[SouthernTrendkill]

Oh yay, this will be fun.

Things that are popular are generally of high quality. Things that aren't popular are NOT necessarily of lesser quality, since there are a lot of factors that effect popularity beyond just quality. But if a band is selling millions of records then I think that means they are pretty damn fucking good at what they do. Like for example, boy band music might suck, but The Backstreet Boys must be damn great at it to be so huge. Nobody's opinion is worth more than anyone else's, so that lends credit to popularity. Even if the corporate masters are pulling the strings to make some hack popular, if it's music that is moving to thousands of people, then it is quality music. There has to be at least one thing great about it for it to do that.

I despise indie rock/pop/folk. I'll probably love it someday because I end up loving all the genres I hate. But right now indie music seems like they're intentionally trying to be meaningless. All the band names are as outlandish and pointless as they can manage, and the lyrics are pure flowing poetics with no message behind it. And even though these are "independent" bands, their sound & production is as polished, sterilizied and poppy as could be. I mean, a band like Of Montreal is extremely talented, amazing musicians. But I don't think there's very much merit in that genre. (Until I end up loving it in a year or so).

I hate pretty much everything that came out in the 80s. I just can't stand the production sound, too sterile. Somehow even the rawest fuckin' shit sounds sterile, except for the stuff that is so lo-fi that it's pretty much noise. I mean I do like Metallica, Slayer, GG Allin, Bruce Springsteen, but I'd like all of that stuff s lot more if it sounded more 90s.

Eminem is a freaking genius, one of the greatest artists of all-time. Even though everybody likes to rag on him, he'll still go down in history as one of the best artists ever.

Tom Petty's 90s & 00s material is better tan his 70s & 80s material. There are SOME tracks from his early days which are as good as the best tracks from his latter days, but none of the early albums as a whole can compare to any of the later album. Petty's been playing a hell of a long time, but it actually took him a few decades to find his best musical voice.

uhh... I consider Guns N Roses Classic Rock. They do a similar middle-of-the-road hard rock/folk/ballad mixture that the definitive classic rock bands like Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, and Ten Years After did. Some people would say, coming out in '88, that GNR's too late for Classic Rock, but I think they fit.

Speaking of which... I've yet to hear any bands that are as diverse as the classic rock bands. Diversity isn't necessarily the first thing people think of with classic rock. But those bands would do a all different shit all on the same album. Start with a hard rock tune, then a straight-up folk song, then a slow blues, then a heavy blues, then a prog song, then a straight-up jazz song, then end it with a raw acoustic blues, old school style. Music fans these days are more diverse than ever before, but bands don't seem to even be as diverse as bands from 4 decades ago. They can try to mix a lot of sounds but can they actually do a bunch of different genres seperately, on one album?