Darling -the're playing our playlist!

May 26, 2006 3:23 AM

Do you think you could choose a future partner purely on the basis of his or her music (or book) collection? Have any of you, in fact, ever done this? If so what were the deciding factors and did it work out?

When I was a teenager I used to imagine that if I could find a girlfriend who shared the same obscure reading and listening tastes as me (at least I thought they were obscure - we lived in the sticks and this was pre-metafilter) we might live happily ever after. Like most people I suspect my real world relationships have been with partners who shared some of my choices and hated others.

But now that technology has bought us LastFm, Amazon Wishlists and myriad other tools for discovering a stranger via their artistic taste I was wondering if people were starting to use these to find a match.

posted by rongorongo to human relations (66 comments total)

purely on the basis of his or her music (or book) collection?

God, no ! That would be mighty superficial ; it's easy to observe music taste isn't the _only_ point of contact/divergence of a couple and probably isn't an important one either, unless one plans to do much music listening togheter.

I'd rather use the net and the profiling schemes to reduce uncertainity rather then seeking something certain.
posted by elpapacito at 3:28 AM on May 26, 2006

Rejecting someone based on really really bad taste? Sure, we've all been there.

But choosing someone based on having good taste? No. All you can really hope for is a music collection that doesn't totally suck. Besides which, someone with the same precicely defined, obscure tastes as yourself would make a boring conversation partner after a while.

Oh shit, this looks like chat filt...
[fin]
posted by Jimbob at 3:34 AM on May 26, 2006

When I was a teenager I had a pretty interesting collection of reading and listening materials that was gathered based on a vision of who I wanted to be, not who I actually was. So no, I wouldn't choose a partner based on his record or book collection, since I would be suspicious that his collection was just as pretentious and inauthentic a representation of his character/personality as mine was.
posted by Pigpen at 4:03 AM on May 26, 2006

Maybe the inverse is true: if I see Chick-lit, too many self-help books or the Da Vinci Code/Harry Potter complete set alongside the absence of any thing else, I know it probably wasn't meant to me. Then again, books rule my life...

Thinking about it, I started to fall for my current partner when I was skint and needed some entertainment over a long weekend. That lovely man loaned me 10 books, 5 of which were in my list of all-time favourites.
posted by katiecat at 4:10 AM on May 26, 2006

My parents were the two most different people you can imagine: they came from different countries, different religions, different socioeconomic backgrounds and they had wildly. wildly different temperaments. But when they married (everyone gave them six months, tops) and moved in together, they discovered they had all the same books. It turned out to be an excellent marriage.
posted by CunningLinguist at 4:10 AM on May 26, 2006 [2 favorites]

I used to think I wanted to do this. Experience proved my "must love indie rock" qualification to be a bad idea, and I'm glad it did. Somewhere along the way I also realized that who I am is more than things I like. Besides, I had a ton of fun making mix cds for my husband back when we first started dating and seeing what new music he enjoyed; it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if he already knew everything.
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 4:15 AM on May 26, 2006

Do you think you could choose a future partner purely on the basis of his or her music (or book) collection?

Holy shit no! Some collusion is definitely good, but you don't want a relationship with yourself.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:34 AM on May 26, 2006

I was once very pleased to discover an amour had a copy of the same book I was reading on his bedside table. 6 months later, though, he was still on the same page. I'm sure there were more reasons than that for finishing it, but I'm struggling to remember them now. Another time, I discovered nothing but Terry Pratchett and ran a mile (whilst I suspect this was a good decision, I didn't hang around long enough to know for sure).

Now I'm a little more mature. A little.
posted by handee at 4:35 AM on May 26, 2006

I've always thought that you could tell more about a person by the books they have in their home than by any other means.

If they don't even have a book collection, that's a real bad sign IMHO.
posted by bim at 4:37 AM on May 26, 2006

The people who share the same tastes in me tend to be the people I don't want to touch with a 6-foot pole. Everyone I've been very close with has had majorly different tastes.

So no, not for me.
posted by divabat at 4:39 AM on May 26, 2006

Music or literary tastes seems to me like a really shallow way to pick a potential mate - skin color and bust size have always worked much better for me as an accurate predictor of compatibility.
posted by Meatbomb at 4:46 AM on May 26, 2006

"Purely"? No, not least because I'm heterosexual, so there are clearly other considerations involved in picking a partner for me than their books. (Music seems an even weaker criterion.)

I can certainly think of disqualifying bookshelves (there was a great Onion bit on that a few years ago). And back when I was dating, I thought it would be really cool if one could match oneself with other Amazon customers.

But I like the fact that my partner has similar tastes but different experiences than I do: it means she can offer me recommendations based on her experiences and vice versa. Complementariness is a good thing.
posted by commander_cool at 5:05 AM on May 26, 2006

I have a friend that carries the (highly sexist) notion that when you meet a girl with a really hip music collection you are not seeing here tastes but rather the tastes of all her ex-boyfriends.
posted by sourwookie at 5:37 AM on May 26, 2006

Purely? No. But it would be an interesting starting point for finding someone to go out on a date with to see if there was chemistry.
posted by needs more cowbell at 5:51 AM on May 26, 2006

Well, I don't think that I would pick someone that I had never met to marry based on their music and book collection, but I would certainly consider dating them on that basis. I wouldn't pick someone who had the same taste as me, I would pick someone who had interesting tastes. For instance, my wife likes Ani DeFranco, who I am not a big fan of. But, I would certainly consider Ani to be an interesting musician. If she had liked a bunch of Top 40, I don't think that I would have been as into her.
posted by jefeweiss at 5:53 AM on May 26, 2006

Totally the opposite for me. I've loved being introduced to new stuff thanks to the differing tastes of various girlfriends.

In fact there's something a little creepy about tastes that match too closely...
posted by i_cola at 6:01 AM on May 26, 2006

...apart from a situation like CunningLinguist's folks maybe. That's just too cute ;-)
posted by i_cola at 6:02 AM on May 26, 2006

When I was sixteen it made sense, because I spent a lot of time at gigs and festivals. But now? I have my parents to discuss books with and my friends to discuss music with. My other half barely reads for pleasure at all, which a few years ago I would probably have been snottily dismissive of, but good god other qualities outweigh it by a tonne.
posted by jamesonandwater at 6:06 AM on May 26, 2006

My husband and I had a lot of books in common. It was great for conversation & I was really happy we shared the same sense of humor & taste in literature. I don't think I would have chosen someone based only on that though.

As for music - we were completely different there, and that was wonderful because we turned each other on to new music we never would have discovered on our own. When we married, and merged all our belongings, we only had 2 duplicate cd's. I think the most important to me was not what he liked, but that he truly loved music as much as I.
posted by Alpenglow at 6:22 AM on May 26, 2006

Huh. Probably not a good way of determining compatibility. Can be a hint to incompatibility, maybe, but consider this: My wife and I started dating in '91, and have been married nearly 8 years. Our music collection includes a whole bunch of stuff that we both like, basically nothing that I don't like (although there are definitely CDs that are much more her thing than mine, she has nothing I would be horrified by if she played it) and a bunch of stuff that I'm into and she considers strange but tolerates. Musically we match up pretty well - that's a good thing.

Of course, when it comes to books I'm a junkie and she really doesn't do much pleasure reading. Magazines, articles, but no "sit down with a thick novel and stay up all night reading it" stuff. She just can't get in to it. She likes true-life stories, gripping tales of actual human suffering - crime stories, mostly, probably stems from having a poilice officer as a father - but she can't get into Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc. let alone sci-fi, fantasy or other tasty junk-food-for-the-brain reading.

By your suggested standards she wouldn't be a match for me. But we're amazingly well matched: I procrastinate, she plans. I improvise, she can't. She's organized, I'm scatterbrained. She's practical, I'm a dreamer. She's quiet and thoughtful, I'm talkative and often a bit oblivious. We make up for each other, we compliment each other, and we work well together. She just isn't a reader, that's all.

She certainly understands that reading is important - her family are all book junkies, as are mine (although her parent's taste in books and mine do not overlap much). Her basic problem is that reading makes her brain tired, very quickly. She can't hold concentration for more than a few pages at a time, and it is very hard for her to retain what she read. She would like to be a better reader, but her brain isn't wired that way. Never has been. She worked her ass off to get through college. I usually have good retention and a fast reading speed, so I can say for a fact that her degree was a much bigger accomplishment for her than my undergrad degree was for me.

If you casually dismiss a non-reader as a non-intellectual not worthy of your companionship, you are also automatically dismissing anyone with a slight learning disability. Not fair to them, but heck it wouldn't be fair to them to be partnered with anyone so superficial that a book collection becomes the main attraction point, is it?
posted by caution live frogs at 6:23 AM on May 26, 2006

Dude, no. My husband and I have wildly divergent tastes in music and books. (And truthfully, I have many more books than he does, and he has many more CDs than I do.) Yet people tell us all the time that after interacting with us that it's obvious we were meant for one another. (We knew that already, of course.)
posted by sugarfish at 6:27 AM on May 26, 2006

I did this. I married my husband, in large part, because we shared the same musical tastes. (We met at a concert, and our dating consisted of mostly going to clubs to hear bands.) At the time, music was incredibly without-a-doubt the most important thing in my life and I was thrilled to find someone who shared that intensity.

However. Marriage is a long-term thing. Tastes change. My tastes in music eventually diverged from his, and now one of the things that bugs the living shit out of me about my husband is that he still listens to the same music he listened to 15 years ago.

I think similar tastes in music (and any art form) is as valid a starting point for a relationship as any other shared interest, as long as you are mature enough to know that tastes can change (or not).
posted by SuperSquirrel at 6:33 AM on May 26, 2006

Do you think you could choose a future partner purely on the basis of his or her music (or book) collection?

Speaking from experience, you can't even choose a future bandmate this way.
posted by cortex at 6:38 AM on May 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

It's what you're like, not what you like.

...I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like... Books, records, films -- these things matter. Call me shallow but it's the damn truth, and by this measure I was having one of the best dates of my life.

of course, that's at the beginning of the film, when he's still neurotic and self-absorbed. towards the end of the film, he's still neurotic, but less self-absorbed.

This tape I'm making for Laura.... has music she likes. Things that make her happy. And for the first time, I think I'm starting to see how that's done.

High Fidelity got made into a movie, go watch it.
posted by bleary at 6:39 AM on May 26, 2006

(uh, not that you wouldn't want to read the book)
posted by bleary at 6:39 AM on May 26, 2006

I certainly wouldn't choose a partner purely based on their tastes. However, it would be an important factor. And I doubt I could be in a relationship with someone who I thought had shitty taste.

I did write a song on exactly this subject, though. The lyrics are thus:

To Jane Gallagher

I need a girl
with a record collection
of John, Paul, and George
Ludwig and Johann Sebastian
I need a girl
not your average type of smart
who knows all of Pet Sounds by heart

I need a girl
who reads between the lines
of Shakespeare and Joyce
she's read Catcher no less than five times
I need a girl
who sees through the charade
when everybody's left me, she'll stay

So if you think you've seen her
could you tell me where to find her
it makes no difference how near
or how far

posted by ludwig_van at 6:41 AM on May 26, 2006

A friend of mine has incredibly similar tastes in film to myself but neither of us would ever consider the other as a partner. We even shared a place for over a year and not even a frisson of romance, going on our DVD collections alone would have been an appalling error.
I would agree with what some have already said that having different perspectives can effectively be a positive in a relationship because you can introduce the other to new stuff, I would go as far as saying that having pretty wide-reaching taste in films has been helpful in some relationships in terms of introducing the other person to new stuff.
posted by biffa at 7:06 AM on May 26, 2006

Some things are dealbreakers. I could never date someone who didn't like Wodehouse. The rest is up for negotiation, but not that. It's a worldview type dealie.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:32 AM on May 26, 2006

Wow, this has been a pretty interesting post. I'd like to throw my two cents into the ring. When I was younger (in high school and the first half of college) I tended to end up with people with similar musical tastes. In later years, none of my partners have had the same tastes, though in some cases I can tolerate or learn to like their music.

I'd actually have to say that I sometimes felt a deeper connection with those that shared my tastes, but probably more so because it was something that we shared together, as opposed to actually being a factor in our compatibility.

It gets frustrating with my recent partners because we just don't have the same tastes, so I don't like going to their concerts and they don't like going to mine. Similarly, if we're listening to music, it's just background noise to one of us, as opposed to something that the other partner actually enjoys. Yes, we occasionally deal and go to each other's concerts, but it's more of a thing we do for the other person, as opposed to an activity that we share together.

So I think if you were really into your books/music, it would be sort of neat to find people with similar tastes for a relationship. I wouldn't make it the sole factor for determining lifelong commitment, as your post asks, but it could be a neat start. At least you wouldn't have any major fights over the wedding playlist. :)
posted by ml98tu at 7:34 AM on May 26, 2006

I met the guy I'm dating online with an ad geared towards indie rock types who are well read. It's been a couple of months, and we've had some problems, but I think he's absolutely wonderful. Of course he hasn't called me back all week, so he might not reciprocate that feeling anymore.
posted by echo0720 at 7:35 AM on May 26, 2006

Somewhere along the way I also realized that who I am is more than things I like.

This bears repeating. Defining people based on their taste in music and books is a classic adolescent thing. (Of course, some people never move out of adolescence.) My wife doesn't care for punk or avant-garde jazz, so I play it when she's not in the house. Taste in music is not what our marriage is about.
posted by languagehat at 7:42 AM on May 26, 2006

Perhaps it's slightly different if you're a musician or a writer?
posted by ludwig_van at 7:53 AM on May 26, 2006

A few women have told me that something that they really liked about me was that, every time they got into my car, there was always different kinds of books scattered around. Classic novels, textbooks, trashy novels, history books, science books, computer books, the occasional comic book. Each time they got in the car, there was a different selection. Apparently they liked the fact that I could read a book reasonably quickly and then move onto something completely different. It never occurred to me that this sort of thing was unusual.
posted by veedubya at 7:58 AM on May 26, 2006

I tend to size people up this way. It's easy to judge people by looking at their literary tastes and thinking, "Are we on the same intellectual plane, or is he a moron?"

But I think it means something that the guys I've actually ended up caring about the most did NOT have my tastes.

As someone said earlier, you don't want to date yourself. I find that I wind up caring more about someone who pulls me in new directions, shows me new stuff, has his own life and provides me with something I couldn't get on my own. When you date someone whose tastes are just like yours/who's just like you, you end up wondering what the point is--you already have yourself.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 8:11 AM on May 26, 2006

Music and books are pretty important to me. I'd check out their collection to weed out morons and sheep. But what's more fun than having the exact same stuff is having stuff that shows they're similarly adventurous, but in different directions, so you can turn each other on to new stuff.
posted by matildaben at 8:36 AM on May 26, 2006

Reversing a tiny bit on myself, I dated someone for a while who didn't like most of the places I enjoyed dining at, didn't like movies at all, rarely wanted to go out to any show--this isn't a person I'd want to spend the rest of my life with (tricky logistics!).

You need to consider the entire gestalt. Similar tastes in things is just a small indication of potential compatibility.

Anyway, I don't think it would hurt you to look for friends (online or otherwise) who share your likes, but don't invest cosmic significance into your similarities (or differences).
posted by bleary at 8:42 AM on May 26, 2006

One of the first times I talked to the woman who would become my wife, she was reading "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater." As someone who devoured Vonnegut books as a teen, it made the "cute girl" into the "cute girl reading one of my books!!!!!" It gave me the added courage to start a conversation.

The first time I went to her house, I saw she also had several shelves of books, including a decent sized set of Philip K Dick and Mark Leyner which duplicated mine. I took these as good signs. We have enough other books "not in common" to not make it creepy and, over the years, have turned each other onto authors that we ended up both liking.

As for music, she has a very good music collection and mine is mostly crap. I am slowly but surely coming around to listening to her CD's and tapering off of the hair bands of my youth. However, one would have to pry my Boston from my cold dead hands. We went to see X last year, one of her favorite bands, and I enjoyed it completely.

I think that having your love for someone enhanced by some common books/music is a great thing. It also makes long drives easier.
posted by sciatica at 8:49 AM on May 26, 2006

Perhaps it's slightly different if you're a musician or a writer?
posted by ludwig_van at 7:53 AM PST on May 26 [+fave] [!]


In my experience no, and interviews I've read with musicians and writers tend to bear this out. Many musicians with successful marriages talk about how their wives aren't really fans of their band.

My fiance and I have some overlap with books and music, but it's fun to have some overlap. She doesn't like Sci-fi and I was raised on the stuff. It makes conversations more fun.
posted by drezdn at 8:56 AM on May 26, 2006

My wife doesn't like Tool. We are quite happy, regardless.
posted by signal at 9:11 AM on May 26, 2006

Echoing what's been said above, it's probably not a good idea to discredit possible relationships simply because your styles are not exactly the same. In fact, some of my favorite bands and authors were discovered through dating men who I had nothing in common with.
On the other hand, my fiancee and I do have more than a few artists and authors which we both like. Other interests overlap as well. The bonus of this is that he's introduced me to hobbies/music/books/films that I wouldn't have known about, and vice versa. So while I think you shouldn't go out of your way to find Ms.Clone, it's important in a relationship to have some common grounds to expand from.
posted by Meagan at 9:13 AM on May 26, 2006

ludwig_van: Perhaps it's slightly different if you're a musician or a writer?

I'm a writer by passion, and a wannabe musician, and no this isn't true for me. It probably used to be, but not anymore (especially since the people I like tend to have the craziest of fans. And this is coming from a crazy fan herself.)
posted by divabat at 9:32 AM on May 26, 2006

I'm very much in the "no fucking way" camp.

First, I'm don't believe my reading or listening preferences are a standard of 'good taste' as much as simply my taste, so I can hardly turn up my nose and have requirements there.

Secondly, I'd run a mile myself from anyone who thought they could judge people's personality based on their reading/listening preferences alone.

Thirdly, it's a lot more fun to be with someone who dislikes half the stuff you like, and viceversa, it makes for fun teasing and heated but harmless arguments and keeps things varied. It'd be boring as hell to like exactly the same stuff all the time.

Fourthly, I need my space and my time and need my partner to have theirs, otherwise I'd feel suffocated. Different interests are good for this reason too.

And lastly, the very idea of filtering and choosing a partner, or even a friend for that matter!, based on an exact match of music/literary tastes, even before having met them, is the second most unsexy thing I can think of right now, after Bill Frist's hairy biceps, that is.
posted by funambulist at 9:34 AM on May 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

As an addendum - I don't disagree that common interests can be a nice way to get to know new people, but it has to go from there to actual real life compatibility. For me that is very much a matter of spontaneous chemistry - even for friendships, nevermind for partners where the sexual attraction part of the chemistry is an essential requirement. If the spark isn't there, no amount of intellectual interests in common would cut it.

Common interests in wider terms on more relevant aspects of life are more important for compatibility, but in the end, beside the the attraction part, personality is what really matters and there's just no way to define it exclusively by tastes. Reality disproves that all the time.

Anyone can be a complete twat even with the most amazingly refined taste and impressive book and record collection. It's amusing when people act like that's not even conceivable. In fact, you'd have to be pretty much a soulless product of marketing to even want to see yourself as defined entirely by your music and book collection.
posted by funambulist at 9:48 AM on May 26, 2006

I met the girl i'm currently dating because of our shared interest in indie music. She was sitting next to me in a coffee shop and I commented on a music that was playing at the time. She felt the same way and we soon discovered that we enjoy very similar kinds of music. So far we've had a good time but I don't think this would be the basis for finding a future partner.
posted by special-k at 10:34 AM on May 26, 2006

In my experience no, and interviews I've read with musicians and writers tend to bear this out.

I'm a writer by passion, and a wannabe musician, and no this isn't true for me.

Well, I'm a musician, and in my experience it is true. I mean, maybe you guys are approaching this question differently or something. But my girlfriend likes my music, and I imagine that if she didn't our relationship would be quite awkward. And the point isn't that there's a 1:1 relationship between all of my favorite bands and my girlfriend's; the point is that I think she has good taste. If she were, for example, really into Good Charlotte and Dave Matthews, I doubt we'd be together.

And of course I've met people who share some of my interests but are annoying and would clearly not be compatible with me in a relationship. It's not like "Hey, you like The Decemberists, let's date!" But to me, sharing basic assumptions about music and good taste is pretty much a pre-requisite for a relationship because music is a major part of my life.
posted by ludwig_van at 10:46 AM on May 26, 2006

Perhaps it's slightly different if you're a musician or a writer?

I'm a writer, he's a musician. We both have some overlapping taste, but we're also pretty different.

Actually, one of the things that first attracted us to each other was our love of Muppet music and Liz Phair. But beyond those two data points, our tastes are wildly divergent.

I think as a writer I listen to music in a fundamentally different way than my musician s.o. He can't stand music that's got weak melodies and harmonies. I tend to like certain types of sounds, but care about lyrics more than anything else. Until we lived together, I'd never listened to instrumental music, and now I'm learning to really hear and understand it. But I never expect him to appreciate my favorite rap songs. He can't even hear them as "music."

As far as books go, I have pretty high standards. At a minimum, with fiction, the writing has to be grammatical, the plot has to be interesting and characters must be well developed. Ideally, the writing will go be beyond just grammatical to artistic, or I might get pissed off. He's mostly interested in plot and characters, and writing isn't as important to him.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:04 AM on May 26, 2006

Christ, no.

On the other hand, a respect for each others interests is important.

That's not to say that I don't judge other people by the books and music displayed in their homes, but there's a difference between friends and acquaintances and a mate!
posted by cptnrandy at 11:04 AM on May 26, 2006

I think it would be better if you were having a conversation about their tastes, rather than just being allowed to peruse their shelves. "Sure, I have Left Behind, but only because I wanted to see what everyone was talking about; I got it for a buck at a garage sale" is okay; "It's the best piece of fiction written in a hundred years!1!!" is not (for me; replace with whatever).

Similarly, I have -- among a couple of hundred other albums that bear a surprising resemblance to ludwig_van's specs -- a Spice Girls CD. I'm sure that's a dealbreaker for a whole lot of people, and I don't blame them, but I'd like the chance to explain why I have it before I wind up burned at the stake.
posted by booksandlibretti at 11:05 AM on May 26, 2006

booksandlibretti, I suppose that's part of what I mean when I say it's about good taste and not the exact contents of a collection. There are certainly people who have what I would deem "good taste" whose libraries do not match mine exactly, or whose collections include things that I do not enjoy. I might think that someone with a bunch of great jazz records has awesome taste in music, even though I'm not terribly into jazz, for example.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:14 AM on May 26, 2006

I mean, maybe you guys are approaching this question differently or something.

Maybe it's that it's very easy to conflate two different things here - having some tastes in common with an existing partner and appreciating that, and deliberately selecting people purely on the basis of similar tastes, via internet social software type of thing, to find a partner and live happily ever after, as the question says.

Is matching taste a higher guarantee of potential compatibility? Seems most people answering agree it isn't, even those having different ideas about the relevance of music/literary tastes.

It's just harder to tell about someone you're already with because you cannot imagine them being different than they are! There isn't a parallel universe where your girlfriend is exactly the same and your relationship exactly the same, except she doesn't really like your music and loves the music you hate or consider in bad taste.

But even if you met a partner through common interests, if it is working, you are obviously with them for more than that.
posted by funambulist at 11:51 AM on May 26, 2006

"It's the best piece of fiction written in a hundred years!1!!" is not (for me; replace with whatever)

Well, it could be worse. They could say "it's the best piece of truth written in 2000 years!", which would take it from a matter of taste into a matter of culture wars.
posted by funambulist at 11:57 AM on May 26, 2006

There isn't a parallel universe where your girlfriend is exactly the same and your relationship exactly the same, except she doesn't really like your music and loves the music you hate or consider in bad taste.

Right, because those things would conflict with the rest of her personality as I know it. I mean, I guess I'm mostly disagreeing with people who are saying "It's what you're like, not what you like." I understand the sentiment behind that statement, but I think that what you like is a real part of what you're like; they aren't, as you point out, completely separable things.

So where some people might say that they wouldn't date a girl who was taller than they are, or a girl who didn't share their native language, or a girl who didn't have hair, or whatever, I'm saying I wouldn't date a girl with bad taste in music. Good taste in music isn't by itself isn't a quality that makes me interested in someone, but I do view it as something of a pre-requisite for a relationship.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:08 PM on May 26, 2006

Although, I suppose there could be people out there who listen exclusively to bad music only because they've never been exposed to good music, and therefore their tastes are not necessarily indicative of their personality, and with a bit of direction they could be made to come over to the Light side. So I suppose one has to take these things on a case by case basis.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:11 PM on May 26, 2006

what you like is a real part of what you're like

I agree with this. There are some songs and books that have gotten my through some dark times in my life, and I feel like they're a part of who I am. And I can't help but recognize someone else who loves the same things I love to be somewhat of a kindred spirit. When I first met the guy who is now my fiance, I noticed that his CD collection included Joni Mitchell, the Modern Lovers and Modest Mouse all in a neat little row. It seemed like a good omen.

So no, similar tastes alone don't make a relationship, but that doesn't mean that taste doesn't matter.
posted by 912 Greens at 12:37 PM on May 26, 2006

My husband and I have a lot in common musically. I think finding out that he even knew who David Wilcox was, let alone had seen him in concert, gave me the idea that he was somebody I would like to get to know. Probably because, looking back on it, the worst relationships I ever had were with people who openly disdained my music. I had one ex who would simply turn off whatever I was listening to on the stereo when she came home. And my husband's ex used to routinely greet his musical choices with "what the HELL is this?"
posted by Biblio at 2:01 PM on May 26, 2006

I'm unable to distinguish between the ironic and sincere in my own collection.
posted by xod at 2:36 PM on May 26, 2006

It sounds plausible, maybe, when you're younger.

But people's taste's change. I was in a relationship where a segment of our musical preferences seemed to sync up, but then she started to not like that kind anymore (and later I wondered if that shift was a reaction to my enthusiasm).
posted by Rash at 2:41 PM on May 26, 2006

I understand the sentiment behind that statement, but I think that what you like is a real part of what you're like; they aren't, as you point out, completely separable things.

Yeah, indeed, they aren't completely separable, especially once you already know the person and like them as a whole. So, you also can't isolate the 'what you like' as a more significant compatibility factor than others before you even get to know the person as a whole - which is what was being posited in the question.

Good taste in music isn't by itself isn't a quality that makes me interested in someone, but I do view it as something of a pre-requisite for a relationship.

I do understand that, but have you actually been in a situation where that one pre-requisite was missing, but all the others were there - ie. you met someone who was great and you clicked and everything was peachy, except you then found out she also liked Good Charlotte and Dave Matthews (as well as other stuff, unless she was pathologically monomaniac), and happiness was suddenly ruined?

If it hasn't happened, then, well, you never know.

And don't kid yourself believing you'd be immune. It could happen to anyone. And there's no prevention and no cure. The very people you think you know best are the ones who hide that stuff from their Last.fm profiles and cd shelves, but they listen to it in secret, because of the stigma people like you create. You'll never know if they're telling the truth when they say they love all the stuff you like and hate Good Charlotte and Dave Matthews. And then, when they've fooled you and got you under their thumb, they'll rip your liver off and sell it on ebay. Be very afraid.

I suppose there could be people out there who listen exclusively to bad music only because they've never been exposed to good music, and therefore their tastes are not necessarily indicative of their personality

Hmm, well, ok without getting into a 'the people vs. the taste police' match, one could also say, "I suppose there could be people out there who listen exclusively to stuff that's considered too cool to be popular just because it's fashionable in their social circles and it makes them feel superior to the ignorant masses, while in reality, we're all being targeted by some marketing deparment or other, so the masses is us all, and the opium is everywhere, and we all smoke it one way or another, dude". How about that now, eh? Disprove my shoddy pseudo-marxist analysis if you can. I dare you.
posted by funambulist at 3:36 PM on May 26, 2006

So, you also can't isolate the 'what you like' as a more significant compatibility factor than others before you even get to know the person as a whole - which is what was being posited in the question.

The question said "Do you think you could choose a future partner purely on the basis of his or her music (or book) collection?" And I said no, not purely, but I think it's important, because music is important to me and so it's harder to relate to someone if we can't relate at all musically. I never said that their taste in music was more significant than all of the other factors.

I do understand that, but have you actually been in a situation where that one pre-requisite was missing, but all the others were there - ie. you met someone who was great and you clicked and everything was peachy, except you then found out she also liked Good Charlotte and Dave Matthews (as well as other stuff, unless she was pathologically monomaniac), and happiness was suddenly ruined?

No, I haven't been in that situation. That seems to support the idea that people whose taste I like will also be people I like.

Hmm, well, ok without getting into a 'the people vs. the taste police' match, one could also say...

I don't really know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to say that I'm the arbiter of good taste in general; when I say good taste, I only mean "my idea of good taste."
posted by ludwig_van at 4:01 PM on May 26, 2006

Look, I wasn't exactly being all serious there, and the 'taste police' stuff was a joke... I'm not even arguing about anything, since in the end no one here said they have a contract to fill out for people to declare their tastes before they even speak to them, so of course we're all in agreement it cannot be the biggest significant factor.

No, I haven't been in that situation. That seems to support the idea that people whose taste I like will also be people I like.

Ok then, that's cool! Again I wasn't being entirely serious there either. What I do mean seriously is simply that, because in my experience things have been extremely unpredictable, I do find it harder to assume anything about a taste-personality correlation, and wonder how people can do that at all. But of course it works differently for everybody and there's no argument there, whatever makes people happy.
posted by funambulist at 4:40 PM on May 26, 2006

Yeah, I gotcha. I was mostly joking before when I said "So I suppose one has to take these things on a case by case basis," because yeah, of course you decide about people when you meet them, not necessarily based on rules you set out beforehand. But it's a fun diversion to try and do pattern-analysis sometimes.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:25 PM on May 26, 2006

If music is incredibly important to you, it seems pretty reasonable to have compatible music tastes be a pre-requisite for a good relationship. I don't think I could date anyone who was bad with spelling, grammar or vocabulary.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:33 PM on May 26, 2006

The people who consider it manditory to share tastes are often the ones with the most pedestrian, canonical tastes. If you're used to taking risks, looking for different experiences and reading or listening voraciously, you get to a point where it's OK if other people don't like the same things that you do. You get used to it. Sure, it's important to generally respect their tastes, but dumping someone because they don't like the Beatles just marks you as someone who thinks their tastes are better than they actually are.
I've dated girls that had no interest in music, girls who thought they had good taste and didn't, and one fantastic girl who has excellent taste but taste that widely diverges from mine. I write about music, I go to see (average) three live shows a week and (according to Last.fm) listen to about 50 hours of music a week. My girlfriend used to be the programming director at a freeform station, and has introduced me to all sorts of things that I hated before (electro is one of 'em), and hasn't shirked when I told her that something was crap even though she liked it.
And the idea that creative types need someone who can appreciate their work to be happy is a kludge for the insecure. Only cult leaders need approval from everyone around them.
(Although, every girl I date has to like all of my AskMe answers or it's over!)
posted by klangklangston at 7:09 AM on May 27, 2006

Many thanks for all the thought provoking replies. I guess the crux of my question was about how technology is affecting the way some of us find partners. For my part I am married to somebody I met online - sure we swapped photos and basic information but for us email exchanges played the equivalent role that a "face across a crowded room" might have done in a more conventional courtship. I wondered if people here might ever see a long list of shared reading and listening passions playing a similar role at a similar stage.

I think I share most people's doubts about this as an effective method. But I would expect it not to be too long before somebody tries an online matchmaking service which is based upon shared taste. If this happens I will will be interested in whether it succeeds and the sort of people it brings together.
posted by rongorongo at 7:42 AM on May 28, 2006

Related: Auto-da-Fe.
posted by OmieWise at 8:44 AM on May 30, 2006

Doesn't think largely depend on the role books and music have in your life? Many people, though they my treasure books and music, think of such entertainments as leisure-time activities. Other people live in a world of words and music. Such people are sneaking chapters in during their breaks at work -- maybe even cheating their bosses by reading Gutenberg.org online when they're supposed to be working. While they take their bathroom breaks, it's more about iPod time than bodily functions.

The latter type describes me. And -- please -- I'm NOT claiming any superiority. In fact, I'm one of those socially stunted bookish types, who might be better off if he socialized at lunch instead of reading Dickens. But for better or worse, my head is always in storyland or music-land. It's a major major major part of who I am and what I want to talk about.

So I didn't consciously go looking for a girl who liked Shakespeare, but I can't imagine it working if she didn't.

I guess this another important consideration is how you see a romantic relationship -- what role you want/need it to play in your life. If my romantic partner is not also my best friend, I won't be into the romance. And I need to discuss my passions with my best friend. When I read a book, the experience is not complete until my wife reads it to, so I can talk to her about it. I DO read some books that don't interest her, and that's okay as-long-as there are other books we CAN share and discuss. I'd be pretty unhappy if our reading life was completely separate. I would feel like a major part of myself wasn't welcome in the relationship.

Alas, we do have completely different musical tastes. And I find that I enjoy music less because of it.
posted by grumblebee at 6:49 AM on June 3, 2006