https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6NCuRrq7WM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199016)

These kids look like their parents have a shitload of disposable income and like they have never worked a job a day in their lives. Something about it lacks the traditional grit of a real band trying to make it. The production is incredible but the songwriting is very bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199019)

I am not a teen anymore

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199067)

but what really impacts your enjoyment of the music is how fucking ugly the lead singer is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199219)

https://youtu.be/QzzVKLffw0o?si=YttvDRvj3Flq0n8S

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199034)

Get up kids might be another contender for goat emo band. I don’t really like them, but they were huge

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199072)

I know virtually nothing about any other subject hope I don't come across as pompous in other areas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199259)

at the end of the day, there is very little objectivity involved with music though, so these debates are always silly. i've gotten into it with friends trying to convince them that kraftwerk, the fall, etc. are good and it's pointless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199267)

Conversely Fugazi truly sucks. So I don't know where you even go with that. They were not good lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200388)

similarly strong case for blink 182 being better than embrace. hard to argue, to be honest.

thing is this, you use objective metrics like "songwriting" "is this melodically inept" and "how many records did they sell" and you have it more or less down to a science.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200392)

Did you know Fugazi won't do an interview in a magazine that has ads for tobacco or liquor? Tho brave.

If Fugazi showed me a rough draft of Waiting Room I would tell them to rewrite it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200402)

For example, Michael Jackson was the greatest in the world. Then he sucked for a while because the raping cost him too much money. Then he died and became great again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200420)

if you're a fisherman and catch 10x the fish is me, who is better at fishing? i can argue til im red in the face about my superior technique. none of that changes the fact you caught more fish!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200505)

Foo Fighters > pavement

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200522)

Any movie is too bad really that shit is for stupid niggers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200348)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49199327)

when you say they suck though, what do you really mean? that just means you don't think they sound good. there is essentially no way to objectively rate music. you could easily listen to the Fall and say "man this is just repetitive noise and the music isn't intricate or melodic, which is bad" while i'd say they're really good. which of us is right? neither.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200447)

Normal people object because the singing is trash from a melodic perspective (barely hitting notes, tight range, mostly shouting or mumbling, all sounds same). Neurodivergent people who have a big voice in online music appreciation like the attitude of it and the droning/repetitive elements, but Lou Reed is not winning any singing contests or giving you much melodic creativity or variety. Nico is even worse and was forced on the band by Warhol. It’s not for no reason that most people would rather listen to the Beatles or Aretha Franklin (to stick to old examples so we don’t have to argue about Coldplay).

I like shit that sounds abrasive and druggy because I am a fucking weirdo is a minority opinion. There’s a human consensus on what good music sounds like and the people who succeed with a mass audience over a long period have won a huge tournament based on their skill level at producing this sort of music. The fact that individual people have opinions that are all over the map doesn’t undermine this general truth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200525)

using your logic, as i noted above, you could argue that Foo Fighters are a better band than Pavement or Sonic Youth or something. they have sold millions of records and done arena tours, something either pavement or SY ever did. the latter two bands are massively influential among musicians (i.e., people who themselves make, rather than solely consume) music. as an aside, i don't listen to SY often and think they have like 25 really good songs that i like, but i appreciate how influential they were.

commercial success is one element of whether a band is good, but this is all very nuanced. take the bad brains. they are all very skilled musicians and are widely regarded as a top 3 hardcore punk band of all time. majors were looking at them and their singer sabotaged everything (partially bc of mental illness). so fishbone got signed and they got kinda big. is fishbone better than bad brains? some bands don't seek commercial success, and in fact go out of their way to avoid it. this does not bear on whether their music is good.

you also fail to appreciate how stupid the masses are. most people just listen to whatever is on the radio, so payola and advertising to a large extent drive what is popular. if all music listeners were "into" music, i think numbers/sales would count for a lot more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200576)

Music that is only appreciated by other musicians and very online turbo-autists and schizos is a faggy sub-category.

Getting very invested in “but actually my faggy sub-category is objectively superior even in the face of evidence that most people don’t care or actively dislike what I like” is pretty retarded.

Approximately all musicians that you have heard of want to rich and famous and have their music heard and appreciated by everyone. That’s why they went to the trouble to write, record, release and market their music. “Actually being famous sucks” is cope for losers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200594)

btw this all started because i said i don't consider some mall punk band to be punk and you went off on this autistic subthread and made me autistically spaz. and for what.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200703)

this is so obviously true that only on an autistic forum like xo would it need to be stated.

some people cope that art is about self expression to excuse their shit sucking when really its about creating something people enjoy. why even bother to create it if there isn't a chance itll make you rich and/or famous?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200696)

boiling everything down to mass appeal and sales means that let's dance is better than hunky dory, station to station, and ziggy. does anyone with any taste agree?

and bowie is an interesting example. he wanted to get really rich so he called nile rodger and said "hey help me turn into a huge pop star" and let's dance came out. in other words, he maybe focused a bit less on the "great musicianship" and art stuff and more "stuff you hear on the radio." doesn't mean the latter was better, by any means.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5764348&forum_id=2...id#49200589)