Alright, I can accept that.
I thought you were just totally calling it a bs claim.

That makes sense
touché

thank you urban, you said what i was trying to say.

catchy? lol if that's why you listen to music then just stop.

Agree there is a lot of talented and creative bands that I just don't like listen to do but it doesn't mean anything at all it's just not my cub of tea .
But I respect them and the people who listen to them

Just like there is a few very non talent bands that I listen to because I enjoy them .

If It hasn't been pointed out already the creative spark in the arguements that seem to arise when discussing music and the reason I think people are angry, or aleast some (I do believe some are simply being egotistical or looking to argue) Is that mainstream music these days can in many many instances be a complete mockery of decent music throughout the last 100 years. It is, there's no way anyone can tell me 'well thats just YOUR opinion' It just without a shadow of a doubt is...in terms of its quality, sound, talent, ethics, means of construction, influences, artists, creativity, passion, soul etc. It's just on the whole not as good and I think that just makes some people a little angrier when it comes to discussing music when someone promotes the modern music scene.

well, let's look at the facts. much of the music in question is plainly:

- absolutely shameless in terms of redundancy and use of cliches either in melody, lyrics, chord progressions, instrumental arrangements and general sonic aesthetics; this is a fact, not a subjective observation. it can be shown empirically through gathering information/statistics and by comparison with other pop of the same sort. again: it is NOT some weird opinion that some pompous underground/indie dude invented. claims of redundancy, banality and creative bankruptcy are expressions of actual facts about the structure of the music itself. observable, verifyable phenomena.

- over-produced, so much so that it doesn't even qualify as great over-produced pop


If creativity really matters to a fan of music, the fact is they're not going to have any interest in the likes of Akon, Nickelback, and so on. the question of TASTE only goes so far as whether one's taste is for unoriginal innocuous uninspired pop, or for something a little more daring, risky, edgy and adventurous. Where one goes from that point on, is really down to plain fact.

Thankyou very much for furthering on my point :) (not sarcasm)

The original poster does make a good point, but to me, it's fairly obvious why people are so self righteous when it comes to music opinions. It's because people look around at the culture, and say, 'man that sucks,' We see so many things in day to day life that we just say that sucks, and we know it's wrong, and then we find out that some person who we think really sucks listens to Nickelback, and we say, "Ha, I've got you, I can prove you suck, because you listen to Nickelback." Everything done by the mainstream, whether just music, or daily behavior, I tend to see it sucks, and so I love being able to prove myself right when I'm able to say, "Ha, oh you listen to this music, that sucks, or oh, you like to shop, oh that sucks" It helps me feel vindicated.

I agree with the original poster in the sense that it's something that really isn't necessary when someones just trying to put someone down like ' haha, my chemical romance....twat!!' (although reeeeallly ....mrc? *shudders*, in that instance it might be deserved) but there's reasoning as to why a lot of the mainstream AND altenative music of today can be considered to be absolute bollocks.