To me it doesn't really matter because I don't listen to a lot of hard rock or metal.

Although I do listen to quite a bit of techno (Mostly remixes/mashups) so there is times when it really matters.

I don't mind it but it always bores me. Since I've heard jazz songs outside that album and they always bore me, why wouldn't I assume the entire genre would bore me? I know enough about jazz in general to make that sweeping assumption. I was in school band playing percussion in MS and HS, and I went to a few Jazz Band practices in 9th grade then realized it was all boring me so much I didn't want to be a part of it.

I didn't ask to find me "metal that isn't boring." I wasn't talking about metal in general, I was talking about progressive metal with lots of technicality and complex instrumentation. One of my friends shows me enough of it for me to have an informed opinion about it. It's really annoying you're assuming I'm a passive listener just because I expect music to get my attention without me forcing it to.

There's no contradiction caused by what I've said here and how I said you listened to too much bizarre hipster crap. Maybe I should have said "weird hipster stuff." Is that better?

Just all of the things you say make you sound more ignorant by the second.

Because, git, when you're hearing 14-year-olds playing jazz music it doesn't represent fu‎cking Coltrane, Davis or Kirk. And if you think it does, kindly keep your braindead opinions out of your posts. Of course, there's also the matter of age - if the last time you actually listened to jazz was 9th grade and you're now 24-years-old, you're just being a stubborn a‎sshole. You might know some names but you don't know the music.

What you consider an informed opinion would probably be considered very little knowledge by many people. When your only contact with a genre is 10th grade jazz band or a friend showing you songs they like, you don't have an "informed opinion". Until you go out and actively fu‎cking participate, you know sh‎it about music. Go find some jazz or some prog metal and give it a listen, if you like it find more of it, read about it. Soak up information. Don't rely on outside sources for your musical opinions because then you're not bloody better than someone who listens to everything except rap and country.

Anybody who actually is so absorbed by the made-up media-fueled "Pitchfork Age" that they see 'bizarre hipster crap' as a valid musical insult seriously needs to rethink their approach to music, as it comes off terribly arrogant and misinformed. Anytime I see the words "pretentious" or "hipster garbage" in a review or statement of some kind, I immediately stop reading it 90% of the time.

Also, jazz standards that you're forced to play in school bands will ruin the genre for you unless you make it your goal to experience more of the genre; Upon playing standards from boring modern "I want money so here's a 12-bar-blues jazz piece" composers, I finally gave the real genre a try.

Aw you beat me =(

Because it's a massively diverse genre that's been around for nearly a century.

A couple 9th grade jazz band practices isn't any kind of meaningful exposure to jazz.

What you're saying here is basically like saying you've heard one Beatles album and covered a couple Elton John songs in a high school marching band so you're well informed in your opinion that rock music is boring.

Okay, you win, I'll stop saying ignorant things.

From here on out it would be nice if posts went back to being on the topic of the discussion.

You mean you can't defend your ignorant opinions that have no foundation so you pull the ol' sarcastic "You win!"? Excellent! But indeed, back to the topic.

Poor fritter...you got totally raped here. This is why it's not good to generalize things you don't know much about. :)

As for whether or not technicality is really important to music...I suppose it depends on what you want to do in music. There are musicians out there who have been playing 40+ years or more and still can't produce a whole lot of interesting or memorable music, while there are people who start off from nothing who manage to do some rather interesting stuff. It can work both ways!

To put it another way, technical skill can give you the means to innovate a genre or make some rather ear-catching ideas a reality, especially if have experience in actually writing songs. On the other hand, many skilled and unskilled musicians alike are content to stick to their pleasant and well-tread singer/songwriter fare and leave it at that, and listeners don't seem to care either way.

Hence, whether or not technicality is important depends entirely on the music itself, and needs to be treated on a case-by-case kind of basis. You wouldn't want to try covering something like Yes's Siberian Khatru when the only song you know how to play on guitar is Smoke on the Water right?

A song with thirty time changes and twenty minutes to burn can be just as interesting and meaningful as your favorite Smiths song, and that's the simple truth of the matter.

Quoted for truth. I couldn't have said it better myself.