You really do fail to see the underlying concepts at hand don't you?
Your first post:
Premise 1: ...music everywhere, since 2000.
Premise 2: Music which is dumbed down, ala simplistic in nature, which reduces the talent required to be a 'successful' guitarist or musician.
Premise 3: There are bands, but they are few, which are ok. Emphasis on 'everything else gives me the shits'.
Premise 4: Reversion to rock during the 60s, 70s, reasoning included that these were 'far more complex, powerful and better quality' as opposed to 'what is being created now'.
Premise 5: Distinction between Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and The Beatles. Reasoning given via 2nd post: 'I found that the beatels got a bit boring with some of there silly songs, but they had a fair few good ones.'
2nd Post:
Premise 6: Being in a school jazz band makes your tastes unique, and appreciation for songs which are really 'unique, complex in either theory or style.'
Premise 7: Offers reasons for 'dislike' of contemporary rock.
- over use of repetition
- subject matter
- solo's being too 'rigid'
- chord patterns > riffs
- uniqueness is gone
Premise 8: Additional criteria, lack of sentences = lack of creativity.
From here on, things get interesting
Admission that there are in fact musical likes which stem from non-technically proficient bands. (Probably a misunderstood point here, since the original quote was saying exactly what I had said).
Musical technicality leading to musical enjoyment, given.
Given.
Now we come to the crux of the matter:
So:
- Simple is ok, but no bands to your knowledge have done this.
- it is 'all' just raw chords, simple nature again.
- More technical stuff will be appreciated more, but the simple stuff, which can be ok, isnt present in contemporary music.
Conclusion: Technical skill therefore should be used as a medium for musical appreciation.
.
Now, I've been arguing that this is a flawed way of logic. It has nothing to do with individual tastes, perspectives and all that other crap.
You've surmised that a) the contemporary rock scene is overtly simplistic, b) low quality, c) does not hold up to older bands/releases.
Yes, calling you a musical elitist was meant as an insult. Why? Because as I stated, the logic is flawed. Technical appreciation is one thing, but to throw a blanket over and say that the contemporary music is all just simple 4 chord chuggers is a pretty big statement.
Then you throw in, the "back in the old days" argument, by saying things were better back then. Now you have said that the reasons for these are a) they were technically better b) more original c) better quality.
I retorted by asking what is wrong with simple songs, you answered nothing. So therefore, there is nothing wrong with simple songs, like the creedence clearwater revival. But what exactly made these songs better?
It manages to produce a unique sound. So here we have it.
The one remaining point, you want more 'unique' sounding music. See I would agree with you, that there are more things which need more uniqueness to them. But is it really that bad to sound like someone else? Especially since the early trend-setters basically laid the foundations for contemporary music, and some continue to do so. The Rolling Stones' unique sound has been replicated by many bands. Led Zeppelin's songs contained unique raw vocals and use of new effects, same as Jimi Hendrix.
But where were these artists getting their influence from? Probably country, through players such as Chet Atkins, big-bands like Duke Ellington, soloists like Chuck Berry.
So my point is, for contemporary music to 'give you the shits' is not a fault of contemporary music, but rather your own. As you and others have stated, commercial channels focus on a minute level of exposure. So go find something unique, music isn't just what's on the radio.
And to discount the Beatles as the driving force for most of the contemporary music world. For shame.
