"This CD is... amazing..."

Forced to listen to? Hardly. It's easy to turn off the radio and turn off MTV and just search for new music on the net or just go to random shows around town. So yeah, popular music did start to suck after the mid 90s, but oh well, just go find other stuff... No big deal.

And obviously you didn't mean everything, but you still made it sound like you were talking about most music in general, which isn't the case. You're only talking about the popular stuff, should've said so.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]and yes, when i say the charts, i am referring to POPULAR music. i know that's anaethma to most people here, and obviously not every single note produced since then has sucked, but 1996 is the last time, as i've said, i felt that even the most popular things were respectable--alice in chains, STP, korn, metallica, nine inch nails, marilyn manson, the offspring, etc., etc. i know you can quibble with all those bands i've named, and no doubt someone will be along shortly to call me a stupid poseur, but come on. which would YOU rather be forced to listen to? [/B][/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying, but I always thought it was because we're getting older, you know like how our parents thought the music we liked is terrible, I think we've crossed the generation gap already and now we're going to be the type of people that end up listening to oldies stations in 20 years when the music that era is going to be considered old. Or something.

oh gross. i hear that whiny wake me up inside songlike 14 times a day working at a daycamp..... makes me wanna yak

this is what i mean.

Whats a day camp????

Alright...I have to chime in with my thoughts here.

First off, as a disclaimer, I have over 500 store bought CD's in my collection ranging everywhere from Bob Dylan (50+ of his), to Flogging Molly, to Pearl Jam, to Metallica, to Britney Spears, to whoever, you name it.

The definition of what "sucks" to me is a lot different than what "sucks" to everyone else on this board. These bands that some refer to as "genius" Beck, Nirvana, Radiohead...I think are horrible. I can't stand a chord of anything any one of them put out, but I can enjoy the beat of a Britney Spears song at a bar to dance to. Does that make my opinion or taste wrong? No, I don't think it does.

Music is here for entertainment. Music is here for all of us to take what we want out of it. If 10 million people take something away from a Britney Spears album how is that wrong? The Wallflowers "Bringing Down the Horse" CD outsold the best selling Bob Dylan CD by at least 5 times. Does that make it more important? No. On the flip side, does that make those 5 million or so people that bought BDTH idiots? No. It's all a matter of taste.

Music is extrememly important to a lot of people on this board and around this world. But I dare say, for all of the bad rap that MTV catches, if it wasn't for MTV most of us would know nothing like we do about music. Look at all the videos we know by heart, and all the memories of what we take from them.

I don't know...maybe I'm coming off wrong here. All I'm really trying to say is that just because millions of people like N'Sync, but millions less like Beck, or Bob Dylan, or whoever else, it doesn't make any of thier music less valid in terms of it's importance to our culture. People forget that those oldies stations that tons and tons of people love to listen to, it's all just a grandfather version of the pop music that's so popular today. Elvis didn't write shit, but I'd find it hard pressed for anyone to refute that he wasn't the most important person in music history.

Oh well...I went off on a huge tangent. The best thing about music is talking about it...

I do have to correct one thing though.

Someone said, "And in th early 70s, Pink Floyd plugged in the gitars of a shitload of dirty fucking hippies and showed them how to use a mixing studio."

Dude, read the history, check up about the Newport Folk Festival where Bob Dylan "plugged in" and got his ass booed for his entire set. If you want to find the turning moment in rock and roll, look at the time line of what happened before that moment, and what happened after...

I'm so glad I'm not a music buff. I know a lot of people who are, and their lives all seem so pent-up and devout all the time, almost as if it were a religion. It seems so time-consuming and exhausting. To say nothing about how ungodly expensive it must be (not just CDs, but the corresponding wardrobe). It must work like cocaine: A little at first, and then, slowly but surely you become enveloped by it, and then there's no escape.

Instead, I'm prefectly happy to listen to my Neil Diamond CD all day long...

andy

No ones saying that Britney Spears might not be important to people in 50 years. We're just saying that she sucks. Both literally and figuratively. She may be able to sing and dance, she may be incredibly popular and even important to some people, but that [i]doesn't make her good music.[/i]

You know why?

Her music has absolutely no substance. It's not about anything, doesn't represent anything, doesn't have any emotion to it, doesn't have any feeling to it, doesn't make someone [i]feel[/i] a way they otherwise wouldn't.

Sure, you could once again say that "music is just entertainment," but that's what seperates 'enjoyable' pop music from important, good music such as the bands you mentioned as hating.

That's what makes a band "genius," as you call it. When they cross the line between "entertainment" and "art."

Ok...couple of questions/comments.

Art is only "art" because someone thinks it is. Tons of people think Andy Warhol's painting of a soup can is art. I think Andy's Warhol's painting of a soup can is Andy Warhol painting's of a soup can, nothing more.

It was said, "Her music has absolutely no substance. It's not about anything, doesn't represent anything, doesn't have any emotion to it, doesn't have any feeling to it, doesn't make someone feel a way they otherwise wouldn't." Who does her music have no substance to? What about the people 30 million people who bought her record, went to see her in concert, or bought her stuff? I'm sure they felt compelled enough to spend their hard earned money on something they felt substancial.

It doesn't make anyone feel any different than they already would? I beg to differ. Sorry but if I went into a club and heard a Britney Spears song versus say Pantera's "Fucking Hostile" I think the Britney song is going to make me have a different feeling.

It doesn't represent anything? How about lightheartness? How about, have a good time? How about, stop thinking about all of the misery in your life and just enjoy being alive? That sounds like a representation.

As for what was said, the "good music" that I mentioned that I hated. I'm sure there's a million other people out there who think just as I do that Nirvana, Beck, and Radiohead are shit. Does that make my opinion right? Hell no.

I guess it all boils down to one's definition of art and one's definition of entertainment.

But don't get me wrong...I'm only using Britney Spears as an example because she's the most obvious one. Being a writer I understand and appreciate someone who writes their own stuff. But at the same time I also appreciate someone who can sing and dance their ass off, let alone entertain millions upon millions of people at once.

But oh well, to each their own. For everyone who has fun with something, there are going to be a ton of people who bitch about why they shouldn't be, and why something they like more is better....just human nature.

And orange jews...having an extensive music collection is expensive. but everyone has to have their vice i suppose.

You're not getting my point. Sure, she can [i]entertain[/i], but can her music spark meaning and thoughts and questions into one's head?

No, I'm afraid it is just like Die Hard or Terminator. It's there for fun and money. Not for artistic value.

It's like looking at Half Baked and looking at Requiem for a Dream. Sure, both are drug films, but one is fun and hilarious and light, and the other is serious and dark and sad.

Before I started working and listening to the readio, I thought "Bring Me Back To Life" was a nice song. And then once I heard is twice a day, every day, I am now in a state of mind where I want to go to their hometown and firebomb their trailerpark.

this is where you and i have a fundamental disagreement. i would elaborate on this point, but i don't think either of us is willing to compromise on the issue.

Thank you insano, that's exactly what I've been trying to say, only it took me a lot more words than you....

The original intention of music wasn't to make money. Music made solely for entertainment shouldn't be classified as music.

see, there's always someone left to argue with, though.

First, Evanescence...they started out as a 'Christian Band,' meaning they wanted to make music to bring the word of God to many people. I have a good friend in a band like this, and they bring the word of God in a hardcore way. They rock, but thats all beside the point, Evanescence was a Christian band and then they decided to pull all their merch from Christian stores and such, and stop calling themselves a 'Christian Band.' That makes them sellouts to me, and they deserve to hang for it. If you are going to turn you back on something, you probably shouldn't turn your back on your God to sell more records.

Second, to me, music is art, if you create it yourself. Brit Spears doesn't create the music herself, she is used by record big wigs to entertain. She's a puppet. I don't like her, or her music, or any of her comrades music. So I don't listen to it, or bitch about it, too often. I just dig deeper and find music that I think is art, and music that does have some significant meaning to me.

Third, being a music buff is expensive, but like JustinHolt said, everyone must have a vice. It's better than me spending all that money on crank, right?

I don't think they ever 'Sold out' as you put it, seeing as their first song was their single 'Wake me up' (I think that's the name, I never listen to the radio) and they only really started as a band after that came out. They have said repeatedly and unabashedly that they are all christians, but their music, as far as I have heard (And I've heard a bit, I have a friend who looked up their life story and then felt it necessary to relay it to me) has never been CHRISTIAN. It has been uplifting, and not 'evil', but they never pigeonholed themselves into the christian music market by making their music that way.

If you've heard otherwise, and have a source to prove it, more power to you and please let me know what to read so I can correct myself. But as far as I know, they've never been a 'CHRISTIAN band' just a 'christian BAND'.

[QUOTE]Her music has absolutely no substance. It's not about anything, doesn't represent anything, doesn't have any emotion to it, doesn't have any feeling to it, doesn't make someone feel a way they otherwise wouldn't.[/QUOTE]

There are probably over 30 million young impressionable minds out there that can argue that comment. I could go on all day about Otis Redding, Genius/Gza, and Built to Spill and there will always be someone there to argue with. Isn't music great!?

Evanescence doesn't agree with my eardrum. Maybe if they didn't have that backup guy. Here at work, we have a pretty wide range of mp3's we share on the network. I checked out Evenessence and couldn't finish the album. I can definitely see how people can like them though. They sound like Linkin Park with Aimee Mann.

Oh, that 1996 comment is great flamebait material.

That backup guy rapping is only in that one single song. Hence the "featuring."

I could be wrong, I have been before, and will be again. I heard that from other people, but never read it anywhere, so its not set in stone. Maybe I'm too gullable.

Oh. I guess that's why he's not on the rest of the songs. Hmm, listening to it now. I don't know if I can make it past the second song before nuking winamp.

Ok, made it past the 3rd song. They fucking suck. I'll take Siouxsie & The Banshees over these guys anyday.

I just went to RollingStone.com to find the article in which Evanescence states that they are not a Christain rock band.

But firt I got distracted by the new pictures of Angelina Jolie.

Then I got distracted by the No Star review of Bad Boys II.

And finally, I couldn't find it.

EVENESCENSE!!! they suck supreme man oh man i wanna grow balls just so they can suck it!!

RISE UP IAN CURTIS and show these buttholes how its done!

Anyone read that article with Angelina Jolie?

She hasn't had sex in a year. How many men out there do you think imagined being first in line for that...

One thing I can say about Evanescance(sp, not that it matters), is that the lead signer is really, really cute. Not that that justifies them adding to the destruction of the earth.

They're only following by Creed's example...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]EVENESCENSE!!! they suck supreme man oh man i wanna grow balls just so they can suck it!!

RISE UP IAN CURTIS and show these buttholes how its done! [/B][/QUOTE]

IAN CURTIS! JOY DIVISON! LOVE WILL TEAR US APART! Ian Curtis is one singer who can never be replaced. No one can even come close to immatating his voice. NewOrder was no were near the awesomeness of Joy Division.

MY SIAMESE TWIN!!! where have you been all these years i mean i know they shipped you off to canada but im glad i found you know!! - FUCKIN JOY DIVISION is irreplacable have your heard XCHUCK of SISTERS OF MERCY, THE CHAMELEONS UK, FLESH FOR LULU they all have the same dark tenacity and blow me away like a leaf in chicago