The sorry state of 21st Century music culture

After decades of some of the most essential and influential music to have ever been made, the 21st Century business revolution has marked a downfall in music culture, one almost certain to affect music in the long term.

Music is everywhere, there's no doubt about that, but it isn't half what it was 30 years ago. Whilst the 60's - 80's brought us many a musical maverick, the growth of industry and music as a business means our ears arn't getting what they deserve, they're getting what's cheap, fast, easy and thoughtless. The mainstream is plagued with the solid-stuck idealisms of what's "popular" and thus in the most ignorant of translations, what is talented. Throw enough money, hype and glamour at any single artist or band, no matter how mediocre or uninnovative, and people will believe they're getting the real deal, something special (what such an industry insultingly chose to call 'the X factor'). What they are really getting is a manufactured, over exposed clone of something they have already heard. The same gift, wrapped in a different bow. Perhaps this bow is more mature, perhaps more sparkly, prettier, but the gift is still the same underneath. With gifts, it's the thought that counts, and what we receive in the mainstream is totally thoughtless.

Of course music is still evolving today. There are amazing things happening in the world of music. Technology is growing and so is our understanding, the discoveries being made could shape the change of our musical perception for years to come.

... But they don't, because you don't hear them. You have to search, sometimes dig deep. Strangely enough, the music that is truly innovative, truly insightful and new, isn't what the mainstream wants. Why? Because it doesn't sell. At least not like sex does. You can't manipulate the masses with promises of intelligence and discovery.

So I ask you my fellow music fans; What kind of state is 21st Century music culture in when not only are we lacking the expressive, often rebellious idealists of the truly gifted as we once did, but also the urge to evolve? Instead, the industry makes billions off semi-talented individuals ready to be moulded into public idols for profit, while the spirit and soul remains AWOL.

Discuss?

I couldn't agree more.

Mainstream music of today is in the shitter. Just listen to an oldies radio station, and hear the greats of yesterday. Now those are some killer songs! People in the sixties and seventies got the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, The Greatful Dead, etc., and I get Ashlee Simpson, Britany Spears, Hanson, and Hilary Duff? I was robbed.

Talent was thrown straight out the window and replaced by sex appeal.

Mainstream music is garbage, and all I have to say about it is my ears are bloody from all the abuse.

Look at Hip-hop for instance.

The ones with the lyrical talent are not the ones on the radio. Instead its a bunch of fake gangster's who tell me the have a lot "bling" and fuck a lot of women. The music industry is not about music anymore, now its all about the money.

Rehashed bullshit being shoved in my face.

The only way this is going to stop is simply to stop buying. But the masses didn't even stop watching MTV when the Music dissapeared over night, so I can't even expect them to stop buying this bullshit that is called talent.

And for all of those not "digging", do it. Its well worth your time.

By the way Button Basher, I like your tunes! Added you on myspace (yes I've decided to put some of my shit on there).

Well I feel pretty damn lucky to be living in today's world because there has never been a time in history that we have had such a diversity of music, and arts, at our fingertips to enjoy. There are still plenty of creative people out there doing it, and some of even filters though to the mainstream occasionaly. It is a shame though that most of the music you hear on the radio these days is shit, not all of it though.

good music is still out there, you just have to look for it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samwhore

good music is still out there, you just have to look for it

---

Exactly. It's also personal taste.

and you have to sift through a lot of shit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Basher

After decades of some of the most essential and influential music to have ever been made, the 21st Century business revolution has marked a downfall in music culture, one almost certain to affect music in the long term.

Music is everywhere, there's no doubt about that, but it isn't half what it was 30 years ago. Whilst the 60's - 80's brought us many a musical maverick, the growth of industry and music as a business means our ears arn't getting what they deserve, they're getting what's cheap, fast, easy and thoughtless. The mainstream is plagued with the solid-stuck idealisms of what's "popular" and thus in the most ignorant of translations, what is talented. Throw enough money, hype and glamour at any single artist or band, no matter how mediocre or uninnovative, and people will believe they're getting the real deal, something special (what such an industry insultingly chose to call 'the X factor'). What they are really getting is a manufactured, over exposed clone of something they have already heard. The same gift, wrapped in a different bow. Perhaps this bow is more mature, perhaps more sparkly, prettier, but the gift is still the same underneath. With gifts, it's the thought that counts, and what we receive in the mainstream is totally thoughtless.

Of course music is still evolving today. There are amazing things happening in the world of music. Technology is growing and so is our understanding, the discoveries being made could shape the change of our musical perception for years to come.

... But they don't, because you don't hear them. You have to search, sometimes dig deep. Strangely enough, the music that is truly innovative, truly insightful and new, isn't what the mainstream wants. Why? Because it doesn't sell. At least not like sex does. You can't manipulate the masses with promises of intelligence and discovery.

So I ask you my fellow music fans; What kind of state is 21st Century music culture in when not only are we lacking the expressive, often rebellious idealists of the truly gifted as we once did, but also the urge to evolve? Instead, the industry makes billions off semi-talented individuals ready to be moulded into public idols for profit, while the spirit and soul remains AWOL.

Discuss?

---

I couldnt agree more on your views about mainstream music. Its totally pre-processed crap that isnt even written by the artist getting all the fame. All this punk emo hardcore screamo warped tour mainstream shit is such a rediculous excuse for music, the sad thing is how widley accepted it is by the general public. All these highschool kids get so hyped at the next panic at the disco or fall out boy type band, its repulsive.

Heres where i dont agree with you, there are still a bunch of good bands that are still in action. No im not talking about the Pixies or Smashing Pumpkins reuniting, Im not talking Radiohead or Mars Volta either. There are a bunch of good artist still making music, bands that are just now pushing psychedelic rock to new limits. Genres like Post-Rock & Space Rock are thriving in the underground world of music.

if you are starting to feel musicly costraphobic, like all the music nowaday is suffocating you maybe it just means you should start listening to new genres of music. Maybe youde like some downtempo electronica or trip hop. who knows, thats just my suggestion.

Yeah, I agree with the last few posts. I also think the original post was more directed at pop culture and its music.

The 21st Century pop music culture is in a sad state, yes. I can't say the same for other genres.

I'm completely immersed in the jam and bluegrass scene, and my god, it's nothing but a rush of creative juices. Every concert I go to almost seems to be better than the last; the music gets better and better, and for the most part, the people around me also seem to get nicer and nicer.

It's all in what you listen to and what you like.

I'm just sorry you can't be enjoying what I find an extreme amount of joy in.

It lets me know I'm alive for god's sake. ~

I don't quite understand why people think i've given up on music in general.

"Genres like Post-Rock & Space Rock are thriving in the underground world of music."

This is exactly what I mean when I say you have to dig for the good shit. Why is talent only found when you have to look hard?

"I'm just sorry you can't be enjoying what I find an extreme amount of joy in."

I have no idea what this means. The thread is about mainstream music and it's effect on 21st century music culture in general.

I think the state of mainstream music these days is a disgrace. I haven't even paid attention to it in years, I have no idea who's in the top 40 or such, nor do I care. The mainstream is garbage.

Record companies always have been trying to sell music as more image-oriented than about the music itself. Never has it been in such a state of decay. Record companies are trying to milk the most out of merchandising. To become mainstream, the music doesn't really matter. All it takes is one catchy song. It's about intangables, how they look, how much they can sell, the culture and products they promote. The mainstream doesn't respect music as an art form these days.

I think while technology has expanded the horizons of music, it also diluted the pool of talent overall. Before when it was rare to have a PA of any sort, you had to have a bit of talent or money to have access to one. Now with cheap methods to record at home, and equipment being cheaper than it once was, everyone has the ability to make records. It would only be natural to sift through more records to find the jewel in the rough.

Quote:

---

Now with cheap methods to record at home, and equipment being cheaper than it once was, everyone has the ability to make records.

---

I understand what you mean but disagree that this may cause more harm than good for todays music (apologies if thats not really what you were getting at). It's true that making music is much easier for the average joe but equipment is no way less expensive. A sequencer program will set you back at least £300. A PROGRAM! :wtf:

The future depends on the underground, but the underground is so called because it is characteristically unheard of. I personally believe the future of music lies in technology. Not to undermine the realm of acoustic musicians or bands, but rock music has had it's day. Not because there is no more great rock, but the number of truly innovative bands is dwindling by the minute. Rock, which was once about fighting the man and having a voice has given way to the myspace generation of hopefuls and wannabes. Kids don't want to be in a great band that make great music, they want to be a cool rock star, attempting to copy any other marginally successful act and pretend their the future. These bands plague our generation to the point that they bury the idealisms that made rock great in the first place. They scream for the attention and praise they don't deserve and havn't earned. Did you know the majority of major record labels in England and the US talent search solely on myspace? How do you get noticed on myspace? Worry about the 'friend' count and pretty colours first, music second. Such a perspective often convinces me that another truly groundbreaking act will never appear in the mainstream again.

What's great about electronic music? There is no image, only sound and the vibe. No long haired studs girating on a stage with huge lights and corporate sponsors, just the sound and the vibe. This is the way forward. Be a musician, not a model.

I hope people don't assume i'm ragging on rock music. I'll admit it's not my preferred area but I speak purely from a mainstream perspective. Great music is everywhere in all forms except where it is forced upon us.

Dookie was the death of rock music, if one single album were to be the blame for all these emo punk rock kids sellout mainstream.



p.s yo thc, i cant find you on slsk.. fuckyouimgoingtocalifornia?? it dont even say the number of files next to that...

there is some very good music around at the moment, keep your ears open and you may be surprised at what you find. a thing to remember is that when music becomes stagnant [as it always seems to] there is usually a sub-culture backlash. its happened in the past with rock and roll, punk and grunge and will happen again, soon hopefully.

i agree, you have to dig. it is the assholes in charge who decide what is popular. most people listen to what they are told.

meaning, there is better rock than nickelback
there is still real country music being recorded, not pop shit like rascal flats
there are metal bands far above the commercial shit like slipknot
im assuming this all holds true for the kinds i dont here a lot.


also, this generation at long last has a guitar god who can stand shoulder to shoulder with hendrix and srv
www.myspace.com/jbonamassa

but yes, you have to look. people decided that money was more important than soul somehwere along the line, and realized they could easily market shit, some people would like it because they were told to, then the rest would like it cause they saw that is what everyone else did. that is my theory, why else would dogshit become mainstream. really to me it is like if all of a sudden one day eating your own waste was suddenly cooler and more popular than eating a juicy steak

and dont blame the music, blame the culture, the music never made the culture listen to it, the culture was just too damn lazy or stupid to say no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhl

also, this generation at long last has a guitar god who can stand shoulder to shoulder with hendrix and srv
www.myspace.com/jbonamassa

---

that guys a pretty damn good guitarist, his music would be better if he would shut the fuck up! lol. jk, but in all seriousness he should work on his vocals/lyrics. You should check out Eddie Hazel, his shit seriously rivals hendirx. www.myspace.com/eddiehazel
listen to maggot brain

he didnt write any of the songs on that page that i am aware of. however he does need work on his lyrics, but being a blues guitar player lyrics arent a big thing. look at bb king and srv, guys arent exactly lyricists. but i will admit he isnt exact a poet. as for the voice, well have to agree to disagree i think the man can sing.

and you are talking to a proud eddie hazel fan here i have one of his solo cds. i think hed be called the next hendrix the problem was he didnt record nearly enough music, frankly what i have heard of him i like better than hendrix but it would be unfair to stack him up there as he only has problem 3 full length solo albums worth of work, and only one actually released as a solo album and only played on a few funkadelic albums. but belive me i love me some hazel

on that page i think woke up dreaming is the only one he wrote or maybe i dont believe. really i dont know. but the point is his covers arent really covers in the traditionals sense, or rather they are what covers should be. the only thing that is the same is the original is the lyrics, behind that nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhl

and you are talking to a proud eddie hazel fan here i have one of his solo cds. i think hed be called the next hendrix the problem was he didnt record nearly enough music, frankly what i have heard of him i like better than hendrix but it would be unfair to stack him up there as he only has problem 3 full length solo albums worth of work, and only one actually released as a solo album and only played on a few funkadelic albums. but belive me i love me some hazel

---

I like hazel much better than hendrix, yes, its true he only really has his 3 solo albums and Maggot Brain with funkadelic. However out of all of jimi hendrix's music the only album thats worth listening to again is Axis: Bold As Love. He mmay have a few good songs scattered throught his discography but axis is his only "Great" album imo.
(i dont wanna sound like im raggin on hendrix, i still like his music too)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metaphor

Dookie was the death of rock music, if one single album were to be the blame for all these emo punk rock kids sellout mainstream.



p.s yo thc, i cant find you on slsk.. fuckyouimgoingtocalifornia?? it dont even say the number of files next to that...

---

That's weird, I'm online right now, I see others online but not you. Are you on some invisible mode or something?

hazel had 2 solo albums, rest in p was just his second one with more songs to my understanding, id like to get it but it is hard to come by. also i think he played on a few other albums besides maggot brain, im pretty sure he did. i prefer him to hendrix myself, but i am saying why he wont go down in history the same way hendrix will

This is why i stick to underground music...
Like Hardcore and undergrounf hip-hop

There is SOME glimmer of hope, though. Classic bands from the late 80s, early 90s are thankfully still thriving- REM, Sublime, 311, Supergrass, The Dandy Warhols, stuff like that.

I can't stand emo and crappy stadium "punk rock."

I really hope Psychedelic rock and GUITAR BASED rock (blues/jazz riffs and GOOD SOLOS) make a comeback. I really do. We need people who RESPECT their guitars, not just strum repetetive 3 note power chords with a lame singer.

AND STOP WITH THE FUCKING SONGS ABOUT LOVE AND SADNESS. It's getting OLD.

Emo is a genre that has been misinterpreted for far too long. Those bands like My Chemical Romance, Taking Back Sunday and shit, that's not true emo, it's just some warped, poppy-produced refined cruddy excuse for rock'n'roll... True emo is dark, hardcore with more metal roots. If you are interested to hear what emo is suppose to sound like, listen to Saetia.

Emo has nothing to do with singing about killing yourself because you girlfriend dumped you and you are too weak to kill her, so I'll whine and play my guitar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Banana

There is SOME glimmer of hope, though. Classic bands from the late 80s, early 90s are thankfully still thriving- REM, Sublime, 311, Supergrass, The Dandy Warhols, stuff like that.

I can't stand emo and crappy stadium "punk rock."

I really hope Psychedelic rock and GUITAR BASED rock (blues/jazz riffs and GOOD SOLOS) make a comeback. I really do. We need people who RESPECT their guitars, not just strum repetetive 3 note power chords with a lame singer.

AND STOP WITH THE FUCKING SONGS ABOUT LOVE AND SADNESS. It's getting OLD.

---

every band youd listed id call mainstream and in my opinion not good outside of sublime, and none of them feature great guitar. as for psychadelic the scene today is probably bigger than it ever has been, just not mainstream,

and guitar based rock it is out there, try looking, it is out there and its great. i just posted a guy with blues jazz riffs and literally some of the best solos ive heard in my life, and it appears you didnt give it the time of day. so please get a clue or stop complaining. think outside the box

mainstream music is not for people who listen to music, at least not anymore. jam bands saved my life.:stoned:

Rock music is the reason the industry began declining. It started in the '50s. Rock in general has always been stupid music made for stupid people. Or shoud I say, slow people? No, stupid is the correct word. Of coarse there have always been exceptions, and there always will be. If you want the industry to change, change it. It only continues this way because you keep paying them.

I believe though, with this high rate of decay, it wont be long until it collapses and a new era of music listening rises. In fact, it began in the '80s with the label Dischord, and has only been getting stronger since.


As a side note, Joe Bonamassa is fairly good, but not the end all to guitar playing. Not even remotly close. Not even top 10 good.

first of all, not even top ten isnt saying much when millions of people have picked up the instrument. he is the best playing today. saying he is fairly good undermines everyone to have picked up the instrument. if he is fairly good then all but about 5 people playing today are fairly bad or worse. you are a musician. because if by your standards bonamassa is "fairly good" nothing special, i would love to hear what you have to say about yourself. because if i am calling bonamassa fairly good, you are some of the worst dogshit i have ever heard. note that by my standards bonamassa is great, you are decent, definitely above dogshit(well not the singing) but dont deserve a record contract or to make it outside of local bars.

really, i have no problem with people not liking bonamassa, it is an opinion, but to say he isnt great is just ludicrous. like i have no problem with people not like srv, blues isnt for everyone, but saying he is anything less than great is fucking ridiculous.


dont pretend like rock music started declining in the fifties. belive me i like some old tunes but no one under the age of 90 believes that pal the beatles werent even around yet. so i know you want to seem all cool saying that rock music was better in the fifties, but it is a joke. you are literally, and yes i mean literally literally the only man on earth who thinks that. my guess is it is some sort of an attempt to act like you are the ultimate authority of music and it gives you an excuse to talk down to people who talk about great music. "oh man you like led zeppelin well fuck that aint nothin compared to that balls to the wall 20s rock" something along those lines.

talk to me again when you come down off the high 1950s horse.

The underground electronic scene is thriving. Dank music, fresh, original, hard.

DnB :stoned:

Suhl, what's with you tonight? You're being way too harsh and critical, man. I wouldn't classify the Dandies as mainstream, nor is it underground. Personally, around the Baltimore-DC metro area, 90% of the 'underground' scene completely sucks. (Well that's because you don't know good music- Fuck that, good music is different for everybody.)

And sure, Supergrass and 311 are a bit mainstream. But so what? The whole "Mainstream music automatically sucks" bit seems a bit high horse to me.

Some of Supergrass's stuff, possibly not in the arena of guitar solos or jazz riffs, but they have a lot of genuinely good songs with interesting lyrics.

Respect other people's views, and try not to be so haughty sometime...

EDIT: I have checked out that page. Why did you assume I didn't, and then proceed to be so critical?

I never once assumed that MCR or anyother "emo" band was actually emo. Stuff dating back from Sunny Day Real Estate from Seattle is generally credited as being the first wave of emo. And I thought they sucked back then, too.

Mainstream does not equal shitty, nor sell-out. If you look at a good amount of mainstream music, even in the 70s-90s, a lot of the top-selling artists were GREAT. Unfortunately, that's not ALWAYS the case now. But some mainstream vocalists, like Norah Jones, Christina Aguilera, ect. have amazing voices. And they're mainstream too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonicBloom

Rock music is the reason the industry began declining. It started in the '50s. Rock in general has always been stupid music made for stupid people. Or shoud I say, slow people? No, stupid is the correct word. Of coarse there have always been exceptions, and there always will be. If you want the industry to change, change it. It only continues this way because you keep paying them.

I believe though, with this high rate of decay, it wont be long until it collapses and a new era of music listening rises. In fact, it began in the '80s with the label Dischord, and has only been getting stronger since.


As a side note, Joe Bonamassa is fairly good, but not the end all to guitar playing. Not even remotly close. Not even top 10 good.

---

i dont agree with what you have said in any way at all, its like having the victorian opinion that you could tell a persons character by measuring the dimensions and shape of their face and head. stephen king listens to rock music [ac/dc in particular] and i wouldnt class him as 'slow' or 'stupid' all you have done is generalised, classified people by using your own predjudices and made yourself look stupid in doing so. if i were to listen to beethoven or bach would i be more intelligent? of course not, its all music and its all just sounds and nothing more, regardless of what type of music you prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Banana

I never once assumed that MCR or anyother "emo" band was actually emo. Stuff dating back from Sunny Day Real Estate from Seattle is generally credited as being the first wave of emo. And I thought they sucked back then, too.

Mainstream does not equal shitty, nor sell-out. If you look at a good amount of mainstream music, even in the 70s-90s, a lot of the top-selling artists were GREAT. Unfortunately, that's not ALWAYS the case now. But some mainstream vocalists, like Norah Jones, Christina Aguilera, ect. have amazing voices. And they're mainstream too.

---

That's actually when emo began to be widely misinterpreted. SDRE is an ok band, but they're responsible for having any indie band with a poppy beat to be labeled emo. Much of emo was started by bands like Rites Of Spring under the label Dischord records. It sounds vastly different than what emo is classified as now. Emo stands for a raw sound, when performers go nuts on stage and play with high emotion. Somehow it's evolved into something that sounds sissy.

Saetia, At The-Drive In, Cursive. These are bands that I would consider playing the true form of emo. And there's nothing sissy, or poppy about any of their sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Banana

Personally, around the Baltimore-DC metro area, 90% of the 'underground' scene completely sucks. (Well that's because you don't know good music- Fuck that, good music is different for everybody.)

---

That I can agree with! At least Baltimore has a decent scene, in DC it seems most act like total zombies when they go to shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Banana

Suhl, what's with you tonight? You're being way too harsh and critical, man. I wouldn't classify the Dandies as mainstream, nor is it underground. Personally, around the Baltimore-DC metro area, 90% of the 'underground' scene completely sucks. (Well that's because you don't know good music- Fuck that, good music is different for everybody.)

And sure, Supergrass and 311 are a bit mainstream. But so what? The whole "Mainstream music automatically sucks" bit seems a bit high horse to me.

Some of Supergrass's stuff, possibly not in the arena of guitar solos or jazz riffs, but they have a lot of genuinely good songs with interesting lyrics.

Respect other people's views, and try not to be so haughty sometime...

EDIT: I have checked out that page. Why did you assume I didn't, and then proceed to be so critical?

---

because you said there was no blues jazz based riffs with good solos. i didnt say mainstream music automatically sucks, but i thank you for putting words in my mouth. i said saying holdovers from the early nineties were the saving grave of music is ridiculous, i said you were wrong about the psychadelic scene, i said that the mainstream has gotten significantly worse in recent years, i said you were wrong about the blues based rock with good solos, i stick by that. one thing i did was assume that you probably werent looking deeply because you listed only very famous bands as your good bands and the things keeping music good.

i respect other peoples views, but rem blows and michael stipe is an asshole.

and yes christina aguilera has a good voice. you can find about a thousand sex objects that can sing, am i supposed to be impressed, thats all she does. someone throws together a pop beats, hands her a sheet of paper, says look sexy and sing this.

what is with me isd that for some reason i still let ignorance get under my skin. i really wish i didnt, as i am trying to be a better person, but i just cant seem to let some things go. ill let this go, i really dont want to seem like one of those assholes on the high horse but i can see how it could be taken that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhl

first of all, not even top ten isnt saying much when millions of people have picked up the instrument. he is the best playing today. saying he is fairly good undermines everyone to have picked up the instrument. if he is fairly good then all but about 5 people playing today are fairly bad or worse. you are a musician. because if by your standards bonamassa is "fairly good" nothing special, i would love to hear what you have to say about yourself. because if i am calling bonamassa fairly good, you are some of the worst dogshit i have ever heard. note that by my standards bonamassa is great, you are decent, definitely above dogshit(well not the singing) but dont deserve a record contract or to make it outside of local bars.

really, i have no problem with people not liking bonamassa, it is an opinion, but to say he isnt great is just ludicrous. like i have no problem with people not like srv, blues isnt for everyone, but saying he is anything less than great is fucking ridiculous.


dont pretend like rock music started declining in the fifties. belive me i like some old tunes but no one under the age of 90 believes that pal the beatles werent even around yet. so i know you want to seem all cool saying that rock music was better in the fifties, but it is a joke. you are literally, and yes i mean literally literally the only man on earth who thinks that. my guess is it is some sort of an attempt to act like you are the ultimate authority of music and it gives you an excuse to talk down to people who talk about great music. "oh man you like led zeppelin well fuck that aint nothin compared to that balls to the wall 20s rock" something along those lines.

talk to me again when you come down off the high 1950s horse.

---

First thing, I didn't mean to come across saying that only music from the '50s or before was any good. How I meant to be read was that the business started declining in the '50s, when it started to be taken over by cooperate fat-cats who wanted to push merchandise, and using sex to sell products. There has been great music before, during and since that period, and a lot of it. I also would say Led Zeppelin were one of the bands to break that mold, for most of their early career they made it clear they wanted to stay away from that kind of bullshit.

Thing with J.B. though, it's not that he's not good, some (you), might even call him great, and that's fair, but you shamelessly plug him into every music thread you post in, as if he is the end all to guitar playing. John Mclaughlin, Brad Rabuschin, Frank Gambale, and countless others that you ignore are far better, (in my opinion), and offer similar listening experiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleepless

if i were to listen to beethoven or bach would i be more intelligent? of course not, its all music and its all just sounds and nothing more, regardless of what type of music you prefer.

---

Actually, you're completely wrong. You would be more intelligent. It's proven that music that makes you think harder is good for you brain, and over all increases knowledge intake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suhl

"oh man you like led zeppelin well fuck that aint nothin compared to that balls to the wall 20s rock"

---

lol

You made me smile.

Thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonicBloom

Actually, you're completely wrong. You would be more intelligent. It's proven that music that makes you think harder is good for you brain, and over all increases knowledge intake.

---

therfore it wont matter what you listen to, only that you listened to something, regardless of what it was.

If AC/DC makes you think hard, then clearly the Mahavishnu Orchestra would make your brain explode.

im not a musician so the only way i think about music is if i like it or not, or if i like the things the band are saying. to me, just because a piece is complex or has over 120 instruments playing at the same time means nothing. i appreciate and enjoy the sound but im not going to spend too much time thinking about tempos and arpeggios etc.