Okay. I'll give you new and interesting, alternate, tweaked, hybridized, familiarized, conceptualized, homogenized, pasteurized, but mostly capitalized. The glaring omission in your post is the word 'pleasing'. Close minded begins when someone is pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
Why does most new music suck?
Ok I will have some exclusions to my statement. I'm not talking about classical or jazz. My comment is mostly pointed to rock and pop releases. Don't even get me started on rap.... I don't consider it music. I will admit that I'm an old foggy but come on, where are some talented new groups? I grew up with the Beatles, Who, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix etc. I sample a lot of new music and the recordings are terrible. The engineers should be fired for producing over compressed shrill garbage. The talent seems to be lost or doesn't exist. I have turned to some folk/country or blues music. It really is a sad state of affairs....Oh my god, I'm turning into my parents.
545 responses Add your response
most of our kids going to the public schools where the best they can hear is 'gamnasta' 'saying lego'. a decreased budget would eliminate music teachers that can show them at least basic scales. our kids can't get any info on how music is made and so the show biz going towards there. my generation of mid-40's probably the last existing in united states. harder and harder to find younger musicians. hopefully european countries have a different pattern and they really do since most of talented musicians don't tour US(problems with visas as never ever before). young girls are not impressed anymore by young boys skills to play guitar or any other music instrument. local us musicians still prefer europe or canada where they get larger success in live venues. there's still flow of a great music from europe of current years. good jazz and rock. |
Frogman: "Since when do music critics determine which music will be "important" in music history?" Interesting, as nowhere in my comments did I say that current music critics determine what will be considered "important" in the future. In fact, in answer to your question about the historic examples I mentioned, it should be quite clear that evaluations of an artist by his contemporaries often tells little about what those in the future will think of the art in question. That was my main point in making my prior comments. The OP declared that "most new music sucks" and I simply pointed out that similar opinions have been pronounced in the past about people and music styles that are now held in high regard. As such, I don't spend much time worrying about the current state of music. I find plenty of current music that I greatly enjoy and have little problem ignoring the rest. |
I think you missed my point. This community is dominated by (though not completely composed of) conservative music lovers. A glance at the music threads over time will confirm that. The music of Jimmy Page is certainly far more beloved here than say, the music of his contemporary(ish) Phillip Glass. That speaks zero to their relative artistic merit as composers - particularly since Page stole as much material as he created (great guitarist, tho) and Glass continues to further the evolution of musical language (for better or worse). No surprise that I'd agree that rap would be unpopular in the vote you suggest - it ain't what people here want to hear. OTOH, rap dominates music sales among young people. The inherent assumption in the audiophile vote you propose is that the musical taste here is "superior" to the masses. If you're talking about discriminating between two guitar heros of the '60's, I'd agree that the knowledge base here would be relevant. Once you extend the debate to more recent genres.... IOW, my observation is that it is (with several notable exceptions) popular music posters here are narrow, backward looking, and quite conservative in their musical taste and would likely reject rap in a heartbeat. It's also likely that the community is older, wealthier, whiter, etc. than the population in general. That might have something to do with the musical preferences here, ya think? If I'm being honest, I'd include myself in that group. The difference is, I'm not dismissive of the entire genre. Marty |
My initial challenge was 'Audiophile wide", globally. Let's not cloud the issue here. If these guys are writing these tunes to satisfy themselves, fine. They're second to none. However, if they're competing with the past trying to pass it off to the general public as viable art, they're kidding themselves and anyone else as desperate to break out of current establishment, or just exploiting such for monetary gain. I would think that Rok2id's challenge extends to everyone here. |
I made no attempt to cloud any issues in my previous post. If the wider audiophile community is meaningfully different demographically from the community here on A'gon, it would surprise me - not that I couldn't be surprised. I make no argument that most audiophiles (here or elsewhere) likely reject rap, just an argument that it's the wrong community to pass judgement on genres like rap or electronica. As to Rok 2 id's challenge, it's the same problem, both musically and lyrically: context. You may find Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash's lyrics offensive, but they strike me as serious in a way that most rock lyrics are not. That is, closer to The Clash's "Guns of Brixton" than Zep's "Lemon Song". I understand those who reject a call to violence (and I agree at one level), but I also think it's the duty of art to challenge and, at times, offend. The overt sexuality of (mainly black) rock n roll musicians was enormously offensive to the white community in the 1950's. Who do you take to task there, the musicians or the community? That said, I admit that I find some of the rap violence, mysogeny and homophobics unsettling. Again, I don't love this music. Musically, the form resists the kind of evaluation you desire. This is primitivist art. We've seen that aesthetic rejected (predictably) in the earlier post about Andy Warhol, for instance. (Do you think Warhol's art is rejected by the academy?) Note: the acceptance of Warhol (or Basquiat or Haring or even Picasso's very simple nudes) by the academy isn't meant to suggest that they're great art. Merely that primitivst are shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's primitive. That's the point of it. In particular, I'd argue that primitivist blues based music should never be rejected on its face. The blues is as simple as it gets - primarily formulaic 12 bar structures. From my perspective, that extends to rock music, as well. "Johnny B. Goode" is barely a song - it's a riff, a backbeat, and a lead guitar with a wild hair up its ass. Yet, for me, it's the greatest rock song ever written. (And, by the way, lots of critics polls put it near the top, as well, for whatever that's worth.) No harmony, meaningful lyrics, hooks, interesting chord progessions, etc. Just rock n roll. The Beatles, who were IMHO master pop craftsmen, never get close (again, only IMO) to capturing that anarchic essence of the form, despite some very elegant songwriting. As to the percentage of rap artists (vs other pop/rock musicians) with commercial as opposed to artistic aspirations, I don't see much difference. I assume that the vast majority of pop musicians (rap, rock, or otherwise) probably combine some belief in their own artistic vision with a desire to be a star. OTOH, I really don't have any basis to evaluate the goals of the broader community of either group of musicians - I'm just not that familiar with 'em. |
I think Marty's thoughts of the composition of audiophiles here closely mirrors mine. I'm as progressive as they come and try to keep an open mind, but I've always found that I've never much appreciated lots of music that most here find enjoyable, let alone compelling. Most of the music I grew up with and liked I rarely listen to anymore. For the most part, my tolerance has stayed consistent for all my life: I tend to move on to new areas and discover ones I missed, but I'm never in the need for consensus. I'll take advice, but just that. Music is much too personal for me to give into what the masses demand. That being said, it's one's taste and one's taste only. Let the historians debate who's best for any given time and era. They'll never agree-what chance does anyone here think we will? A fools errand at best. All the best, Nonoise |
Very well written, and insightful posts from all. Just want to clear up a possible misunderstanding. I just want to make clear that a person does not have to an Audiophile, or be of a certain ethnicity or socio-enconomic class, to be OUTRAGED, at the sight and sound of some illiterate cretin shouting obscenities and vulgarities, over a plagiarized music track. Carry on. Cheers |
"IOW, my observation is that it is (with several notable exceptions) popular music posters here are narrow, backward looking, and quite conservative in their musical taste and would likely reject rap in a heartbeat." Anyone who would propose Audiogon members in any way is representative of the musical tastes of the world at large would definitely have some blinders on. This is a "high end" sight after all. It's easy to quantify high end prices. Maybe even what high end audio sounds like. But specify what music is "high end" or not? Please! High brow maybe.... Remember that music started way before Bach and others in his day started to elevate it to appeal to the huge minority upper classes and more highly educated population segment that classical music tends to better reach and appeal to. Its a tough argument to elevate the blues above classical music, or jazz, and vice versa. Same true of rap. Again a lot has to do with individual experience regarding what music one relates to or not. Old guys sitting in a room listening to their fancy stereos is just one example. And they might be an endangered species.... |
The problem with Rokid's 'challenge' is as follows. When dealing with someone who's clearly let it be known that they have limited musical acceptance levels, why bother? We all have our musical preferences, and while I certainly don't enjoy ALL types of music, I'd never put down a genre or artist simply because I don't like it. I'd never say something as ignorant as 'new music sux', it's just silly, bordering on stupid. Take Fusion Jazz as an example. It's not for everyone, I totally understand that, but why put it down and by extension, insult anyone that does enjoy the genre? The dude is clearly a music-lover, albeit a very close-minded one. That being the case, why would I bother trying to convince him otherwise? If you really and truly want to honestly attempt to open your ears to new Jazz, why hang around an audio site? Why not go to any one of the many Jazz sites or Jazz magazine sites and start diggin'? BTW, this would be my suggestion to ANYONE that feels 'new' music sux! Stop wasting time complaining at an audio site and start spending more time at music sites!;) New POP music absolutely sux! And not in that 'generational' gap kind of way. While Pop music always caters to a lowest common denominator mindset, the bar is currently SO low it insults the intelligence! |
Rok 2 id wrote: I just want to make clear that a person does not have to an Audiophile, or be of a certain ethnicity or socio-enconomic class, to be OUTRAGED, at the sight and sound of some illiterate cretin shouting obscenities and vulgarities, over a plagiarized music track. ....Well, maybe you don't have to be an audiophile, or socio-economically privileged to be outraged by rap, but it certainly seems to help. ;-) Marty |
Well done Rok. But Marty, Do you think you may be over complicating things a bit? Definitions of art become irrelevant to those offended by it. Why would I grade something I consider degenerative? To consider as you suggest, that early blues in any way has a similarity to Warhol or Picasso. Completely different motives and intentions. I do agree with your assessment of Johnny B. Goode, but the Beatles were 'better'. |
***Definitions of _______become irrelevant to those offended by it.*** Scary to think of what could be inserted as it would have grave implications. I know that wasn't your intention but when I reread it....... And yes, the Beatles were 'better'. Rok, when it comes to rap, I'm beyond outrage and now just despair for my fellow man, whatever his/her status. :-) All the best, Nonoise |
Csontos, The question of art that offends is an interesting one to me. Whether they were throwing eggs at the debut of Rite of Spring because the music was strident or because the choreography was suggestive is irrelevant to me. Either way, it was great art that offended its contemporary audience. I think there's a lesson about tolerance in there, and tho I doubt much rap deserves to be the beneficiary of that lesson, I'm still disinclined to sweeping dismissal. And, I actually disagree about the connection between rock n roll on the one hand and contemporary painters on the other - tho Basquiat, Haring, et al are probably purer examples than Warhol. (Ironically, their imagery owes a huge debt to - you guessed it - rap and hip hop culture.) I was married into the NYC art scene at that time and the connection between pop art and classical art was definitely prominent. Even the "classical" music of Steve Reich, LaMont Young, Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, et al bumped up against rock n roll. The idea that simple, abstract images (or music) could be very powerful is a pretty recent idea in the West. Classical art that celebrates craft and beauty has its place in my life. So does contemporary art that eschews those notions. As to evaluating Chuck Berry vs The Beatles, it's another question that poses a problem about which measuring stick should be used. If you want craft with your art - take The Beatles. If the point of the art is that craft only dilutes the impact - then take Chuck Berry. (Depending on the day of the week, I might go either way.) Personally, I will still listen to Chuck Berry, but I'll never cue up a Beatles song. OTOH, The Beatles are probably the biggest influence on my own (amateur) songwriting. For me, there's two sides to this coin and I appreciate both sides - each in its own way. Marty |
I guess I'm a glutton for punishment, but I don't really care for most the music Frogman chose. I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles, and my worst nightmare would be forced to listen to Burt Bacharach. I heard all the songs growing up, and most the artist have great talent, but I don't care for the music. Not MY cup of tea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp7HsV80GUM My Lennon and Mccartney of the 90's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLSf0X8XWHY Someone you will hate, but a major talent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQlUyAWwe4w I am sure they score high on the suck-o-meter to you. Maybe someone with an open mind will get something out of them. |
The FUN video clip: IMHO: the video portion was a distraction I went to Amazon to see only records by the group. This seems to be their only CD. I don't see them sustaining a career with this type music. The lead has a good voice, I liked the drumming, and the song may have stood on it's own, but I think the video, or the subject of the video, took away from the effect of the song. If it was meant to be anti-war, they should look to Dylan's 'Masters Of War'. Powerful stuff audio only. Two videos that I liked from MTV back in the day. These are just to give an example of my taste. Robert Palmer -- Addicted to Love Robert Palmer -- Simply Irresistible Blondie -- Rapture Nothing profound, but the video parts supports the tunes. The long legged babes have nothing to do with it. I ain't lying! Cheers |
Mapman, thanks for sharing. I like the some of the production values, although I don't feel the song (by itself) conveys the horror and violence of war with it's modern-musical-theater sensibility; and I am not sure it stands up well without the video. The use of vocal harmony is effective, but I find the solo vocal performance to be average with some intonation problems. Overall, a little bubble-gummy for the subject matter. From the standpoint of the music (not the subject matter) with its use of layered vocal harmonies, for me it falls broadly in the same category as this (and a much better composition): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ For a song with video that both stands well its own and conveys the ugliness of war: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=c20-fm_WNew Still, I enjoyed it, and no it doesn't suck. Thanks. |
Acman3, if those comments were directed at me, I think you don't give my open mind enough credit. I liked the Ben Harper a lot, the Jayhawks I get and like but wouldn't go out of my way to listen to, and the Sparklehorse I couldn't download; I will follow up. For the record, since I don't go out of my way to purchase "pop" music, as I said before I gauge what is "popular" by what gets radio play; and my comments have everything to do with that. But, man, seriously, if that Roberta Flack performance, with all it's nuance and outpouring of emotion doesn't do it for you..... :-) |
IMHO: Ben Harper: didn't do much for me. Sort of amateurish. The Jayhawks: Not my cup of tea. The title track of Sparklehorse was good. But the second cut was too similiar. Sort of Samey. BUT, all was not lost, because off to the side of the screen was a link to a clip of Ella Fitzgerald scatting 'One Note Samba'. Lord I love that woman! Cheers |
New, and doesn't suck! Check out what a great drummer can do with a snare drum ONLY! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5IAhAXRXyas |
Rok, Glad you found the Ella. After your comments I remembered Ben Harper played with the Blind Boys of Alabama, which you would love. Heavy Gospel. Frogman, Comments aimed at no one. When you put the ball on a tee for others, it can get hit by anyone pretty hard. My main focus has been Jazz since I got bored with the music I grew up with, but I am always looking for the interesting music in any form. Favorite classical is probably Bartok. Very different, always interesting to me. |
I think I have read every post on this thread and I must say that the conversation has been very interesting. Yes I am what many consider an old foggy (60) and I started playing music at 8 years old (fiddle), then guitars, then I found girls and cars and now I am back to the guitar. I have been an "audiophile" since 1976 but never let the equipment get in the way of the music. Someone suggested that I get out of my comfort zone and listen to some new music via Radio Paradise for example. I listened, searched the play list and the reviews and I found that the highest rated music isn't new but older stuff. I really do like new music when it's good....it's just really hard to find from all the noise. So my challenge is for anyone to post new music from the last 10 years that just knocks your socks off from a performance and sound perspective and the collective community will be the judge. |
This is a good exampls of why I like these music threads. I didn't know Ben Harper performed with the blind boys of alabama. I did a little google, and found out they have a DVD out with Haper on it. Will have to get it. Was he on the 'Gospel at Colonus' CD? I love that one. I have it on DVD also. The picture quality is not the best, but it's a 'gotta have'. I recommend both the CD and the DVD. The sound quality on the 'Colonus' CD is excellent. Thanks for the info. Cheers |
"Someone suggested that I get out of my comfort zone and listen to some new music via Radio Paradise for example. I listened, searched the play list and the reviews and I found that the highest rated music isn't new but older stuff." That's very true. A classic is a classic. But there is still lots of newer stuff that rates well and does not "suck" accordingly. Maybe some future "classics" in the making. Its worthwhile considering an account on Radio paradise. The community features there are quite good and conducive to learning more about the music played. |
One of the issues being faced in the discussion is the box that the existing commercial music industry has put mainstream music in with endless playlists based on attempts to control the diminishing revenue streams of the industry, imo. Also imo, the internet will eventually change this. Young artists have more freedom to make music, sharing files and adding tracks over any distance. This is happening more than i believe we know. Is it just a matter of time before mixing, marketing etc. happen the same way on a large scale? The interesting part for music lovers is if this does happen, the whole dynamic could change from a market driven perspective to one driven by the music. One thing i do know, there are young artists making music but you're not going to turn on the radio and hear it. Just because you haven't taken the time and effort to find it doesn't mean its not there. |
For those seeking interesting new pop music, I'd suggest searching those threads in this forum that include the recommendations of A'gon user Richard Stacy. They come in 2 flavors; electronica and singer-songwriter. The former is, alas, lost on me but might work for those more in touch with that genre. The latter recommendations have been amazingly reliable. Good examples include Amelia Curran and Hiss Golden Messenger. The CD Poor Moon by HGM is, IMHO a stunner of its type. Marty PS There's lots of good pop music still being made by veterans (like Rebirth, mentioned above), but I assume the request here is for new music by new artists |
Ok, I am going to try to, as Mapman (?) said earlier, "blow the whistle". I think this thread has a lot of potential, has inspired some very thoughtful commnents, and is just starting to get good. As is usually the case with these discussions we don't stay "on point". We don't stay focused on the OP's question and go off on tangents that don't address the ORIGINAL question. The OP made it very clear that his question refers to "rock and pop" music, and goes on to mention ROCK AND POP artists that he "grew up with"; that strongly suggests radio play. He then asks a perfectly legitimate question: "Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck? Not, fusion, not jazz, not rap, not classical; ROCK AND POP. Chazro, your advise to visit music sites is an excellent one, but your overall post perfectly illustrates my point. First of all, implied in that advise is the notion that posters on this site don't add value to a discussion such as this. You then decry the "insult" of dissenting opinions, but proceed to refer to the OP as "having limited musical acceptance level", that his original question is "ignorant", "silly", "bordering on stupid", and that he is "close-minded". Then you go on to completely agree with his original premise: "New POP music absolutely sux!" Huh!?!? First of all, the cries for "civility" are plain silly. I have seen nothing written so far that is not civil, and it seems that the complaints about lack of it or "insults" come from those not being directly addressed in those "insulting" comments. I think we are all big boys and girls and can handily deal with comments such as "sucking lemons". Is it not a good thing that discussion of music inspires some passion? Are we that thin-skinned? I hope not. IMO, the point that (once again) gets lost on some is that good music is good music; regardless of genre. There is good in any genre. Personally, I have no idea wether Goose likes jazz, classical or rap; frankly, as concerns his OP, it doesn't matter! He is asking about Rock and Pop, and decries what he perceives to be a decline in the quality of Rock and Pop; a perfectly reasonable observation. The reasons for the decline (remember: "Why does new music suck?") are very interesting and could be the subject of great discussion and debate. I think this discussion has scratched the surface of the answer, and musical examples of new and old are a great way of learning about good new Pop music, and for refreshing our memories of how good much of the old Pop music was. Not because of wanting to live in the past, nor because some of us are old (56), not because we are close-minded; simply because more of it was good. What makes good music good? What makes good musicianship or artistry? It has nothing to do with genre. I think that, unfortunately, some of us are quick to pass judgment on the quality of certain artists simply because their music is not in a preferred genre; or, at the very least, let our genre preferences color our feelings about the quality of the music. Conversely, music that is in a preferred genre gets less scrutiny and more of a pass. No one is suggesting that we should all like every genre of music; but, what I think is undeniable, is that anyone who considers him/her self a "music lover" should be able to appreciate great musicianship, great singing (really the same thing), great compositional skill, regardless of genre. Example (and obviously, I am showing my bias here): the Roberta Flack recording that I posted. One may not like the genre, but how is it possible to not appreciate the great singing, the nuance, beauty of expression, and outpouring of emotion in that performance even if the song may be considered "sappy" by those with "edgier" sensibilities? I cannot think of a pop vocal performance that has gotten consistent radio play over the last ten years that I would put on the same level as concerns the above criteria. I admit that I don't follow pop music closely, or at all, so that is where Rok's challenge comes in: I want to be proven wrong! I think that the point that the OP is making is that performances of that quality were much more a part of the pop-music landscape than what we have today. Not that there is NO new good pop/rock, simply that the overall quality has declined a great deal. For me, that is undeniable. It may not be for others, and I would love to hear examples that might convince me otherwise. But, "I like this" does not a discussion make; tell us why. Remember this? This was a HIT on the Pop music playlists in the '70's!!!??? I find that to be incredible when put in the context of what gets played today. One may not like the genre (actually, I don't, particularly) but if the compositional, instrumental and vocal skill cannot be appreciated, then something is wrong. What gets played on the radio today that is anywhere nearly as adventurous while still using traditionally accepted musical criteria? Doesn't suck! : http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tdu4uKSZ3M |
"Why does most new music suck"; IOW, why does most new ROCK AND POP suck?" Regarding "rock", that genre, in its purest form has past its prime and is clearly on the decline in terms of popularity. Pop is where it becomes more interesting in that pop is a more open book. WHat is popular changes over time. Plus the trend is towards more globalization of pop culture along with all the rest of modern civilization. That is where things get interesting.....more diversity from more cultures around the world get thrown in the pot. This is why an open mind is important. Music has always evolved and always will. Rock was an evolution of "rock and roll", in its original form mostly about electric guitars and percussion, but much evolved in many directions since. So rock at its core is still mostly about guitars and percussion. There is plenty of that still being created, but its a limited form in its purest sense, so fresh new material that matches the "classics" becomes harder to find. It'll always be a tough job comparing current music to classics. Classics are classics for a reason...they've stood the test of time and achieved widespread "pop"ularity. NEw "pop"ular tunes will either retain and grow in popularity over time or be mostly forgotten. A lot of good music of all genres will NEVER be or become polular on a large scale, but this area is typically where the riches lie. But of course, mining for gold is never an easy task, it takes patience and perseverance, and dare I say an open mind towards trying the next thing that presents itself that has some promise. |
Goose, If you look at the Radio Paradise listener ratings, I think you'd find a correlation between older tunes (ie those regarded by the programmers as "classic" to some extent) and the highest scores in that they have withstood the test of time. Most older tunes that retain airtime score very high, but newer tunes do also but to a lesser extent. As time mvoes on, I think one would find this trend continues, and the more recent tunes that retain airtime will continue to rise in overall rating. New or newer tunes will still garner more of a mixed reaction, but tunes that persist on the playlist will probably improve their scores as well over time, not decrease. We'll see... |
The Frogman: Great post. That Mr Charzo is a ray of sunshine, ain't he? You took the words out of my mouth concerning the lack of logic in Mr Charzo's post. I think in his enthusiastic rush to attack me, he became confused. It seems as if he thought I was the OP. Even though it seems as if he is in agreement with the OP. I guess he agrees with the OP, if he ain't me. When I came on this site a few years ago , and after making a few comments, I was warned/advised, that it was not what I said, that got people upset, but how I said it. That if I wanted to 'get along' on this site I had to change my 'tone'. I didn't understand at that time, but have since come to understand the tenor of this place. That's why I seldom venture out into the General population. Some of these people just cannot stand the pressures of living in a democracy. Everyone claims to be 'open minded', but actually it's a very closed minded place. Marching to a different drummer is not authorized. Cheers. |
Martykl, re Amelia Curran: now we're talking! Thanks. Actually, my wife will love her; I'll check her out. Amelia, that is; my wife, I have already checked out :-) Doesn't suck! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vMw9hte8IHs |
I happen to love Rok's style. As far as the op's concerned, I think we can take license to extend his query to all genres since it applies to all. It's already been made clear but just to state it, 'new' music is not a genre. Youtube examples are mediocre to bad at best. I still want to see the list of the new 'Greats' as it were. Musicianship is irrelevant to this question imo. Good musicians are a dime a dozen(no offense, but no exaggeration either). Some of the best songs of the past were done by moderate to poor vocal ability so that doesn't matter either unless you're an American Idol fan. Still pondering that last post, Marty. |
Orpheus10 , try to leave sociology, politics, and economics out of the equation. I am finding new great music all the time . Great composing, song writing,singing etc. As I said, I am getting a list together of fantastic bands/albums together. It's taking me a while as I have so many. Of course this is my taste in music, and what I see as fantastic musicianship. But I have great taste! ;-) I also put in a lot of time to discovering new music. |
Wazzup Frogman! You misunderstood my post as I wasn't addressing the OP at all. Rok - Dude, I try to read most of the music-related threads here (out of curiosity more than anything else) and when I read yr posts they come off as declarations. If the music falls within yr parameters (safety zones?) it's the greatest, if it isn't something yr comfortable with, and this is where we'll differ every time, you seem to deem the music as being unworthy. But hey, it's my problem right? I normally just say to myself; "to each his own...", yesterday I was just feeling a little cranky. Truth is, you & I couldn't care less about each other so it ain't no big thing. |
