I am intelligent.

I often wonder what response I would recieive if I merely returned the disk and said" It's not eclectic, it's sh**. Stop worrying about it and go listen to some music you like."

Any thoughts?
esoxhntr
Musical taste is so varied and personal. I love Bartok but I know that most of the time it will clear the room. A member of our audio club loves Free Jazz but knows from experience that one cut is enough when we all get together. My eighteen-year-old daughter plays popular tunes that sound to me like musical suicide notes.

It's all eclectic to someone.
Bartok will clear the room? Play Schoenberg in the other room, then.

In all seriousness, I've been listening to Bartok for so long that I forgot that many still consider him to be "one of those modern composers. Yuk." IMHO, he stands with Stravinsky as the two greatest composers of the 20th century.

Listen with an open mind. Try to like it, but don't go out of your way. There's not enough time and too much stuff that really IS good.

Cheers.
Well, Bartok wouldn't clear me out of the room :) I really do try to keep an open mind, and I also enjoy the opportunity to listen to new material.What I don't like is the expectation from the individual giving me the disk that I am obligated to like the music on the disk.

From reading the original post, I realize the the situation I am trying to describe is difficult to understand (and perhaps vaguely explained ???), but rest assured:

1. I do like listening to new music.
2. I do like sharing music and talking about music with others.
3. I am not trying to establish moral superiority by dumping on others people's opinions of music.
4. I do realize that what floats my boat may sink somboby else's.

I would simply be more comfortable when being offered a disk if the offer was made like so:

"Why don't you try this and see what you think?"

As opposed to:

"You will love this, it's eclectic."

By the definition of eclectic, if I don't like the music, then I do not understand what the best elements or best practices of the music are, which of course is a load of hogwash. And I restate - every time I listen to a disk labelled eclectic, it sucks.

As you say Tfkaudio, so much really good music, so little time.
AFAIK, eclectic just means unusual or difficult to catagorize. Lots of artists are eclectic; right now Im listening to Eddie From Ohio, filed under Pop/Rock at Borders, but I've heard folk, pop, Spirtual, and bluegrass so far this am on this one disk. Another perhaps would be Eva Cassady, moving from jazz to R&B to folk to gospel to blues.
I always's thought Frank Zappa was 'eclectic'. Perhaps 'eclectic' it is just 'genius' in disguise...