It's not music that influences lifestyle. It's the lifestyle that influences the music you hear. Like me and Regal were commenting back there, you're in a mood, you listen to the appropriate moody song. It's the same with lifestyle.

I see a bit of my character reflected in what music I hear... but I mainly listen to music because I like it. And I select my songs based on the simple criteria of whether I like it or not. There's no lifestyle or genre blabber beneath it =P

Though many people like to label music. It's become normal these days.

I believe that music influences lifestyle which influences music which influences lifestyle which influences music which...

What I'm saying is that right now, you might not be a “Goth.â€

surely 'may' is the operative word here?

... lifestyle depends on a great many things.

to argue that since a person becomes interested in a new genre of music that will change their lifestyle is either a tautology or an unverifiable claim.

either it will change their lifestyle in the obvious way; their lifestyle will now involve listening to this particular artist in addition to all the others, which is a tautology, just like saying that putting up a new poster in your room will change the way your room looks.... and not really all that interesting a claim

or it's just a generalisation. after all, i fit almost all of the characteristics for someone who is a 'goth', or at least listens to metal. but i listen to other music, too, some of which is even more abstract and relaxed than the stuff i posted here.

so there is obviously more complexity to this than your claim would have us believe. what if a person listens to multiple genres? what 'are they' based on their music then?

... and that doesn't even touch on the many other factors you'd have to admit do influence our lifestyles.

so i disagree with the comment quoted.

it makes it sound like we should do whatever the newest song we listen to tells us to. that's not as much cynical as... plain implausible.

imho, though of course i'm often wrong ^_^

A) No, “mayâ€

I love listening to rap because I like how they sound and I like the lyrics and sometimes the emotion put into them. Just because I like that doesn't mean I will defect to that way of life. Nor will listening to emo or Christian music. It depends on how one wants to live their life.

If you take those rap songs that have the sounds and lyrics and emotion that you are referring to and separate them from rap songs that don't have the sounds/lyrics/emotion and then (POSSIBLY but NOT NECESSARILY) group them with classical, country, new age, jazz, rock, etc. that have RELATIVELY similar sounds/lyics/emotion, I would say you could call it a type of genre (SLE for short). You don't have to literally change your lifestyle, but you might find yourself having more in common with people who follow this genre SLE.

@ Bo:

What you're saying makes sense. But still, I don't see how listening to music can change your lifestyle.

Let's looks at it in parts. You said that you listen to something new, and then identify yourself with the lyrics/emotions from a certain song type. At least, that's what I understood.
I see no actual change in there. You're still the same.

And then you said that you might relate to people who have the same interests, through the music that has emotions/lyrics that relate to common interests.
Still, no change.

And so you 'change your lifestyle' interacting with people who have common interest in a kind of song you didn't know before.

The only thing that may change your lifestyle in there is the relating to people itself, because in no moment our example changed his musical tastes or way of thinking.
And thus, you'd be only interacting with people who were always similar to you, but you didn't know.

And thus, no change at all occurred, only an expansion of your relationship spectrum.
Which of course causes changes in itself, but indirectly, all the time (since you're always interacting with someone new), and not that strongly. Unless you meet one particularly interesting people, that is. But let's not get into specifics. ^^

So, what I'm saying is that you're right, but the situation isn't as extreme as your post made it sound.

[spoiler]^___^
(... darn you, Regal...)[/spoiler]

I know it doesn’t have to be as extreme. I was trying to invite you into letting it be that extreme.

There are aspects of me that relate to classical music, urban dance music, and goth music.

While I do believe that every actual occurrence has an effect on producing an actual future from within the infinite imaginary possible futures, I assure you that had I not had certain experiences with the types of music above in my past, I would not have a mindset bias reinforced toward these types of genres. Because of the significance in the way that this music affected me, in the past my present perspectives are biased toward them, thus any actual occurrence HAS A GREATER CHANCE of impressing on me a modification of my behavior if it is biased toward these genres.

@ Bo - it's possible to interpret what you originally said as totaliatarian and such an interpretation you could quite easily consider unfounded. it's the sense in which you said 'going to need to' that i was considering. *shrug* i see no 'need' being necessarily involved.

i'm not trying to tell you how you said what you said. there are also alternate interpretations which i recognise as equally applicable. if i am, i've worded it wrong and apologise. perhaps taking your words in one particular interpretation and shoving that interpretation around is something you'd consider unfair. if so, you're probably right >_<

i could, as always, quite easily be wrong about the whole thing.

it happens. ^_^

@ Regal

First I need to ask if this is supposed to go to another topic? Everyone seems to be so protective of the integrity of their topic and I'm new to this, so I'm not sure how to accomodate this?

Second, what was your motivation to function with the literal interpretation of my comment? Do you only function with literal interpretations or did you think I might possibly have meant something non-literally? I don't consider it 'unfair' but I am interested in learning if you are looking to argue (as opposed to debate or fight) because I always welcome argumentation.

heh... that's interesting. i always consider 'debate' as non-competetive discussion and 'argument' as more competetive, possibly less friendly discussion.

it's interesting, the way we use the words differently ^_^

firstly, technically yes. we're meant to stay on-topic, and this conversation i suppose should be in another topic. but tbh this happens all the time. i personally think it's to be expected. at the first sign of anyone being less than happy with the way a conversation turns, i would suggest that it's a good time to revert to the original topic.

in this case there is certainly a lot of music we could recommend for T.G, so it might be worth switching back to that idea. *shrug* just use your best judgement.

Secondly?

hmm. i suppose i do take things very literally. at the same time, in this case i was well aware that there were other meanings to your comment. on a forums the literal approach is, imo, really the only way to mantain the discussion of a thing. after all, to discuss a thing with someone requires you to understand their point of view. if you can't, i personally think you're just wasting words or browbeating.

so yeah. i take things literally and try to follow an idea through, because i believe it's the best way to lead an effective discussion. at the same time, very little of what a person says can be said with such assurance and clarity that it can capture the thoughts of that person without either relentless over-simplification when taken literally. at the same time, you run the risk of speaking at cross-purposes in taking a thing literally.

so while it's often what i do in conversation, i'll accept that it's not necessarily a particularly effective style for forum-based debate, where you have to get all of your thoughts out in one big block, a full argument which is far easier to misinterpret and misinterpretation of which is so much more annoying and confusing.

heh. i typed rather more than i intended to there. i hope it makes some kind of sense. i always feel as though i am shooting in the dark with this kinda thing, though.

With respect to this topic I recommend the works of Johann Sebastian Bach, especially his pipe organ fugues or violin concertos in minor keys.

He was also the supreme master of counterpoint which is the ability to sustain multiple melodic lines that simultaneously compete which each other yet simultaneously harmonize each other as well. A fugue is a work of counterpoint in which the melodic lines stem from the same subject, sometimes referred to as the ‘argument’.

The reason that I use the word ‘argument’ rather than ‘debate’ is because my understanding of the word ‘argument’ lies in its original meaning to exemplify the logical core of a multidisciplinary process in which premises are maintained, a line of reasoning is applied to the premises, and a conclusion is reached as a function of the application. I consider a ‘debate’ to be contentious involving both opposing ‘sides’ and appeals to things other than logically pertinent criteria (i.e. emotions, individual attacks, authority).

Be careful in listening to Bach. To be able to truly understand and appreciate his works means to learn to embrace argumentation in music. Listening to his music has thus been known to change the lifestyle of some.