Counterpoint, understanding alone isn't enough either if you don't have an affinity.

There's a few classical and jazz pieces that I like, but that doesn’t mean that I like classical music and/or jazz, even though I do get why other people do.

Same for your church architecture example. I can appreciate it on an intellectual level, but in the end I still find it mostly boring and not my kind of aesthetics.

> Counterpoint, understanding alone isn't enough either if you don't have an affinity.

It's not a counterpoint, as I never said that understanding something meant that you would like it.

I just said that it's worth trying to understand before concluding that we dislike something.

I don't believe that most people's dislike of churches stem from the architecture.

My point there being that it may be possible to find interesting parts in things we dislike.

Of course it is mainly from the architecture. When a person who is mentally base sees something which is impressive and beautiful, they are filled with resentment and hate. Even more if it was constructed by people from the past which he thinks he is supposed to be much superior to.

Absolutely deranged point of view.

Seriously, if you actually _believe_ this, consider examining it carefully. It is self-serving nonsense.

Deranged is of course to hate and resent something because it is beautiful or because it is impressive. Or someone.

There's a difference between hating because it's beautiful, and hating it despite it being beautiful.

You are complaining about imaginary people.

You must be in a very different part of the world than I am. One with grand cathedrals, perhaps. Where I'm from, a church is usually a big box with a brick facade, glass doors, paint over drywall interiors, and fake wood trim. Outside of the decorations, they're much like office buildings. They generally have a small steeple somewhere that holds no bell and only serves to identify the building as a church, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell.

There isn't anything to hate about the architecture that wouldn't also apply to most public buildings built in the last half century.

I live in a city with many old beautiful churches and I can safely say the architecture is the only thing I like about them.

Everywhere in the world, it's normal for churches and temples to be either the oldest, the largest, or the most beautiful buildings. Or all of those. But of course not always.

It's just that in some countries, the oldest buildings are not particularly old :-).

150 years ago, the buildings where I live were made of wood or sod and there were no cities. Fifty years before that, there were no buildings at all. The native people lived in tents, followed the buffalo herds, and the sky was their temple.

The churches that have been built since were built by denominations that place less value in visual and architectural art than, for example, the Catholic or Orthodox churches. The single Catholic church in my town does look nicer than the others, although the inside looks just as fake as everything built since the 1950s.

I have visited the church at Rota and the cathedral at Càdiz, and they are beautiful. We do not have churches like these where I live. But it wouldn't matter if we did. It is neither the blandness of my churches or the beauty of yours that cause me to dislike the church, but the way the church is used to spread hate for people who are different than them.

> but the way the church is used to spread hate for people who are different than them.

I am not religious at all, but disliking the church because it speads hate is like disliking white persons (or whichever arbitrary criterium you want) because they are criminals: the reality is that only a minority speads hate and only a minority are criminals. A majority of religious people are good and want to do good. And it doesn't require religion to spread hate, far from it.

Note I specifically said "is used to spread hate." There are a lot of people who use religion as a tool to push their agenda. That's especially true here in the US, where the evangelical churches are so prevalent.

It differs from church to church, of course, and it says nothing about any particular member of the congregation.

Right, yeah I was nitpicking a bit :-)

You can go too far the other way. I only stopped liking jazz once I understood it.

I like churches, I just don’t like going to church :)

Same here. Churches often have incredible architecture, art and acoustics. I really enjoy visiting them when there is no religious service. And I've been to some fabulous organ concerts at churches.

Same here :-).

I wanted to say the exact opposite meaning the same. Going to a church or cathedral to see it, cool down or warm up is nice but I dislike the church of scientology, england and probably bunch of other churches

Feel the same about hospitals

If you don't like to go to hospitals, then about the only option is to like your particular disorders.

This may also be the only option for disorders for which there is no treatment, e.g. tinnitus.

There's also the option of waiting until your untreated disorder puts you in a coma, and then you can enjoy hospital services without being conscious of your surroundings.

Liking certain songs within a genre doesn’t mean one enjoys the genre generally.

Usually the songs anyone can enjoy tend to be the ones that are the most palatable and are not as genre specific.

To some degree it’s a matter of semantics but to say someone enjoys a genre of music they should be able to enjoy the more esoteric songs in the genre.

"I don't like X" is of course not an absolute statement (and neither is "I like X", for that matter). I don't like Hip-Hop. Of course there is some hip-hop that I think is alright, but by and large, "I don't like Hip-Hop" is accurate.

Different people are different, and different things resonate with different people. I find snobbery highly obnoxious, but to be honest my opinion of this kind of dismissal of different people liking different things with a fairly condescending "you have simply not understood it" is not much better.

As I said, it's fine to dislike something. I was just saying that it's worth trying to understand first: you may still dislike something that you understand of course.

> but to be honest my opinion of this kind of dismissal of different people liking different things with a fairly condescending "you have simply not understood it" is not much better.

You haven't put too much effort into trying to understand my opinion, have you? :-)

>Most people who dislike a whole music genre generally don't really understand it and haven't put any effort into it.

I still can't get my family to get into noise and pigfuck, any advice ?

I didn't say that it's impossible to dislike something you understand, though.

Adding to this: Some classical music sucks!

It took me longer than it should have to start getting into classical music, because when I heard a piece that sucked I just assumed I didn't understand it and that classical music was too complicated. No, it's just that a lot of classical music sucks and is annoying to listen to. But a lot of it is fantastic.

Yeah I've been figuring that out myself recently. Turns out that I don't really like Baroque or Classical music, but I do like Romantic music. It was just a factor of finding that "classical" has more than one genre in it

I would have said no on Rap before Hamilton. I would like to know your goto for Jazz.

Not OP and not a jazz expert, just throwing out a personal favorite. I think it is very approachable without sacrificing anything, and it has a recognizable melody (which might help or hinder the jazz appreciation cause):

My Favorite Things by Coltrane.

But I do know people who dislike jazz because of the unfamiliar rhythms and (wildly flexible) musical conventions, and that can be hard to overcome.

Everyone is different of course, but if I had to try like this: do you know "Postmodern Jukebox"? :-)

No rap before Hamilton is under exposure to NYC boom bap. Lin-Manuel Miranda is quite good but I am sure he wouldn't put himself on the level of Big Pun or Nas.

Miles Davis - Kind of Blue is the best selling jazz album of all time but it is still a specific sub genre of cool jazz that might put you to sleep.

Herbie Hancock - Head Hunters I think is the second best seller. I really don't know if I have ever read someone say Head Hunters sucks. It probably isn't what you expect in the same the way Hamilton sounded different to you.

I would go with those two and if you don't like either I wouldn't bother looking for more.

Brad Mehldau for a great piano centric trio

Most posts here seem to be offering easy on-ramp listening for jazz, but they seem at odds with the spirit of the original post. For jazz that is off-putting at first listening but rewards deeper study, consider Thelonious Monk (Blue Note sessions 1 & 2) or if you are really up for it, Coltrane's Interstellar Space.

I think sometimes it's just a matter of finding an incentive. Isn't it typical for a teenager to start listening to the music of their boyfriend/girlfriend? Or of their group of friends.

My point is: I find that all the suggestions here are great! They may work differently for different people!

I've been trying to acquire a taste for Free Jazz a few times over the years and haven't been very successful.

Yep, Free Jazz does that :-). And it's okay not to like it. But I find it great that you tried!

I tell people I don't like country because I grew up in the country, and I'm sick of listening to relatable things like one lane roads and escaping cows one moment, then switching to bible-thumping alcoholism when the song changes.

Listening to any given country song might be lovely. Listening to the genre is painful. Sometimes the aggregate effect of a genre ruins the enjoyment of any given song.

Beer pick up truggs girls love my country gobless