Whats the point of music snobbery?

Android 666

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I intentionally chose an obscure song to make my point. People argue that Radiohead are more influential than Coldplay or Oasis because they like to think that they are. Realistically, Radiohead influenced Coldplay and Coldplay have surpassed Radiohead in popularity. In fifty years time people will remember Creep and not any of this supposedly brave and influential nonsense that Radiohead have been releasing of late.

So what you are saying is that popularity during a bands existence equates to their lasting influence? What about Velvet Underground? Throbbing Gristle? Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band? Some bands can be both popular and influential like the Beatles, Led Zepplin and The Who but popularity by itself is not an indicator of lasting influence. More people might remember Creep in 50 years time but more people making music will be influenced by Kid A and Amnesiac.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Saying that Muse will be remembered more is a guess, and you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

Like I said, I reckon Muse will probably be more influential. It was framed as an opinion. For the record, I think Muse are craptacular...

glord

To measure Radioheads influence all you have to look at is the amount of covers that are done of there songs.If you type 'Radiohead cover' in on youtube youll get Gnarls Barkley,John Mayer,Punch Brothers(very talented progressive Bluegrass band),Scala and Kolacny Brothers,Moby.There isnt the same result for Coldplay.Some of these songs that they are covering are more than ten years old so if they play them after that amount of time its safe to say that Radiohead will not be forgotten and are very influential

Oasis_Dublin

Android 666 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that popularity during a bands existence equates to their lasting influence? What about Velvet Underground? Throbbing Gristle? Captain Beefheart and his Magic Band? Some bands can be both popular and influential like the Beatles, Led Zepplin and The Who but popularity by itself is not an indicator of lasting influence. More people might remember Creep in 50 years time but more people making music will be influenced by Kid A and Amnesiac.

I didn't realise that the debate was purely based around bands making music, and not merely music, in and of itself. Hence, "Do you mean the field of popular music? Or music in general?"

Oasis were influenced by T-Rex, Stone Roses, The Smiths, and other bands who never topped the charts. Similarly, they were influenced by The Beatles and The Sex Pistols. I would be very surprised if a band ever exists that solely looks to post-OK Computer Radiohead as their influence!!!!

ntlbell

glord wrote: »

To measure Radioheads influence all you have to look at is the amount of covers that are done of there songs.If you type 'Radiohead cover' in on youtube youll get Gnarls Barkley,John Mayer,Punch Brothers(very talented progressive Bluegrass band),Scala and Kolacny Brothers,Moby.There isnt the same result for Coldplay.Some of these songs that they are covering are more than ten years old so if they play them after that amount of time its safe to say that Radiohead will not be forgotten and are very influential

I'm not sure cover frequency = inflencial

there has been some real tripe from many bands covered endless over the years.

what's the most covered radiohead song by the way?

Kold

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Please tell me you are being ironic here. The whole "Radiohead are the most original entity which ever existed" brigade are arguing on what they think will happen in the future. That's what this humble Oasis fan might call opinion, not fact.

I'd look to music polls, which consistently place OK Computer and The Bends above Hail to the Thief as my evidence. This whole debate is about opinion and perception though, if one is to read the title.

Music polls made by Q and NME and the like? I'd term myself as a pretty big music enthusiast but I've never submitted votes for that. In fact I'd say those polls are skewed HUGELY in favour of their readership which, is more aimed at a specific demographic than you seem to think.
Sales are a pretty bad indicator too when you think about how much music is a. given away for free these days b. downloaded illegally.
Greatest musical albums is always going to be a personal choice and for most Radiohead fans I know, Kid A/Amnesiac/In Rainbows/OK Computer tend to be the most popular (personal experience I know but I do often go onto greenplastic.com and atease which you can probably assume has people who are more than casually aquainted with RH's music.)
The Bends is more of an entry level album, a great rock album, but viewed as being before their peak. I find that people who state this as their favourite often have difficulty with electronic music for whatever reason.

ntlbell wrote: »

No.

Where radiohead get plaudits for being "brave" it's blatantly taken from other artists who actually were fairly creative.

Coldplay in general are just a bit bland.

So in real terms does it really matter?

If bands in the future are influenced by coldplay they'll probably be fairly bland too and if it's radiohead they'll be slightly less bland because coldplay decided to copy a more creative band.

deep breath.

Bleh, I go to experimental music gigs often enough. Even a lot of these just sound like other musicians. Is it enjoyable? Sometimes. Originality and innovation is a great thing to hear but as I said, nothing is completely new. All art is referencing something prior whether consciously or unconsciously. I think Radiohead make far more interesting music than Coldplay. I actually think one of the biggest differences between the band is that Radiohead don't seem to really give a sh*t what people think of their music. If you look at Thom post-OKC you see a nervous wreck of a man and now you see a confident guy making the music he loves and a lot of the time throwing it out for free. So yeah, this is bravery.

I put nutmeg in my bolognese sauce (amongst other random **** I have in my spice cupboard, I also put 4 times the tomato purée most recipes have), got this from my mum. Doubt it's unique. Do I take pride in Bol'a'la'Kold? Hells yeah. I reckon it's way better than most of the generic, boring bolognese sauces I've tried. It's the end result really, it's not my mum's recipe, it's just tailored to how I like it. ****'s good too.

ntlbell

Kold wrote: »

Music polls made by Q and NME and the like? I'd term myself as a pretty big music enthusiast but I've never submitted votes for that. In fact I'd say those polls are skewed HUGELY in favour of their readership which, is more aimed at a specific demographic than you seem to think.
Sales are a pretty bad indicator too when you think about how much music is a. given away for free these days b. downloaded illegally.
Greatest musical albums is always going to be a personal choice and for most Radiohead fans I know, Kid A/Amnesiac/In Rainbows/OK Computer tend to be the most popular (personal experience I know but I do often go onto greenplastic.com and atease which you can probably assume has people who are more than casually aquainted with RH's music.)
The Bends is more of an entry level album, a great rock album, but viewed as being before their peak. I find that people who state this as their favourite often have difficulty with electronic music for whatever reason.




Bleh, I go to experimental music gigs often enough. Even a lot of these just sound like other musicians. Is it enjoyable? Sometimes. Originality and innovation is a great thing to hear but as I said, nothing is completely new. All art is referencing something prior whether consciously or unconsciously. I think Radiohead make far more interesting music than Coldplay. I actually think one of the biggest differences between the band is that Radiohead don't seem to really give a sh*t what people think of their music. If you look at Thom post-OKC you see a nervous wreck of a man and now you see a confident guy making the music he loves and a lot of the time throwing it out for free. So yeah, this is bravery.

I put nutmeg in my bolognese sauce (amongst other random **** I have in my spice cupboard, I also put 4 times the tomato purée most recipes have), got this from my mum. Doubt it's unique. Do I take pride in Bol'a'la'Kold? Hells yeah. I reckon it's way better than most of the generic, boring bolognese sauces I've tried. It's the end result really, it's not my mum's recipe, it's just tailored to how I like it. ****'s good too.

Right, But I don't think you're going to have much of a colanary impact on many chef's

glord

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USKF_bJxWd0 This cover is amazing and the musicians are top class so thats why they can be considered influential.This is later radiohead stuff too.These also cover the strokes which are great too.I dont know whats the most covered song but its probably Creep

ntlbell

glord wrote: »

I dont know whats the most covered song but its probably Creep

Very brave of them

Android 666

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I didn't realise that the debate was purely based around bands making music, and not merely music, in and of itself. Hence, "Do you mean the field of popular music? Or music in general?"

What other way do you measure a band's influence by? The ability to make people wear crap clothes? Because Bay City Rollers are as influential as Oasis in that regards.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Oasis were influenced by T-Rex, Stone Roses, The Smiths, and other bands who never topped the charts. Similarly, they were influenced by The Beatles and The Sex Pistols. I would be very surprised if a band ever exists that solely looks to post-OK Computer Radiohead as their influence!!!!

Kid A is considered by many to be one of the best albums of the noughties. Considering it looked to many be commercial suicide at the time of its release, it managed to top the charts in America. Showing that you could follow your muse wherever it took you and still make music that was popular and powerful will be more influential than a lot of the bands that choose to paint by numbers during that period. Just as REM were told by many that refusing to tour and make music on mandolins in the 90s was a sure path to obscurity. Instead it helped them produce one of the most albums ever made with Automatic for the People.

Kid A is a monumental album that will have a lasting appeal that few albums from the decade will enjoy. I'll confess, I didn't care much for it when it came out. But as the years elapsed and I listened to it again I gained a huge admiration and then love for it. And funnily enough it was the King of Limbs coming out and dipping into their back catalogue that brought about that love for it. At this stage the Bends and OK computer have kind of worn themselves out for me but what they produced afterwards I find so appealing. Actually the King of Limbs has probably become my favourite of theirs purely because it was the perfect accompaniment to my lunchtime walks in the woods. In Rainbows though, doesn't do anything for me.

The influence your going to see with the likes of Radiohead is probably going to be more on the electronic music end of things tbf so I can understand that maybe you can't comprehend them having much influence when you look at it through the prism of indie and pop music in general.

karaokeman

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I've been listening to Coldplay (or Starfish, as real fans call them!) since you were in nappies!

I'm 20.

CiaranMT

Just saw the thread title on the homepage and thought I'd post this:

<snip>

We've had that picture before, it got reported before. Please be sound. Violence isn't sound.

Kold

ntlbell wrote: »

Right, But I don't think you're going to have much of a colanary impact on many chef's

With the right PR campaign...

Oasis_Dublin

Kold wrote: »

Music polls made by Q and NME and the like? I'd term myself as a pretty big music enthusiast but I've never submitted votes for that. In fact I'd say those polls are skewed HUGELY in favour of their readership which, is more aimed at a specific demographic than you seem to think.

Perhaps if we look at this without any outrageous assumptions, no one is claiming that NME/Q have a specific market which they aim at. However, you can't dismiss the opinions of the publications just because you don't agree with the journalists. In the same way that I can't disregard the opinions of Metal Hammer just because I don't agree with them

Kold wrote: »

Sales are a pretty bad indicator too when you think about how much music is a. given away for free these days b. downloaded illegally.

We can't trust sales or polls in magazines. Right so. Can you tell me how people who count decide what the most influential music is then please.

Kold wrote: »

Greatest musical albums is always going to be a personal choice and for most Radiohead fans I know, Kid A/Amnesiac/In Rainbows/OK Computer tend to be the most popular (personal experience I know but I do often go onto greenplastic.com and atease which you can probably assume has people who are more than casually aquainted with RH's music.)

I know my mates like The Bends and OK Computer more. (personal experience I know but I do often go onto NME.com and Q which you can probably assume has people who are more than casually aquainted with RH's music.)

Kold wrote: »

The Bends is more of an entry level album, a great rock album, but viewed as being before their peak. I find that people who state this as their favourite often have difficulty with electronic music for whatever reason.

"Entry level album." People who "have difficulty with electronic music." Oh dear.

Oasis_Dublin

karaokeman wrote: »

I'm 20.

From the only source of useful knowledge in the world (!), "In writing and often subtitles, especially in British English, a (!) symbol (an exclamation point within parentheses) implies that a character has made an obviously sarcastic comment e.g.: "Ooh, a sarcasm detector. That's a really useful invention(!)"

Oasis_Dublin

Android 666 wrote: »

So what you are saying is that popularity during a bands existence equates to their lasting influence?... What other way do you measure a band's influence by? The ability to make people wear crap clothes? Because Bay City Rollers are as influential as Oasis in that regards.

Blatantly hypocritical.

Android 666 wrote: »

Kid A is considered by many to be one of the best albums of the noughties. Considering it looked to many be commercial suicide at the time of its release, it managed to top the charts in America. Showing that you could follow your muse wherever it took you and still make music that was popular and powerful will be more influential than a lot of the bands that choose to paint by numbers during that period. Just as REM were told by many that refusing to tour and make music on mandolins in the 90s was a sure path to obscurity. Instead it helped them produce one of the most albums ever made with Automatic for the People.

And it's considered by many not to be one of the best albums of the 1990s. Your opinion versus mine.

It managed to top the charts in the US, fine. But one could easily argue, using your logic, that it made sure no other Radiohead release reached the summit of the US album charts until In Rainbows. Was that because it was so amazing, or because it didn't make the connection with people? I'll let you decide.

Android 666 wrote: »

Kid A is a monumental album that will have a lasting appeal that few albums from the decade will enjoy. I'll confess, I didn't care much for it when it came out. But as the years elapsed and I listened to it again I gained a huge admiration and then love for it. And funnily enough it was the King of Limbs coming out and dipping into their back catalogue that brought about that love for it. At this stage the Bends and OK computer have kind of worn themselves out for me but what they produced afterwards I find so appealing. Actually the King of Limbs has probably become my favourite of theirs purely because it was the perfect accompaniment to my lunchtime walks in the woods. In Rainbows though, doesn't do anything for me.

King of Limbs is Radiohead's best album?! Good Lord.

Android 666 wrote: »

The influence your going to see with the likes of Radiohead is probably going to be more on the electronic music end of things tbf so I can understand that maybe you can't comprehend them having much influence when you look at it through the prism of indie and pop music in general.

It's sort of hard to keep discussing the topic with people when one person argues that popularity isn't important (but Radiohead absolutely are) and the next person argues that album sales are of course important (and Radiohead still absolutely are).

I'm sure they have influenced nobodies with their later work, and for that I commend them. I'll stick to the prism that includes Oasis, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Daft Punk, Led Zeppelin and The Chemical Brothers amongst many others. I'm not sure of the name of that prism, mind you.

Kold

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Perhaps if we look at this without any outrageous assumptions, no one is claiming that NME/Q have a specific market which they aim at. However, you can't dismiss the opinions of the publications just because you don't agree with the journalists. In the same way that I can't disregard the opinions of Metal Hammer just because I don't agree with them

But... I can. As far as I'm concerned, the readership of Q/NME are as qualified to judge the greatest albums of all time as the readership of Good Housekeeping. At least the GH readers aren't subjected to musical propaganda monthly. That's right, it's in the magazine's best interest to hype up certain bands. The amount of advertising in these mags and NME have some hand in some festivals don't they?

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

We can't trust sales or polls in magazines. Right so. Can you tell me how people who count decide what the most influential music is then please.

It's tricky alright, I run with the people who listen to the most music and have the most knowledge. You have to use your best judgement for determining who these might be.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I know my mates like The Bends and OK Computer more. (personal experience I know but I do often go onto NME.com and Q which you can probably assume has people who are more than casually aquainted with RH's music.)

From this evidence only, I'm swayed to the idea that your mates have terrible taste.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

"Entry level album." People who "have difficulty with electronic music." Oh dear.

You gonna make an argument here?

CiaranMT

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

King of Limbs is Radiohead's best album?! Good Lord.

Just on this, Android clearly states that it is his favourite album for a specific reason. He's not saying that it's regarded as their best by the general populace.

Btw, In Rainbows for me is fantastic. Love that album.

Oasis_Dublin

Kold wrote: »

But... I can. As far as I'm concerned, the readership of Q/NME are as qualified to judge the greatest albums of all time as the readership of Good Housekeeping. At least the GH readers aren't subjected to musical propaganda monthly. That's right, it's in the magazine's best interest to hype up certain bands. The amount of advertising in these mags and NME have some hand in some festivals don't they?

You're entitled to your opinion.

Kold wrote: »

It's tricky alright, I run with the people who listen to the most music and have the most knowledge. You have to use your best judgement for determining who these might be.

I do the same thing. I think my friends are more informed than your friends. But they are absolutely entitled to their opinions. That last point cannot be over emphasised.

Kold wrote: »

From this evidence only, I'm swayed to the idea that your mates have terrible taste.

Writes the dude whose friends like later day Radiohead over The Bends and OK Computer. Look, mate, you and your friends are absolutely entitled to your opinions. You really, really are. Heck, people without level 10 third level degrees are allowed to vote LOLZ (!)

Kold wrote: »

You gonna make an argument here?

God no, I'm telling you that you're opinion is wrong (!).

Android 666

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Blatantly hypocritical.

Okay, enlighten me. How am I being hypocritical?

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

And it's considered by many not to be one of the best albums of the 1990s. Your opinion versus mine.

That's fair enough but I'm pretty sure if I met someone that said they didn't like that album I know I'd have nothing in common. It's one of those albums for me. Your opinion versus mine etc...

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It managed to top the charts in the US, fine. But one could easily argue, using your logic, that it made sure no other Radiohead release reached the summit of the US album charts until In Rainbows. Was that because it was so amazing, or because it didn't make the connection with people? I'll let you decide.

Hmm, let's say I use 'my logic' and say if the album was so alienating how were the band able to ever make it to the top of the charts again?

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

King of Limbs is Radiohead's best album?! Good Lord.

I said it was my favourite based on why I enjoy it. Maybe I should keep schtum and stick with general opinion so as not to look stupid?

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It's sort of hard to keep discussing the topic with people when one person argues that popularity isn't important (but Radiohead absolutely are) and the next person argues that album sales are of course important (and Radiohead still absolutely are).

Sigh, Radiohead are an example of a band that are both popular and influential but that doesn't mean popularity equates to influence. I've said that already. You seem to be ignoring it. There are bands that weren't popular but influential, one that were popular but not influential and bands that managed to combine the two. The Beatles were one, The Stones, Nick Cave, REM, The Smiths, Oasis, Blur...

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I'm sure they have influenced nobodies with their later work, and for that I commend them. I'll stick to the prism that includes Oasis, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Daft Punk, Led Zeppelin and The Chemical Brothers amongst many others. I'm not sure of the name of that prism, mind you.

And I'm sure all the bands you've listed have influenced nobodies. What's your point?

BTW, I think it's called the student disco prism...

Oasis_Dublin

Android 666 wrote: »

Okay, enlighten me. How am I being hypocritical?

Enlighten?! That's probably over stating it a little. I mean I'm an amazing person, of course, but telling someone why they are being hypocritical really should not prove to be an enlightening experience for the recipient.

Surely questioning how a band can be called influential if they are popular and then questioning how else a band's influence be measured without, using their popularity levels, is hypocritical.

Android 666 wrote: »

That's fair enough but I'm pretty sure if I met someone that said they didn't like that album I know I'd have nothing in common. It's one of those albums for me. Your opinion versus mine etc...

Woah. I know plenty or people who don't like Blur by Blur. It doesn't mean that I'd assume I don't like them as people.

Android 666 wrote: »

Hmm, let's say I use 'my logic' and say if the album was so alienating how were the band able to ever make it to the top of the charts again?

New marketing ploy. Pay what you like! => buzz => sales => #1. It's funny that the album with the bizarre marketing ploy is the only album to have made it to the summit in the US since Kid A.

I'm also not sure why success in the US is seen as being important. It's obviously got everything to do with the perceived hyper-intelligence levels of the average American and nothing to do with selling records.

Android 666 wrote: »

I said it was my favourite based on why I enjoy it. Maybe I should keep schtum and stick with general opinion so as not to look stupid?

It's hard to keep up when you inter splice "facts" and opinions so regularly.

Android 666 wrote: »

Sigh, Radiohead are an example of a band that are both popular and influential but that doesn't mean popularity equates to influence. I've said that already. You seem to be ignoring it. There are bands that weren't popular but influential, one that were popular but not influential and bands that managed to combine the two. The Beatles were one, The Stones, Nick Cave, REM, The Smiths, Oasis, Blur...

I'm not ignoring it. Name really popular bands that didn't influence anything that came after them.

Android 666 wrote: »

And I'm sure all the bands you've listed have influenced nobodies. What's your point?

Huh, I'm not sure where you've pulled that out of but it certainly wasn't suggested in anything I've written. I've been known to be a fan of Oasis, who have been known to influence one or two bands in their day.

Android 666 wrote: »

BTW, I think it's called the student disco prism...

I think it's called the superior opinion on music prism. Those who like post-OK Computer Radiohead are in the student disco prism.

See, I can be self-righteous and self-important too!

Kold

This thread just went full retard. I'm out.

Oasis_Dublin

Kold wrote: »

This thread just went full retard. I'm out.

I'd scurry away, if I was writing what you were writing, as well. :cool:

Sinfonia

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I'm not ignoring it. Name really popular bands that didn't influence anything that came after them.

Coldplay.

Oasis_Dublin

Sinfonia wrote: »

Coldplay.

Keane. Next?

CiaranMT

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Keane. Next?

Keane have been around longer than Coldplay. So they didn't come "after them".

jaffacakesyum

Haven't read the whole thread but my God, music snobbery really really annoys me. I know it shouldn't but it's just one of my pet peeves.

I listen to pretty much every genre of music; rock, rap, reggae, opera, hip hope, metal, pop, jazz - you name it. I listen to 'good' music and I listen to 'bad' music and I love it all.

I do disagree that the 'music is subjective' argument is bullsh1t. It's not. Music taste IS subjective - you can't tell somebody they're wrong for liking a song. You can tell them they're wrong for thinking it's technically a good song with original lyrics, good musical composition coming from a talented artist. It's very easy to argue something like that.

For example, take two songs from my iPod - Flo Rida's "Club Can't Even Handle Me" versus Jeff Buckley's "Last Goodbye"

The music snob in you will immediately say 'FloRida is a load of crap. That song is sh1t. You are an idiot for liking that.' Well, no it's not sh1t because I enjoy listening to it. Many other people do also. I acknowledge that Flo Rida is in no way even close to as talented as Jeff Buckley. If we analyse Flo Rida's song, it is not very original, it resembles many other songs that have been in the charts the last few years (e.g. I Gotta Feeling, any other David Guetta song..), the lyrics aren't very meaningful, even as a party tune where lyrics aren't going to be very meaningful it still doesn't bring much unique qualities to the table. Flo Rida uses autotune, wouldn't be able to sing the song live etc. etc.

We can analyse songs and say why they're not technically great songs. But we can't dismiss them as crap because to be honest with you, if I hear that Flo Rida song on a night out, it makes me feel good. I enjoy listening to the song, I can dance to it. That's not 'crap' to me.

jaffacakesyum

CiaranMT wrote: »

Keane have been around longer than Coldplay. So they didn't come "after them".

No they haven't. Coldplay formed in 1996, with their debut album released in 2000 and their second album released in 2002. Keane formed in 1997 releasing their debut album in 2004, a good two years after two very successful albums from Coldplay. I would maintain they were an influence on Keane. You can hear it in their music. Both great bands in my opinion. Obviously many people will disagree. I maintain that if Coldplay were not as popular/mainstream, a lot of people who hate them today would actually like their music. It's just not 'cool' to like Coldplay.

Other bands that may have been influenced by Coldplay off the top of my head...The Feeling, OneRepublic, The Parlotones...

karaokeman

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haven't read the whole thread but my God, music snobbery really really annoys me. I know it shouldn't but it's just one of my pet peeves.

I listen to pretty much every genre of music; rock, rap, reggae, opera, hip hope, metal, pop, jazz - you name it. I listen to 'good' music and I listen to 'bad' music and I love it all.

I do disagree that the 'music is subjective' argument is bullsh1t. It's not. Music taste IS subjective - you can't tell somebody they're wrong for liking a song. You can tell them they're wrong for thinking it's technically a good song with original lyrics, good musical composition coming from a talented artist. It's very easy to argue something like that.

For example, take two songs from my iPod - Flo Rida's "Club Can't Even Handle Me" versus Jeff Buckley's "Last Goodbye"

The music snob in you will immediately say 'FloRida is a load of crap. That song is sh1t. You are an idiot for liking that.' Well, no it's not sh1t because I enjoy listening to it. Many other people do also. I acknowledge that Flo Rida is in no way even close to as talented as Jeff Buckley. If we analyse Flo Rida's song, it is not very original, it resembles many other songs that have been in the charts the last few years (e.g. I Gotta Feeling, any other David Guetta song..), the lyrics aren't very meaningful, even as a party tune where lyrics aren't going to be very meaningful it still doesn't bring much unique qualities to the table. Flo Rida uses autotune, wouldn't be able to sing the song live etc. etc.

We can analyse songs and say why they're not technically great songs. But we can't dismiss them as crap because to be honest with you, if I hear that Flo Rida song on a night out, it makes me feel good. I enjoy listening to the song, I can dance to it. That's not 'crap' to me.

^ Point of this thread, in a nutshell.

Likewise I listen to Girls Aloud AND Guns 'n' Roses.

The music snob would generally say "oh those two bands are completely different, you like one genre or the other". Absolute bull**** if you ask me, even Duff McKagan the former bassist admitted to being a fan of GA, if he can obviously so can the fans.

If I listened to only one genre of music all the time I would be bored to tears, variety is vital.

nlgbbbblth

After dabbling with pop and the new romantics in the early 1980s I became a full-on indie kid by 1984 / 1985.

In 1988 I started to have doubts (and look outside white boys with fringes and guitars). By the early 1990s I had come to the conclusion that the indie snobs are the most narrow-minded and judgmental of them all.

Oasis_Dublin

CiaranMT wrote: »

Keane have been around longer than Coldplay. So they didn't come "after them".

Well they were formed after Coldplay and released their debut LP after Parachutes. So that's blatantly wrong and my original point still stand.s