Music Elitists

[Playful Pony]

I don't much enjoy elitists of any sort... They are always dismissive of anyones opinions, and clearly consider themselves superior for often incredibly arbitrary reasons... University students, PC gamers, those who don't play CoD, rock fans and people who buy German cars come to mind. All of these people consider themselves intelectually superior to someone who isn't in their "club". Just pointing out that the only gaming platform i own is a PC, I don't play CoD and I enjoy rock music. These are just the groups where I most commonly meet what I would call an "elitist"... Of course you can't argue with elitists. They have made up their mind long before they even met you, and nothing could possibly sway them. Just like religious elitists, or "fanatics" as most people like to call them =3.

unrelated but can somone give me an example (or comparison) of the somthing that is very musically/technically complex compared to somthing that isnt?

I think a reasonably relevant example of complex vs simple music would be the stuff being made for movies and videogames in the last few decades. Take John Williams and Hans Zimmer's very famous works as an example. It has the depth, sophistication and complexity of many of the great works of the past, while holding on to the kind of strong melody that is most atractive to the human ear. Take the universally familiar Imperial March [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8], or the theme from The Dark Knight [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_DSq-LhOyU].

Most music is not nearly as comples as this, but it generally strives towards a strong and recognizable melody. For this reason, less complex and less "full" music can still be just as enjoyable so I wouldn't say complexity = superior music. Some of the most recognizable pieces of music ever are almost painfully simple. I'm sure you remember loads of those old 8-bit classics from gamings earlier life. Most modern music have a basic melody on top of a bassline, with the occasional "spice" thrown in. Hope you have your parachute pants in order! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y73PB0Hn3GI]

 

[Vault101]

Who the fuck copy pasted this thread into /mu/?

In case you think he's joking. [http://boards.4chan.org/mu/res/33428032]

wha?

and the funny thing is somone came along and said

"holy shit is this an actual in-dept discussion.. on... /mu/"

now that is funny

 

[Stalkingpanda14]

I probably should have clarified that I don't believe instrumental wank and odd time signatures make you in any way superior to any other genre. Now that several people have pointed it out, I realize I was a bit elitist. I apologize. I probably should have thought my post through more. Also, by "commercial" and "accessible," I don't mean stupid and vapid, I mean it appeals to a braod demographic.

 

[Scrubiii]

You can listen to whatever you like, and as long as you aren't forcing me to listen to it as well I really don't care. I'll never be able to understand how people prefer Justin Beiber etc to stuff like this though.

 

[Toasty Virus]

There is no definition for "good music". No matter how fucking hard you look.

There is no objectivity, everything is entirely subjective, no matter how fucking hard you try to argue it isn't.

God this thread has made me angry.

 

[Something Amyss]

What makes Van Halen and Cannibal Corpse so much more legitimate than whatever's in the top ten right now?

A couple disclaimers:

1. I have no actual beef with the Beeb. In fact, I find him too generic to hate. His music is forgettable. In fact, up until "Mistletoe," I couldn't remember a single melody. I remember that one because my first reaction was to start singing Nickelback's "Photograph" over it. I don't care for pop music much but by the same measure, I don't care about it much, either.

2. Most of what Eddie Van Halen has 'innovated' was done by someone else. You can see demonstrations of tapping from John Entwhistle a decade before EVH, and rumour is he actually learned it directly from KISS.

However, while EVH is a hack who lacks any real sense of musicianship, asking what would make him more legitimate than cookie-cutter top ten singles? I'm not sure if that's a serious question. Seriously. People battling for the most consistently mediocre songs, repeating the exact same phrases and ideas ad nauseum, vs a guy who at least knows what the tone and volume controls do?

Yeah.

Now, if you'll excuse me, all this talk about mainstream has made my inner Hipster cranky. I'm going to go listen to some Gatja and Stone Coyotes and act like knowing who these bands are makes me superior to everyone else.

On a serious note, however, a large majority of metalheads need to get over themselves. That doesn't vindicate pop so much as it means they should stop giving a damn what other people enjoy. Especially in the age of the internet. I can go months without hearing a pop song unless I choose to. Most people can, honestly.

 

[lacktheknack]

Repetition is the way I prefer my music. So no, I think it's fantastic.

What were you saying about biased opinions, again?

Although if you're going to maintain that "Baby" is all that is wrong with music, then yeah, this is a very pointless argument.

I demand to know what you mean by "assuming how his mind works", though. You might notice that we actually came to agreement on the subject, the difference in opinion is now about to what extent different expectations should be used. Because we didn't assume a thing, we simply read what he wrote and reacted accordingly.

For that matter, I demand to know how "Baby" is more repetitive than, say, "Sweet Child of Mine".

You just don't get it do you. I already admitted it's my opinion. Repetition will be judged harshly. The word Baby becomes grating after the 4th time. This is off topic by the way, I wasn't talking about criticising a song, I just hate that song.

And you were assuming, it isn't as easy as what you said. It's come down to you misunderstanding him originally (no surprise there). Look at Crunks lovely response in post 71. Of course there is going to be confusion when your just making assumptions and hurling flames. I don't like Crunk, he's a bit too aggresive to have a proper discussion with.

And YOU'RE too airy and ethereal to argue with.

You've said "assume" over and over, and not one blasted example. And now you say "hurling flames". I've done no such thing.

Until you're willing to bend down and show me how obviously bad I am at talking with someone I've already made progress with, I'm going to have to believe that you're backed into a corner and are now just swinging at anything and everything.

 

[Ishal]

unrelated but can somone give me an example (or comparison) of the somthing that is very musically/technically complex compared to somthing that isnt?

You asked about Dream Theater. DT are classically trained and very similar to the prog-rock band YES and similar to RUSH as well, they are just more metal.

Here is them playing live.


and... of course... the obligatory quintessential Dream Theater song ( from the same live performance )



Then there is the technical for the sake of being technical. Dream Theater sometimes do this, but I feel like the genre of technical death metal would demonstrate it better. Anything in music can be turned up to 11, so to speak. Anything can become technical. In tech death metal the main driving force is almost always the rhythm section. The drummers in tech death are some of the best around. Its a genre based around rapid changes in tempo and time signatures of the music. Very stop-go-stop-go. Lots of pauses and some very unique often exotic scales used with the guitars. I'll agree with many posters above me though. It may be more technical but that doesn't make it objectively better than anything else. Its just taste. Different strokes for different folks. Here is some tech death. You don't need to listen to the whole song since its generally not too listener friendly, just the first 50 secs or so will demonstrate what I described above.




By the way Vault, I've started listening to a new genre of RAP called "cloud rap" you know anything about that? Anything to recommend?

 

[thesilentman]

Because I respect their skills as musicians, not just as artists.

To me, it's infinity harder to play a good guitar solo, live, with 3 or 4 other band members while staying on key, and all on the same 1,2,3 and 4's.

Opposed to standing on stage lip-syncing while your back ground dancer put more time in their work then you ever did.

Or earning your fortune by having the auto-tune squeeze your voice is such a way that even GLaDos sounds human.

I have respect for bands like Iron Maiden, still touring, still making great albums for more then 20 years, while current pop-stars are not artists, they're products.

You sir, have won the thread. This is the reason that music elitism and people like me, you, and the OP exist. I love Dream Theater and Pink Floyd to all hell, but I understand why people would not like them. I, like you, respect their music and the meaning of what it means to be a musician.

There's also the fact that I'm a violinist myself and good music is engrained into my bones. I hate pop music as it isn't musically sound. I can't listen to auto-tuned music and repetitive beats as my mind needs more. I NEED music with proper tone shifts. I NEED music with different takes on the scales. I NEED something that's rhythmically diverse. I NEED music that makes me feel.

I need them, as I cannot have my music any other way.

Oh sure, some people are going to still prefer pop music. Would I look at them like I'm inferior? No! Will I convict them of not getting the balls to go out of their safety net? Yes. There is good music out there that many people are flat out ignoring, and it makes me unhappy in a sense. Unhappy that because of them choosing to support the pop artists, I may not be able to enjoy and get more of what I like.

maybe...the pop music makes them feel something that your "challenging" music makes you feel?.

The other thing to consider is that I'm a musician, so I have a better understanding of what it takes to play better music. This is an argument I can't really bring up in real life before some idiot turns that into a whinefest rather than a logical, discussion.

 

[lacktheknack]

Who said anything about garage bands?

Also, I'm sorry but a lot of the instrumentation in pop songs is not THAT hard to do. Seriously, play around with Garage Band (software for Mac) and you can come up with some pretty good beats. There are obviously exceptions to this. Kanye West for example comes up with genius and creative beats that require a lot of talent but so many pop songs just have a simple beat that's easy to dance to and then they but some extremely basic melody over top of it and add lyrics about going to clubs and having sex.

What about stage presence and charisma? They just don't seem as important to me. They only matter at concerts or for music videos but then that's not the music. That's the show built around it. Sure I acknowledge that pop artists are talented here but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual music.

As for simplicity of it, that's not necessarily the problem (ya I guess I kind of misspoke in my earlier post so my bad, I'll admit to the mistake). It's that the lyrics over top of it are forcing you to think about whatever shit they are talking about. Yes simple can be great but not when the lyrics are constraining what you can emotionally draw from.
For example, In C by Terry Riley is quite simple but it allows you to draw on whatever emotions you want because it doesn't have "Baby baby baby oh" sitting on top of it.
If you like this type of music I would highly recommend looking into the various minimalist types of music from the later 1900's. La Monte Young's Well Tuned Piano (playing off the title of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier) in particular is amazing. Regardless of your opinion on my post I would highly suggest listening to it. Probably not the whole thing in one sitting though:
Yes both of these pieces that I have mentioned so far are instrumental but there are simple pieces with words that can still illicit powerful emotional responses. Steve Reich's Come Out is a perfect example of this. It's mainly just a man saying "come out" over and over again. However, he has two recordings of it going at once and one is ever so slightly faster than the other. The two become farther and farther apart until you stop thinking about the words and just experience the unique sounds the piece offers.

As far as simple creating a more intense emotional response, well that's just a matter of opinion. I personally find more complex music more satisfying emotionally but both are great.

Lastly, you said music cannot get more simple than the same chord being played over and over. Well I'll see your piece and raise you John Cage's 4'33". 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Illustrating that even in silence, there music.

I picked garage bands because they illustrate my point.

I put more emphasis on charisma and stage presence possibly because I've been burned by poor live shows before. It really is part of musicianship, because they contribute to the entertainment value, and music really is about entertainment just as much as it's about art.

As for 4'33", touche. Although I would submit that the piece is overly pretentious and possibly even lazy. I certainly wouldn't sit down and listen to it more than once.

 

[xplosive59]

Things I hate hearing when talking about music, I will automatically dismiss your opinion if you say any of these:

- X genre sucks.
- X genre is not real music.
- This band is better because they play real instruments.
- This band is more technical and therefore better musically.
- That band is too mainstream so they suck.
- I have never heard of X so they must suck.
- (Insert random decade here) was so much better for music, I was born in the wrong generation.
- All modern music sucks.
- I don't care about music quality and download my music with a 128kbps youtube converter.
- Why would you buy an album when there is only usually one good song on there?
- I have a superior music taste to you because I listen to complex and challenging music such as Dream Theater and Tool.(I really dislike Dreaam Theater so that is why I am using them as an example)

 

[xplosive59]

I think music can be bad. I don't just mean in a subjective opinion sense i mean just flat-out bad.

I haven't listened to the radio or 'chart music' in general with any regularity in my entire life. Therefore pop music and it's occasional complete and utter failure as a musical form fascinates me. Take Will.I.Am (even his name is slightly obnoxious) his solo/recent B.I.P. music is so unlistenable it serves as a useful study and dissection of how you DON'T make music.

"Check it out" for example is one of the least appealing things ever produced a human being;


It starts off with a wasted, straight lift sample of "Video killed the Radio Star" (a song that is actually an example of how to make GREAT pop music by the way) that really has no point being there apart from filling a void were they couldn't be bothered to put a hook. The original sections are even worse, they grind and bleep to the words "Check it out" over and over with no real redeeming quality. And Niki Minaj doing her usual non-singing and non-rap about 'haters' just adds another level of obnoxious to the whole thing. It's truly a work of unintentional genius, we can look at this and go "You see that? Yeah do the opposite of that"

The problem with Will.I.Am is that he knows how to make music, or at least he knew how to...


He just chooses not to nowadays because apparently De La Soul-esque Hip-hop wouldn't sell or some bullshit, the problem is the consumer market is made up with retards who listen to radio trash and so whatever they pump out will sell like hotcakes.

I grew up in Essex in the UK which is essentially a cultural wasteland so my opinions are pretty strong on art, music, film, animation and shit like this because I grew up with mouth-breathers everywhere who think ignorance on culture and art is cool and have to be spoon fed music for them to enjoy it.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

thats true...not everyone cares enough to activly seek out music

I think music is important because I'm ALWAYS seeking out somthing different, I think I get bored with my playlists very easyly so I need somthing else...

I'm always looking for new music, too, although I tend to stick with bands/artists for a long time, too. Music is probably the most important none-family thing in the world to me. It's not only my number one source of enjoyment but it's also my livelihood (my pitiful, low-income livelihood...). I just get very frustrated with people who judge each other's intelligence based on the entertainment they enjoy, even if I agree that said entertainment is a load of shit.

A lot of people in this thread have complained about artists who have been manufactured and don't sing their own songs... but what about performers who don't sing their own songs because they don't like writing but love to perform? Or songwriters who love making music but dislike getting on stage (I, myself, used to fit here)? Is there an issue with people like these or is it merely those who are selected more for their looks and marketability who bother you?

I can go months without hearing a pop song unless I choose to. Most people can, honestly.

Very true. I don't even know who's in the top ten in my country right now. I sometimes hear pop coming from my brother's room, but it's mostly just inoffensive and he's just as likely to start blasting Manowar so s'all good.

 

[zehydra]

There is no definition for "good music". No matter how fucking hard you look.

There is no objectivity, everything is entirely subjective, no matter how fucking hard you try to argue it isn't.

God this thread has made me angry.

If everything was entirely subjective then why are you posting? What subjective truths are you trying to impart on us?

There IS objectivity, although there may not be such a thing as objectively good music.

 

[bananafishtoday]

Y'all don't know nothing about music elitism until you've lived in Brooklyn.

Yeah, that's right. I'm a music elitist elitist.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Who said anything about garage bands?

Also, I'm sorry but a lot of the instrumentation in pop songs is not THAT hard to do. Seriously, play around with Garage Band (software for Mac) and you can come up with some pretty good beats. There are obviously exceptions to this. Kanye West for example comes up with genius and creative beats that require a lot of talent but so many pop songs just have a simple beat that's easy to dance to and then they but some extremely basic melody over top of it and add lyrics about going to clubs and having sex.

What about stage presence and charisma? They just don't seem as important to me. They only matter at concerts or for music videos but then that's not the music. That's the show built around it. Sure I acknowledge that pop artists are talented here but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual music.

As for simplicity of it, that's not necessarily the problem (ya I guess I kind of misspoke in my earlier post so my bad, I'll admit to the mistake). It's that the lyrics over top of it are forcing you to think about whatever shit they are talking about. Yes simple can be great but not when the lyrics are constraining what you can emotionally draw from.
For example, In C by Terry Riley is quite simple but it allows you to draw on whatever emotions you want because it doesn't have "Baby baby baby oh" sitting on top of it.
If you like this type of music I would highly recommend looking into the various minimalist types of music from the later 1900's. La Monte Young's Well Tuned Piano (playing off the title of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier) in particular is amazing. Regardless of your opinion on my post I would highly suggest listening to it. Probably not the whole thing in one sitting though:
Yes both of these pieces that I have mentioned so far are instrumental but there are simple pieces with words that can still illicit powerful emotional responses. Steve Reich's Come Out is a perfect example of this. It's mainly just a man saying "come out" over and over again. However, he has two recordings of it going at once and one is ever so slightly faster than the other. The two become farther and farther apart until you stop thinking about the words and just experience the unique sounds the piece offers.

As far as simple creating a more intense emotional response, well that's just a matter of opinion. I personally find more complex music more satisfying emotionally but both are great.

Lastly, you said music cannot get more simple than the same chord being played over and over. Well I'll see your piece and raise you John Cage's 4'33". 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Illustrating that even in silence, there music.

I picked garage bands because they illustrate my point.

I put more emphasis on charisma and stage presence possibly because I've been burned by poor live shows before. It really is part of musicianship, because they contribute to the entertainment value, and music really is about entertainment just as much as it's about art.

As for 4'33", touche. Although I would submit that the piece is overly pretentious and possibly even lazy. I certainly wouldn't sit down and listen to it more than once.

You dare call one of the most important pieces of noise/minimalist music pretentious and lazy?! Na I'm just joking. That's a pretty common reaction from non-musicologists. Heck, even among musicologist it's still a pretty controversial piece. So you're entitled to your opinion but I'd urge you to look into the piece more and time period around it's composition before you fully make up your mind.
John Cage is showing everyone that when all is silent, all you can hear are the sounds of the world around you and that even in that, you can find music. For example, you might hear the wind outside at a performance or the dull hum of the AC. This piece isn't quite as effective on your ipod but at a live performance it's a surreal experience. Having 500 people sitting in silence just listening to the world around for an extended period of time is pretty amazing. In 4 minutes and 33 seconds of focusing on just the soft sounds of the world around you, you'd be surprised at what you will hear.
It's important for the piece to be performed by a prestigious performer at a good concert hall. The audience is more likely to focus on the sounds of the world because their expectations of the performer are going to be higher. Plus, an audience at this type of place is going to be adamant about maintaining concert etiquette so no one will be disruptive of the ambient sound.
As for your first point, while I agree that those qualities are very important at concerts, for me, a piece needs to hold up outside of a concert setting where the only focus is the music itself. The spectacle of stage presence and good charisma can certainly elevate the entertainment value of music but it's not music in itself. If a piece of music great in concert but bad just when just sitting and listening to it, I would argue that the performer is more of a dancer than a composer.

 

[V3rtig0]

Being a mainly older (70s) prog and psych rock listener, I also happen to enjoy classic rock a lot. Heaps more than today's "hits". To answer your question, why is classic rock "better" than Katy Perry/Rihanna/Bieber? You seem to cite lyrics as your main concern here. And you take the song from IV that has the simplest ones. They're that way intentionally, not because Plant&Co were not competent enough or too lazy to write "good" ones. They match the mood of the song - to me it seems like it's just an average guy fantasising about what he would do sexually to a woman he likes. Have you listened to their other tracks? Let's take even the most obvious example from that very same album - Stairway. It has lyrics that you can make sense of and they actually hold some depth, rather than the swag swag ma bitches ma cars ma money of today.

Plus, if you look past the lyrics, the instrumental parts are way better, too. I much prefer real people playing real instruments rather than computer generated beeps and bloops and fucking autotune. It also seems like back then, more spirit was put into the music. I'm not saying that sometimes commercial purposes weren't the main reasons behind songs and whole albums, but even so, it still feels better than today - where I'm convinced that the actual purpose of music is to make money, not send a message or express your feelings.

I may sound like an old fart here who's unwilling to accept changes and new stuff, but I'm not. I believe there are still good artists today, but sadly they're concentrated mostly in the underground and only make up a very tiny fraction of the popular music of today. I strongly believe that all other "musicians" have spent their creativity already or have never had any in the first place.

 

[lacktheknack]

Who said anything about garage bands?

Also, I'm sorry but a lot of the instrumentation in pop songs is not THAT hard to do. Seriously, play around with Garage Band (software for Mac) and you can come up with some pretty good beats. There are obviously exceptions to this. Kanye West for example comes up with genius and creative beats that require a lot of talent but so many pop songs just have a simple beat that's easy to dance to and then they but some extremely basic melody over top of it and add lyrics about going to clubs and having sex.

What about stage presence and charisma? They just don't seem as important to me. They only matter at concerts or for music videos but then that's not the music. That's the show built around it. Sure I acknowledge that pop artists are talented here but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the actual music.

As for simplicity of it, that's not necessarily the problem (ya I guess I kind of misspoke in my earlier post so my bad, I'll admit to the mistake). It's that the lyrics over top of it are forcing you to think about whatever shit they are talking about. Yes simple can be great but not when the lyrics are constraining what you can emotionally draw from.
For example, In C by Terry Riley is quite simple but it allows you to draw on whatever emotions you want because it doesn't have "Baby baby baby oh" sitting on top of it.
If you like this type of music I would highly recommend looking into the various minimalist types of music from the later 1900's. La Monte Young's Well Tuned Piano (playing off the title of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier) in particular is amazing. Regardless of your opinion on my post I would highly suggest listening to it. Probably not the whole thing in one sitting though:
Yes both of these pieces that I have mentioned so far are instrumental but there are simple pieces with words that can still illicit powerful emotional responses. Steve Reich's Come Out is a perfect example of this. It's mainly just a man saying "come out" over and over again. However, he has two recordings of it going at once and one is ever so slightly faster than the other. The two become farther and farther apart until you stop thinking about the words and just experience the unique sounds the piece offers.

As far as simple creating a more intense emotional response, well that's just a matter of opinion. I personally find more complex music more satisfying emotionally but both are great.

Lastly, you said music cannot get more simple than the same chord being played over and over. Well I'll see your piece and raise you John Cage's 4'33". 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Illustrating that even in silence, there music.

I picked garage bands because they illustrate my point.

I put more emphasis on charisma and stage presence possibly because I've been burned by poor live shows before. It really is part of musicianship, because they contribute to the entertainment value, and music really is about entertainment just as much as it's about art.

As for 4'33", touche. Although I would submit that the piece is overly pretentious and possibly even lazy. I certainly wouldn't sit down and listen to it more than once.

You dare call one of the most important pieces of noise/minimalist music pretentious and lazy?! Na I'm just joking. That's a pretty common reaction from non-musicologists. Heck, even among musicologist it's still a pretty controversial piece. So you're entitled to your opinion but I'd urge you to look into the piece more and time period around it's composition before you fully make up your mind.
John Cage is showing everyone that when all is silent, all you can hear are the sounds of the world around you and that even in that, you can find music. For example, you might hear the wind outside at a performance or the dull hum of the AC. This piece isn't quite as effective on your ipod but at a live performance it's a surreal experience. Having 500 people sitting in silence just listening to the world around for an extended period of time is pretty amazing. In 4 minutes and 33 seconds of focusing on just the soft sounds of the world around you, you'd be surprised at what you will hear.
It's important for the piece to be performed by a prestigious performer at a good concert hall. The audience is more likely to focus on the sounds of the world because their expectations of the performer are going to be higher. Plus, an audience at this type of place is going to be adamant about maintaining concert etiquette so no one will be disruptive of the ambient sound.
As for your first point, while I agree that those qualities are very important at concerts, for me, a piece needs to hold up outside of a concert setting where the only focus is the music itself. The spectacle of stage presence and good charisma can certainly elevate the entertainment value of music but it's not music in itself. If a piece of music great in concert but bad just when just sitting and listening to it, I would argue that the performer is more of a dancer than a composer.

I fully understand the piece, and have known about it for years. It doesn't change the fact that I think about as highly of it as I think of the dada "Fountain", which consists of a urinal turned on its side and you're asked "What do you think it means?".

And your thoughts on concerts are perfectly valid. But in the context of pop music (the context that started all of this), I still maintain that pop isn't nearly as easy to write as people think it is. There's a reason "Dr. Luke" makes tons of money writing singles without ever appearing in-studio or on-stage.

 

[Tom_green_day]

The ironic thing is that I find people who do it are people who don't have an extensive knowledge of all music. I study music and everyone I know in my classes doesn't have a favourite genre.
I'll admit I used to be like this, saying 'oooh pop's not real, oooh rap's not music' but studying music has really broadened my tastes. Now I like me some Baroque or Ska or Dixieland or Disco just as much as a good helping of Bon Jovi.

EDIT: Oh, and people saying one style of music has more quality. Nope, more modern music has more quality as the technology has progressed so that you can record everything easily, and then mix them and mess about with them until they sound perfect. In the old days you only had one take with poor recording quality before it was all shoved into one and then sold.

 

[Zealous]

Eh, you see that with anything really (video game genres being a prime example). People take their subjective opinion and assert it as objective fact. Doesn't really bother me that much. As long as my ears aren't assaulted by their music 24/7, I really couldn't give a shit what anyone else is listening to. If they think they're better than me because they listen to different patterns of vibrations, then more power to them. At the same time, dicks will be dicks and they tend to voice their opinions the loudest so that's what we hear. A bunch of people criticising other people's taste in music incessantly.

To elaborate on the video game analogy, I personally don't like twitch shooters. I don't have an amazing reaction time and like to play tactically so they're not really for me. That said, I think that the CoD games are a good example of some well polished and tight twitch shooters. I guess you could bring up the killstreaks as not promoting skill but now I'm going off on a tangent, so I'll just shut up.