I have a friend who is ignorant towards modern music

[WakeUpBlondie]

He only listens to pre-70's music, while it's great stuff, he completely neglects the great music still being made. I'm going to make him a mix tape of the best modern music around, i know it's very broad, but i was thinking Radiohead, Death Cab, etc. Easy listening, etc. Recs?

[willvc]

This Will Destroy You, Lydia, and of course, Linkin Park.

[WakeUpBlondie]

oh, and metro station. best band of our generation, hands down. such innovative playing styles.

[willvc]

Hell yeah.

[wewascontenders]

let him listen to what he wants.

[abbysmith]

let him listen to what he wants.
I agree. Let him like what he wants to.

[WakeUpBlondie]

let him listen to what he wants.

There are thousands upon thousands of bands/artists he has missed since the 70's, I'm trying to highlight the best from our generation, fool.

[Jake Denning]

o8T095mFdW8


there you go.

[The Personist]

The Libertines, obvi.

[shit stroll]

none of the bands listed so far.

[The Personist]

The libertines.

[makeshiftmind]

The libertines.
Number of your posts mention The Libertines> The posts that do not mention them

[The Personist]

Number of your posts mention The Libertines> The posts that do not mention them
Duh.

[briewer]

The Microphones/Mount Eerie, because I think I'm contractually obliged to mention them wherever David mentions the Libertines.

[Yellowcard2006]

Brand New. Thursday. The White Stripes (I don't really like them, but I respect them)

[briewer]

Soulja Boy, natch.

[undonesweater93]

Try some modern poppier stuff like fun. or maybe Portugal. The Man.

[x togepi x]

mars volta.

they spent their whole career stealing that sound and i know a lot of people that are like your friend who like them.

[KingJohn_654]

"i wanna lick your mother's snatch" by The Anal Sprouts needs to be on there
not a real song or band...yet

[HometownHero]

The Twang

[FueledByFrodo]

The way modern music is going, he's probably better off.

[Jaimehere]

Anal Cunt

[The Personist]

The Libertines > Modern music

[CollectiveConfusion]

i'm not sure if you want to put radiohead on a mix, to me they're much better when you listen to their albums as a whole

[brentywat]

old weezer. im talking pinkerton or blue. ben folds, bright eyes, elliot smith, m ward, j tillman, the shins. obviously radiohead and death cab like you already said. try bands that take really obvious influence from music before their time. that might help him see the connection between what he listens to and what music is being made today.

[wewascontenders]

There are thousands upon thousands of bands/artists he has missed since the 70's, I'm trying to highlight the best from our generation, fool.

laughing out loud, half wit!

[Asmodeus]

sounds like your friend is a douchebag

[AndrewIcex]

I agree with the people saying he can like what he likes.

[LCT Music]

Definitely something from Brand New's Deja Entendu.
maybe Okay I Believe You, But My Tommy Gun Don't ?

[ohitsmark]

This thread needs more Brokencyde. :D

[Inc.onsolable]

U kno ignorant means he hasn't herd it right? If he has, and be refuses to, then he's stupid. ;)

[Inc.onsolable]

oh, and metro station. best band of our generation, hands down. such innovative playing styles.

Lmbo!!! Gr8 sarcasm! Lolololololololololol.

[kazuma_ootaro28]

Ted Leo & the Pharmacists
Neutral Milk Hotel
The Strokes (something off Is This It)
The Rapture
MuteMath "Burden"
Grizzly Bear
Andrew Bird

I second the Elliott Smith rec.

[CarouselBoy]

Pre 70's? As in he doesn't listen to stuff from the 70's? Wtf what's wrong with him.

[kearn1tm]

You could recommend some of the current crop of Garage Rock Revivalist bands (some of which implement elements of Noise that originated in the late '70s/early '80s, but it's still relatively 'retro' in sound).

Black Lips
The Dirtbombs
Epsilons
Heartless Bastards
Jay Reatard
The Kills
King Khan and the Shrines
The Muslims
Pink and Brown
The Spits
The Strange Boys
Supercharger
Thee Oh Sees
Vivian Girls

[kearn1tm]

He only listens to pre-70's music, while it's great stuff, he completely neglects the great music still being made. I'm going to make him a mix tape of the best modern music around, i know it's very broad, but i was thinking Radiohead, Death Cab, etc. Easy listening, etc. Recs?

Judging from your favorite bands, I'd say you both are quite ignorant on modern music. Ba-zing!

Let the dude listen to what he likes. It's not as if anyone is lambasting you for your horrendous taste...save for me. I'm doing that.

[Cøltøn]

fun., Brand New, Manchester Orchestra, blink, Thursday, Thrice, Modest Mouse

[danieltgrear]

fun.
the format.
ben folds.
playradioplay.
electric president.
coldplay.
she&him.
copeland.
guster.
counting crows.
bradley hathaway.
vampire weekend.
postal service.
born ruffians.
stars.

[secretsociety92]

Jet, The Black Crowes, Airbourne but to be honest if all listens to is what you say then he will eventually get bored and move on, I should know as I did.

[porttheman]

This Will Destroy You, Lydia, and of course, Linkin Park.

hahahahaha


have him check out Radio Moscow

[willvc]

undaoaf!

[Debut_Fin]

I agree with the people saying he can like what he likes.

i agree that nobody should like music just because they're told to, but it's stupid to ignore 30 years of music because you only like to listen to stuff from one era. good music is always being created

[briewer]

Jeez, you guys, most of the these suggestions just straight up suck. Don't quit your day job and go into the music suggesting business.

[AndrewIcex]

i agree that nobody should like music just because they're told to, but it's stupid to ignore 30 years of music because you only like to listen to stuff from one era. good music is always being created
I understand that... but really, if someone does not want it... there is nothing anyone can do... you can suggest but as he declines... you should just give up and let him like what he likes.
Jeez, you guys, most of the these suggestions just straight up suck. Don't quit your day job and go into the music suggesting business.
Huh?

[briewer]

Huh?
I think it's spelled out pretty clearly. These suggestions suck. You'd have a hard time finding work suggesting music, because you guys suck at it. Sure, professions involving music suggestions are hard to come by in the first place, but that's besides the point. Most of the music released in the fucking NIXON administration is too modern for him, and people are suggesting things like Thursday, Portugal. The Man, blink 182, Coldplay, Postal Service, etc.? Jesus, get your heads out of your scene asses, you guys.

[AndrewIcex]

I think it's spelled out pretty clearly. These suggestions suck. You'd have a hard time finding work suggesting music, because you guys suck at it. Sure, professions involving music suggestions are hard to come by in the first place, but that's besides the point. Most of the music released in the fucking NIXON administration is too modern for him, and people are suggesting things like Thursday, Portugal. The Man, blink 182, Coldplay, Postal Service, etc.? Jesus, get your heads out of your scene asses, you guys.
Well.. alright, but who are you to judge someone on music? Isn't everything just your/their choice? Whether other agree or not?

[bedwettingcosmo]

undaoaf!

This.

[briewer]

Well.. alright, but who are you to judge someone on music? Isn't everything just your/their choice? Whether other agree or not?
It has nothing to do with the music they listen to. I don't care what they like, and even if I did I'd have a rough go of it here because everyone effing listens to that music here. I'm saying, as a suggestion to someone whose knowledge of the timeline of music ends at Woodstock, that these suggestions are terrible. No way this guy is going to like anything anyone has listed (with the possible exception of Todd's), and I think (know) it's a lot of ignorance on the part of the people making the suggestions. Kraftwerk is too modern for your tastes? Then try out the Postal Service. The whole punk movement is beyond your music palate? Then how about blink 182? These suggestions are all completely tone deaf.

[AndrewIcex]

It has nothing to do with the music they listen to. I don't care what they like, and even if I did I'd have a rough go of it here because everyone effing listens to that music here. I'm saying, as a suggestion to someone whose knowledge of the timeline of music ends at Woodstock, that these suggestions are terrible. No way this guy is going to like anything anyone has listed (with the possible exception of Todd's), and I think (know) it's a lot of ignorance on the part of the people making the suggestions. Kraftwerk is too modern for your tastes? Then try out the Postal Service. The whole punk movement is beyond your music palate? Then how about blink 182? These suggestions are all completely tone deaf.
I understand that.. comparing the two ages of music.. but I think what they think is... why not expand the taste as well? Not just give bands that sound like the bands that once played back then, ya know? Well, that is what I am taking from it.

[briewer]

I understand that.. comparing the two ages of music.. but I think what they think is... why not expand the taste as well? Not just give bands that sound like the bands that once played back then, ya know? Well, that is what I am taking from it.
Yeah, but wouldn't you think easing him into it would be the best idea? Like, start with punk music and work your way chronologically to pop punk and the rest of the current scene?

[AndrewIcex]

Yeah, but wouldn't you think easing him into it would be the best idea? Like, start with punk music and work your way chronologically to pop punk and the rest of the current scene?
I mean, yes of course... transitioning would definitely be the ideal way to convert someone to modern tunes, but it looked like you were bashing people's music taste, which is what I was pointing out.

[briewer]

I mean, yes of course... transitioning would definitely be the ideal way to convert someone to modern tunes, but it looked like you were bashing people's music taste, which is what I was pointing out.
Not at all. I just think they were poor in context.

[AndrewIcex]

Not at all. I just think they were poor in context.
What was poor in context?

[briewer]

What was poor in context?
The suggested music.

[AndrewIcex]

The suggested music.
Maybe so... but everyone has different reasons for liking certain music and music in general... like... someone might not understand cause they don't feel the same emotion as someone else... and that emotion is hard to explain, ya know? That is why I think people make threads about a certain band and people don't understand, they just say "Use the official" but people get caught up in a song or something. AND when there is a thread like this, that gives those people an opportunity to tell what they love so much to other people in a suggested type setting cause someone actually cares.

[bladerdude360]

o8T095mFdW8


there you go.
Such a quality song.

[yellowhouse]

minus the bear

[BrennanHickson]

There are thousands upon thousands of bands/artists he has missed since the 70's, I'm trying to highlight the best from our generation, fool.
You haven't missed thousands upon thousands of bands/artists since the 70's?

[Sic Transit Zeb]

I think it's spelled out pretty clearly. These suggestions suck. You'd have a hard time finding work suggesting music, because you guys suck at it. Sure, professions involving music suggestions are hard to come by in the first place, but that's besides the point. Most of the music released in the fucking NIXON administration is too modern for him, and people are suggesting things like Thursday, Portugal. The Man, blink 182, Coldplay, Postal Service, etc.? Jesus, get your heads out of your scene asses, you guys.

Music suggestion as a job? Stop being a fucking retard. Those are good. If I were to suggest I'd say Portugal. The Man, Thursday, Brand New...etc. They are not scene bands.

[ZzyzxScarecrow]

social d!

[briewer]

Music suggestion as a job? Stop being a fucking retard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

You're doing it wrong.

Those are good.
It has nothing to do with the music they listen to. I don't care what they like, and even if I did I'd have a rough go of it here because everyone effing listens to that music here. I'm saying, as a suggestion to someone whose knowledge of the timeline of music ends at Woodstock, that these suggestions are terrible. No way this guy is going to like anything anyone has listed (with the possible exception of Todd's), and I think (know) it's a lot of ignorance on the part of the people making the suggestions. Kraftwerk is too modern for your tastes? Then try out the Postal Service. The whole punk movement is beyond your music palate? Then how about blink 182? These suggestions are all completely tone deaf.

If I were to suggest I'd say Portugal. The Man, Thursday, Brand New...etc. They are not scene bands.
Yeah, they are scene bands.

You're batting a thousand today.

[xtheaudition]

Jimmy Eat World

[The Personist]

Hahahaha

Brand New is a scene band, they just pretend not to be. Ridiculous.

[owiseone35]

Put on some Kay Kay and his Weathered Underground and this
0ZkllM8znx4

[TotalCollapse]

Try some modern poppier stuff like fun. or maybe Portugal. The Man.
What I was thinking.

[kearn1tm]

i agree that nobody should like music just because they're told to, but it's stupid to ignore 30 years of music because you only like to listen to stuff from one era. good music is always being created

Why is it stupid? He/she has formulated an opinion, whether absurd or not, about contemporary music. He/she does not care to listen to contemporary music. He/she probably isn't a music enthusiast to the level of some of us who spend out time dialoging about the medium on a message board. Why is it stupid for someone to do what they please and listen to what they like, and not neglect things they don't like?

[kearn1tm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Copy-written, buddy!

[Until The Bombs]

In the vein of Death Cab, I would suggest Nada Surf, particularly Blizzard of '77.

[Debut_Fin]

Why is it stupid? He/she has formulated an opinion, whether absurd or not, about contemporary music. He/she does not care to listen to contemporary music. He/she probably isn't a music enthusiast to the level of some of us who spend out time dialoging about the medium on a message board. Why is it stupid for someone to do what they please and listen to what they like, and not neglect things they don't like?

not liking something because you don't like it is not stupid.
not liking something because of the year it was recorded is stupid.
i don't care who you are. there is no way that there is NO music post-1970 that you don't like.

[x togepi x]

i like how people are trying to act like this dude is missing out on all the great music that came out recently when in reality they just want to convert him over to their musical taste.


drop the act guys.

[briewer]

Copy-written, buddy!
Haha the worst part is I knew it while I was doing it.

[AlinA82688]

well if he likes old shit, maybe Animal Collective, Arcade Fire, Cold War Kids, The Strokes, Kings of Leon, & The Shins

[briewer]

i like how people are trying to act like this dude is missing out on all the great music that came out recently when in reality they just want to convert him over to their musical taste.


drop the act guys.
That, and they're like, "you haven't listened to anything outside of the 60's? What a shame, you're missing out on so much music! Here's a bunch of suggestions from the past five to ten years, because I've obviously missed out on everything pre-2001 and am in the same (or worse) boat as you."

[x togepi x]

That, and they're like, "you haven't listened to anything outside of the 60's? What a shame, you're missing out on so much music! Here's a bunch of suggestions from the past five to ten years, because I've obviously missed out on everything pre-2001 and am in the same (or worse) boat as you."

yeah, and they're not even bands that really have any similarities to old stuff too. Like, i dated a girl who was the same kind of thing, i got her into shoegaze by getting her to listen to some heavy psych bands. it worked because there were bridges. you can't expect someone to go from zappa to brand new just via one simple rec.

but yeah, apparently nothing of value came from the 90s or 80s, but post 2001 is the golden age.

[briewer]

well if he likes old shit, maybe Animal Collective, Arcade Fire, Cold War Kids, The Strokes, Kings of Leon, & The Shins
How are those bands related at all to pre-70's music trends? What common ground is there for you to make these suggestions off of?

[briewer]

yeah, and they're not even bands that really have any similarities to old stuff too. Like, i dated a girl who was the same kind of thing, i got her into shoegaze by getting her to listen to some heavy psych bands. it worked because there were bridges. you can't expect someone to go from zappa to brand new just via one simple rec.

but yeah, apparently nothing of value came from the 90s or 80s, but post 2001 is the golden age.
Exactly. E-high five.

:highfive:

[Fentoooozler]

play a joke on him and load it up with brokencyde and breathe carolina, then insult his generation

[kianacarly]

Brand New? Thursday? Thrice? Really? When you recommend bands and albums to friends, at least try to ease them into it by recommending bands that are closer to their tastes. I doubt he'll be drooling over Full Collapse any time soon.

[xJesusFreakx]

Why is it stupid? He/she has formulated an opinion, whether absurd or not, about contemporary music. He/she does not care to listen to contemporary music. He/she probably isn't a music enthusiast to the level of some of us who spend out time dialoging about the medium on a message board. Why is it stupid for someone to do what they please and listen to what they like, and not neglect things they don't like?

It is stupid for a person to listen to what he/she likes and not what he/she doesn't like because it differs from my musical tastes, and my musical tastes are clearly better than his/hers. Besides, at least I listen to both modern and classic music; I own three CDs by the Beatles.

[The Personist]

It is stupid for a person to listen to what he/she likes and not what he/she doesn't like because it differs from my musical tastes, and my musical tastes are clearly better than his/hers. Besides, at least I listen to both modern and classic music; I own three CDs by the Beatles.
Oh no! Evan hacked Tim's account!

[xJesusFreakx]

Oh no! Evan hacked Tim's account!

. . .

http://www.plugonemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/never-better.jpg

This is the best album of the decade, even though... Well, it's implied.

[ted is lying]

"i wanna lick your mother's snatch" by The Anal Sprouts needs to be on there
not a real song or band...yet
I belive that is a brokencyde song, and also the anal spouts is coming out on there next cd. Feel bad im making fun of them i actually like them. Get Crunk came on at a party last night, lead to awesomeness. :pictures:

[AlinA82688]

How are those bands related at all to pre-70's music trends? What common ground is there for you to make these suggestions off of?
lol they sound older, like they're not from this generation

[murrich]

Tom Waits
Woven Hand
Pixies
Battles
Boards of Canada
My Bloody Valentine
Will Oldham
Eels
Hüsker Dü
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Jens Lekman
Kaki King
Old Crow Medicine Show
Talk Talk
Talking Heads
Slint
Portishead
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
Not Death Cab For Cutie

[kearn1tm]

not liking something because you don't like it is not stupid.
not liking something because of the year it was recorded is stupid.
i don't care who you are. there is no way that there is NO music post-1970 that you don't like.

He/she doesn't enjoy music in the same way as you, and there's clearly something appealing in music pre-1980s, whether it be merely the time period, or an innate sonic difference (which is quite distinguishable) between older music and more contemporary recordings. Stupidity would be to hold your own criteria of "good music" and listening habits up to others and expect them to adhere to it. Stop with the stupidity.

[kearn1tm]

It is stupid for a person to listen to what he/she likes and not what he/she doesn't like because it differs from my musical tastes, and my musical tastes are clearly better than his/hers. Besides, at least I listen to both modern and classic music; I own three CDs by the Beatles.

I agree with this. I mean, he missed out on Kid A and that's the /end of the medium! Kid A? More like Adult Alphabet!

[kearn1tm]

Tom Waits
Woven Hand
Pixies
Battles
Boards of Canada
My Bloody Valentine
Will Oldham
Eels
Hüsker Dü
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Jens Lekman
Kaki King
Old Crow Medicine Show
Talk Talk
Talking Heads
Slint
Portishead
Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds
Not Death Cab For Cutie

Why would you recommend acts like Boards of Canada and Battles whose sound is relatively modern? If you're trying to find certain unifying sonic similarities between recordings of the '60s/'70s and now, IDM artists or Post-Rock poster children aren't wise choices. It reads like you just wanted to show off your cred card. You rock indie hard.

[The Personist]

Rachmaninoff.

[Debut_Fin]

He/she doesn't enjoy music in the same way as you, and there's clearly something appealing in music pre-1980s, whether it be merely the time period, or an innate sonic difference (which is quite distinguishable) between older music and more contemporary recordings. Stupidity would be to hold your own criteria of "good music" and listening habits up to others and expect them to adhere to it. Stop with the stupidity.

dismissing music before you listen to it because of the year it was recorded is stupid.

[x togepi x]

dismissing music before you listen to it because of the year it was recorded is stupid.

responding to posts without actually responding to them is stupid.

[kearn1tm]

dismissing music before you listen to it because of the year it was recorded is stupid.

Did you read my post? Do it again.

responding to posts without actually responding to them is stupid.

Yeah.

[yellowhouse]

How are those bands related at all to pre-70's music trends? What common ground is there for you to make these suggestions off of?

dude, chill out. youre taking this way too seriously. dude wanted people to suggest new music for his friend to listen to, and that's what people are doing. no reason to get all in a fit about it.

[murrich]

Why would you recommend acts like Boards of Canada and Battles whose sound is relatively modern? If you're trying to find certain unifying sonic similarities between recordings of the '60s/'70s and now, IDM artists or Post-Rock poster children aren't wise choices. It reads like you just wanted to show off your cred card. You rock indie hard.

Didn't even read the thread, the first post asked for bands to recommend post 60's, so I recommended some bands I liked post 60's.

Edit: To to OP, why don't you just let him listen to what he wants to listen to?

[briewer]

dude, chill out. youre taking this way too seriously. dude wanted people to suggest new music for his friend to listen to, and that's what people are doing. no reason to get all in a fit about it.
I just asked why she picked them because there's not an obvious tenable connection to the 60's and the music the guy was starting from. There was no harshness to it.

[briewer]

lol they sound older, like they're not from this generation
Eh whatever. You're hot, do whatever you want.

[poi]

i'm ignorant to most music past the 90's, except for The Smith's.

[sean-reid]

I can't stand people who are ignorant to modern music or label "all new music is shit". It really pisses me off. How can people like this considered themselves a fan of music, if they are not willing to listen to new music.

Alternatively I once read on another forum, some stupid kid saying he didn't listen to any music before 2005.

[kbi the crowing]

if he likes the 70's get him a song or two off of Portugal. The Man - The Satanic Satanist like Mornings or Lovers In Love

[Sic Transit Zeb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

You're doing it wrong.





Yeah, they are scene bands.

You're batting a thousand today.

You're a moron.

[briewer]

You're a moron.
You've certainly proven your superior intelligence by having everything you've said rebutted and then resorting to ad hominem attacks.

[awakeohsleeper]

The Libertines > Modern music

The Libertines made me ashamed to be British.

[briewer]

The Libertines made me ashamed to be British.
David's gonna slap the shit out of you.

[awakeohsleeper]

David's gonna slap the shit out of you.

I know. Never mind. Just not my cup of tea. But I thought I'd be provocative. I've just heard better bands from this island.

[GoWaitInTheCar]

Andrew Jackson Jihad
Lucero's new disc
Middle Class Rut
Modest Mouse
WHY?
Portishead
Afghan Whigs (a seriously underrated band.)
Two Gallants

[theguy77]

He only listens to pre-70's music, while it's great stuff, he completely neglects the great music still being made. I'm going to make him a mix tape of the best modern music around, i know it's very broad, but i was thinking Radiohead, Death Cab, etc. Easy listening, etc. Recs?

i back both of these harder than anyone else on this site

[theguy77]

The Libertines made me ashamed to be British.
Hello, this is David, guest-posting on Ryan's account. Why do the Libertines make you ashamed to be British? Is it perhaps the debauchery that checkered their lifestyles? I mean, I suppose I can't really endorse Pete and his drug-addled behavior, but I certainly don't think he's an EMBARRASSMENT by any stretch. in fact, what the libertines were all about was a spirit of english-ness, a sense of pride and glory in their mother country that they wanted to share with the world. if anything, you should be proud of them. They were patriots, true believers in english heritage and their country. Wildean decadence and rock 'n' roll antics aside, is there really a group MORE English than they in the past ten years? Their lyrics embody an astute familiarity with British culture, and not jus the obvious ones--like the Wilde references in "narcissist'--and they bring a sense of grandeur and greatness to what they perceive to be an incredible nation.

Patriotism, pride, and spirit aside, they make good music and have been hugely important. that kind of garage rock/post-punk revivalism has basically reignited the trend for English music. Where would The Arctic Monkeys be without The Libertines? Sure, the Smiths, the Beatles, Joy Division, and a host of other bands laid the framework that hte Libertines inherited, but not only did they inherit it, but they brought it to life. Even if you don't like the music, you can't deny their influence on the latter half of this decade's British rock bands.

Music and influence aside, though, what's wrong with them? Peter has always been a big fan of indie music and supporting young, new, up and coming acts by putting them on bills with him. Carl, similarly, is a fan of more underground and unsighned bands that he believes should have a chance to succeed. So I can see not liking the music on a basis of its appeal to you, but how can you be ashamed of them? Did they indulge? yes. Did they overdo it? of course. But in the spirit of oscar wilde, is that all that bad? there is an acute british-ness that they embody, something that anyone who cares about england should be proud to see brought to the fore in such a group of young (at the time) musicians. their emphasis on their art and their country is something to be admired, without a doubt.

It's like saying Walt Whitman was a disgrace to America. Seriously.

-David

[awakeohsleeper]

Hello, this is David, guest-posting on Ryan's account. Why do the Libertines make you ashamed to be British? Is it perhaps the debauchery that checkered their lifestyles? I mean, I suppose I can't really endorse Pete and his drug-addled behavior, but I certainly don't think he's an EMBARRASSMENT by any stretch. in fact, what the libertines were all about was a spirit of english-ness, a sense of pride and glory in their mother country that they wanted to share with the world. if anything, you should be proud of them. They were patriots, true believers in english heritage and their country. Wildean decadence and rock 'n' roll antics aside, is there really a group MORE English than they in the past ten years? Their lyrics embody an astute familiarity with British culture, and not jus the obvious ones--like the Wilde references in "narcissist'--and they bring a sense of grandeur and greatness to what they perceive to be an incredible nation.

Patriotism, pride, and spirit aside, they make good music and have been hugely important. that kind of garage rock/post-punk revivalism has basically reignited the trend for English music. Where would The Arctic Monkeys be without The Libertines? Sure, the Smiths, the Beatles, Joy Division, and a host of other bands laid the framework that hte Libertines inherited, but not only did they inherit it, but they brought it to life. Even if you don't like the music, you can't deny their influence on the latter half of this decade's British rock bands.

Music and influence aside, though, what's wrong with them? Peter has always been a big fan of indie music and supporting young, new, up and coming acts by putting them on bills with him. Carl, similarly, is a fan of more underground and unsighned bands that he believes should have a chance to succeed. So I can see not liking the music on a basis of its appeal to you, but how can you be ashamed of them? Did they indulge? yes. Did they overdo it? of course. But in the spirit of oscar wilde, is that all that bad? there is an acute british-ness that they embody, something that anyone who cares about england should be proud to see brought to the fore in such a group of young (at the time) musicians. their emphasis on their art and their country is something to be admired, without a doubt.

It's like saying Walt Whitman was a disgrace to America. Seriously.

-David

Haha, I think I may have exaggerated my reply just to get an amazing response like that.

I cannot really argue. Basically, I don't really like the 'trend for English music' that has emerged. For some reason all the bands I listen to come from over the seas. So no Arctic Monkeys for me. Please. But I cannot argue with you - that shouldn't make me be embarrassed to be British.

Thanks for the reply anyway. I love reading your responses.

[x togepi x]

oh, cool, the libertines are good because they do what oasis was doing a decade ago. lol

[theguy77]

oh, cool, the libertines are good because they do what oasis was doing a decade ago. lol
The Libertines were reacting to Oasis, actually.

[x togepi x]

The Libertines were reacting to Oasis, actually.

zzzz

[theguy77]

zzzz
Andrew WK > The Libertines, though. I won't deny that for a second.

[xXxXx]

The Libertines, obvi.
stfu.. they suck balls, period.

[xXxXx]

The Libertines > Modern music
Being deaf > The Libertines

[x togepi x]

Andrew WK > The Libertines, though. I won't deny that for a second.

ARGUMENT AVERTED

[kearn1tm]

People who don't like the music I like or listen to music the way I do suck.

[kearn1tm]

Pete Doherty is fugly.

[chipdip18]

Does he not listen to after pre-70s David Bowie? Cause i would recommend 70s David Bowie.

[The Personist]

People who don't like the music I like or listen to music the way I do suck.
I know, right?
Pete Doherty is fugly.
Once he got off heroin, he gained weight.

[mmmmmpoetry]

Brian Jonestown Massacre

/thread.

[Sic Transit Zeb]

You've certainly proven your superior intelligence by having everything you've said rebutted and then resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Lol. I'm going to be at U of I in a couple weeks. Wanna hang out?

[dancelukedance]

Im sick of seeing this thread on the front page

[_><_]

He migh enjoy portugal. the man.

[xJesusFreakx]

I have a friend who doesn't appreciate Brand New...

[kearn1tm]

Why do you 'tards continually recommend him artists who have a "modern" sound (in production/recording) when trying to find accessible works for a person who doesn't care for anything post-1979? Topegi's right. You're simply trying to convert him to your favorite cred bands.

He's not going to cum over Modest Mouse or Portugal the Man.

[kearn1tm]

I have a friend who doesn't appreciate Brand New...

I don't believe you.

[Jennurna Gray]

aha.

[briewer]

Why do you 'tards continually recommend him artists who have a "modern" sound (in production/recording) when trying to find accessible works for a person who doesn't care for anything post-1979? Topegi's right. You're simply trying to convert him to your favorite cred bands.

He's not going to cum over Modest Mouse or Portugal the Man.
Gee, nobody's said that yet on this thread, specifically not me:

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=53296482#post53296 482

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=53296902#post53296 902

[xJesusFreakx]

Why do you 'tards continually recommend him artists who have a "modern" sound (in production/recording) when trying to find accessible works for a person who doesn't care for anything post-1979? Topegi's right. You're simply trying to convert him to your favorite cred bands.

He's not going to cum over Modest Mouse or Portugal the Man.

If he likes the Beatles, he'll also like Radiohead; if he likes Radiohead, he'll also like Thrice; if he likes Thrice, he'll also like Brand New; if he likes Brand New, he'll also like Modest Mouse. It makes perfect sense.

Sarcasm aside, though, I agree completely. Recommendation threads shouldn't be name drop contents, and people can enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.

[briewer]

If he likes the Beatles, he'll also like Radiohead; if he likes Radiohead, he'll also like Thrice; if he likes Thrice, he'll also like Brand New; if he likes Brand New, he'll also like Modest Mouse. It makes perfect sense.

Sarcasm aside, though, I agree completely. Recommendation threads shouldn't be name drop contents, and people can enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.
How do you go Radiohead>Thrice>Brand New>Modest Mouse? Or is that part of the joke?

[mmmmmpoetry]

If he likes the sixties then he'll like the sixties.

SIXTIES REVIVAL FTW

[xJesusFreakx]

How do you go Radiohead>Thrice>Brand New>Modest Mouse? Or is that part of the joke?

Ha, I thought it was ridiculous enough that you'd assume it was a joke.

[briewer]

Ha, I thought it was ridiculous enough that you'd assume it was a joke.
Okay gotcha. ;-)

[theguy77]

How do you go Radiohead>Thrice>Brand New>Modest Mouse? Or is that part of the joke?

hahaha, yeah its way more like, brand new + thrice --> modest mouse + radiohead

[theguy77]

i honestly think to ONLY listen to music pre-1980 is just as ignorant as to only listen to music post-1990. i mean its cool to be partial to either one but at least you could find a FEW bands that arent too outdated or overly modernized for your tastes. like, i am very biased toward modern sounds because of how much more modern bands can do with their production, which is something i pay a lot of attention to; it's a lot of the reason why i love albums such as Caribou's Andorra or Radiohead's Kid A, but also among the ranks of my favored artists are great classic songwriters i can enjoy for alternate reasons such as David Bowie, Nick Drake, and of course The Beatles. (but in any case old-school production has a unique aesthetic about it that enables me to appreciate it texturally because it has character anyway.)

it is hypocrticial to criticize ignorance to modern music when you're ignorant to older music though.

for your friend, i think sufjan stevens might be a good rec. freak folk is a new thing but in general i'd say folk music is the type that has transformed the least over the years, especially because there's not much that can be done differently production-wise to it's raw characteristics. i feel there's plenty of homage being paid to the classics within that genre. also lending to his case sonically is that he recorded the entire album analog. one thing that i feel really separates him from the modernization of most baroque folk is that his music, at least on the album Illinoise, is actually centered more toward the orchestra than the acoustic guitar sometimes, and he doesnt make an effort to force those classical instruments to fit within the cookie cutter vibe of modern indie-rock; they remain in their character unabashed, and it creates a sound that bridges timeless music with that of modern day. so while im not making the case that sufjan stevens sounds like bob dylan, i do think he has a sound that can be appreciated by more than just the ears of the modern day.

[HoldThatSound]

All Time Low

[theguy77]

All Time Low

dude you're fucking hilarious. can i have your autograph?

[HoldThatSound]

dude you're fucking hilarious. can i have your autograph?
Yeah, I need a sharpie though.

[bard]

if he's into 60's music, he should love ICP.

[x togepi x]

i honestly think to ONLY listen to music pre-1980 is just as ignorant as to only listen to music post-1990. i mean its cool to be partial to either one but at least you could find a FEW bands that arent too outdated or overly modernized for your tastes. like, i am very biased toward modern sounds because of how much more modern bands can do with their production, which is something i pay a lot of attention to; it's a lot of the reason why i love albums such as Caribou's Andorra or Radiohead's Kid A, but also among the ranks of my favored artists are great classic songwriters i can enjoy for alternate reasons such as David Bowie, Nick Drake, and of course The Beatles. (but in any case old-school production has a unique aesthetic about it that enables me to appreciate it texturally because it has character anyway.)

it is hypocrticial to criticize ignorance to modern music when you're ignorant to older music though.

for your friend, i think sufjan stevens might be a good rec. freak folk is a new thing but in general i'd say folk music is the type that has transformed the least over the years, especially because there's not much that can be done differently production-wise to it's raw characteristics. i feel there's plenty of homage being paid to the classics within that genre. also lending to his case sonically is that he recorded the entire album analog. one thing that i feel really separates him from the modernization of most baroque folk is that his music, at least on the album Illinoise, is actually centered more toward the orchestra than the acoustic guitar sometimes, and he doesnt make an effort to force those classical instruments to fit within the cookie cutter vibe of modern indie-rock; they remain in their character unabashed, and it creates a sound that bridges timeless music with that of modern day. so while im not making the case that sufjan stevens sounds like bob dylan, i do think he has a sound that can be appreciated by more than just the ears of the modern day.

why is it ignorant and not a personal preference? would you say to someone "you don't like pop punk so you're ignorant?" It's basically the same thing.

Your argument here amounts to "i like new bands and what they can do with production, therefore you're ignorant for ignoring new stuff". You're ignoring how old bands could do just as much with production (and it sounded different). I mean, shit, Bitches Brew was basically made in the studio. The Beatles did a ton of stuff in a studio that they'd never be able to recreate live. The problem here is, you're willing to champion new techniques over the old, ignoring how many people (including myself) feel that the older analogue sounds are infinitely better than anything that comes out now.

For example, I recently started playing guitar again. On my pedal board, I have the Boss reissue of the old Roland Space Echo. It's an amazing pedal, it sounds great, but I had the chance to fuck around with an original Roland Space Echo, which was a tape delay machine and not a digital effects pedal and there was a big difference. The tape delay sounded much more warm and organic than the digital reissue. There are a lot of bad things happening in modern music production: digital recording, overcompression of tracks, things being too loud, etc. Why isn't it just personal preference if someone says that they like the old shit instead of the new? Am I suddenly ignorant because I won't let anything digital touch my pedal board (with the exception of the space echo, but it doesn't sound that digital)?

It's not as if anyone here can claim they are open to every style of music in every decade ever. We're all missing out. Why jump on someone's case for that?

[love_american_style]

thread title describes my friend.

[Birdflu777]

iwrestledabearonce. bahahahahaha nevermind.

[theguy77]

why is it ignorant and not a personal preference? would you say to someone "you don't like pop punk so you're ignorant?" It's basically the same thing.

actually i think theres a pretty clear distinction to be made because pop-punk is a very compartmentalized music style with specific characteristics, while to say you hate modern music as a whole is throwing a huge blanket over every single genre that is possible in the modern-day, some of which are the same as the genres of the 60s and 70s. its balderdash.

Your argument here amounts to "i like new bands and what they can do with production, therefore you're ignorant for ignoring new stuff".
not at all, man. i was just giving a reason for why im partial to modern music myself, but then saying that even without the aspect of modern technology im still able to appreciate older music on the same level for alternate reasons, one being that the production itself tends to sound different anyway, which you reiterated in the section below.

my argument is closer to, "you're ignorant for ignoring all new music, because there's plenty of it that isnt so far off from the oldies stuff, both in terms of writing and aesthetic." and this works both ways.

You're ignoring how old bands could do just as much with production (and it sounded different). I mean, shit, Bitches Brew was basically made in the studio. The Beatles did a ton of stuff in a studio that they'd never be able to recreate live.
come on, chris, really? you're arguing this? im not devaluing any of the production tricks that were indulged back in the day; in fact, when a band did something like that then it was a hell of a lot more subversive and impressive than it is now. however, most of the beatles' revolutionary production tricks can be performed rather easily in the studio these days. on the other hand, you even take simple albums such as death cab for cutie's post-photo album discography and a lot of the stuff chris walla is doing in their studio wasnt even possible 30 years ago. like, i dont know how you can argue that three or four decades' worth of technology, in an age where it's expanding at a far faster rate than it has in centuries, contributes nothing to the breadth of post-recording production tactics available.

The problem here is, you're willing to champion new techniques over the old, ignoring how many people (including myself) feel that the older analogue sounds are infinitely better than anything that comes out now.

For example, I recently started playing guitar again. On my pedal board, I have the Boss reissue of the old Roland Space Echo. It's an amazing pedal, it sounds great, but I had the chance to fuck around with an original Roland Space Echo, which was a tape delay machine and not a digital effects pedal and there was a big difference. The tape delay sounded much more warm and organic than the digital reissue. There are a lot of bad things happening in modern music production: digital recording, overcompression of tracks, things being too loud, etc. Why isn't it just personal preference if someone says that they like the old shit instead of the new? Am I suddenly ignorant because I won't let anything digital touch my pedal board (with the exception of the space echo, but it doesn't sound that digital)?
there's one huge thing im surprised you missed in your rebuttal: not all new music is recorded digitally. in fact, the very example i gave, sufjan stevens' album Illinoise, was recorded entirely through analog. hell, american analog set proclaims it loudly in their name that theyve never digitally recorded any of their shit, and stylistically they are a fair exemplification of the krautrock of the 70s, which they themselves claim to be an influence. while the improvements in technology have allowed for more possibilities for artificial creation, refining, and texturing of sound, there are plenty of bands out there with a similar preference that you have when it comes to the production of their music.

i can completely understand why the older production aesthetic is preferred; it's clear to see that the recordings sounded very different in general back then. however, just because it isnt mainstream anymore doesnt mean it isnt around anymore. i feel that if a person cares enough about music to venture and find what suits them, they can find music in the modern day which shares common ground with the things they admire most about older music. and this includes components outside of the sound of the production; for example, i remember you arguing in favor of the frequent comparison between gaslight anthem and springsteen when i said it was farfetched, using the lyrical topics and i think the sound of his vocals to support your point. surely there are several more, and probably better, common links between certain newer bands and classics -- some of whom are the parent influence of the modern band.

It's not as if anyone here can claim they are open to every style of music in every decade ever. We're all missing out. Why jump on someone's case for that?
maybe not but theres a difference between ignorance due to lack of exposure, and ignorance due to adamant abstinence from and bias against that whole period, especially since music has only really expanded since the late 60s and only the music that's even older than that (say, pre-1950) has been effectively rendered obsolete. im not saying i know which one his friend is, but i know im not the only one who knows people trying to pep up their cred by digging through their faded-mullet-rocker-dad's old collection of cassettes, and becoming a self-proclaimed "revivalist" with their heads so far up their asses all they see is the past. now, what i will give you is that this is a very small part of the population when compared to those who have the same mindset, only with the bias against the older music.

[x togepi x]

ryan you cock of a man (not like dick, like rooster), i will reply to this when i'm not drunk on a day i didn't buy a new orange combo amp.

[theguy77]

ryan you cock of a man (not like dick, like rooster), i will reply to this when i'm not drunk on a day i didn't buy a new orange combo amp.

dude your day rules so hard. you dont even have to respond, go on and enjoy that orange, i dont want to ruin your atheist heaven. which kind did you get -- rockerverb or AD?

[kearn1tm]

Gee, nobody's said that yet on this thread, specifically not me:

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=53296482#post53296 482

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=53296902#post53296 902

Calm down, Todd Lite, or I'll take sarcasm away from you.

If he likes the Beatles, he'll also like Radiohead; if he likes Radiohead, he'll also like Thrice; if he likes Thrice, he'll also like Brand New; if he likes Brand New, he'll also like Modest Mouse. It makes perfect sense.

Sarcasm aside, though, I agree completely. Recommendation threads shouldn't be name drop contents, and people can enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.

You forgot Say Anything. I can't take you seriously.

[kearn1tm]

Ryan, you're a fascist.

[xJesusFreakx]

You forgot Say Anything. I can't take you seriously.

I'm sorry; they somehow didn't even cross my mind. I apologize for my nay nay.

[kearn1tm]

I'm sorry; they somehow didn't even cross my mind. I apologize for my nay nay.

Manchester Orchestra.

You're welcome.

[xJesusFreakx]

Manchester Orchestra.

You're welcome.

Oh, that reminded me... Any fan of the classics should love The '59 Sound.

[kearn1tm]

Oh, that reminded me... Any fan of the classics should love The '59 Sound.

Hey kids. Do you like '70s Springsteen? Do you like Punk? Here's a shitty version of both!

[xJesusFreakx]

Hey kids. Do you like '70s Springsteen? Do you like Punk? Here's a shitty version of both!

Who's Springsteen? Never heard of them. Wait, didn't they write a sound for that one wrestling movie?

[kearn1tm]

Who's Springsteen? Never heard of them. Wait, didn't they write a sound for that one wrestling movie?

You're thinking of that old dude that sang that Rolling Stone song. Wait, was that The Rolling Stones?

[briewer]

Calm down, Todd Lite, or I'll take sarcasm away from you.
Ouch. But true.

[kearn1tm]

Ouch. But true.

...but I still love you, which would probably be masturbation.

[briewer]

...but I still love you, which would probably be masturbation.
Or child molestation, depending on how 'lite' I am.

[kearn1tm]

Or child molestation, depending on how 'lite' I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

http://www.doingitwrong.com/

[briewer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

http://www.doingitwrong.com/
Sorry, that was some Mad TV bush league comedy right there.

[Jali]

Anal Cunt
this

[xJesusFreakx]

You're thinking of that old dude that sang that Rolling Stone song. Wait, was that The Rolling Stones?

The Who?

[kearn1tm]

Sorry, that was some Mad TV bush league comedy right there.

No, you're child molestation.

The Who?

Who?

[AnchorBraille]

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club?

[doyouhas?]

Your friend sounds wise.

[briewer]

No, you're child molestation.
Mad TV mention ≠ child molestation.

Stop with your libel, or I'm gonna tell on you.

[xJesusFreakx]

Who?

The Band.

[x togepi x]

actually i think theres a pretty clear distinction to be made because pop-punk is a very compartmentalized music style with specific characteristics, while to say you hate modern music as a whole is throwing a huge blanket over every single genre that is possible in the modern-day, some of which are the same as the genres of the 60s and 70s. its balderdash.

One could make the argument that rock and roll itself is a "very compartmentalized music style with specific characteristics", would someone be ignorant for not liking it? If so, i'd like you to talk to my jazz appreciation teacher. He'd love to talk music theory with you about why it's bullshit.

that's where this breaks down. Any statement about liking or disliking music is going to throw a huge blanket over something. Unless you like every kind of music ever (which nobody does), then you're guilty of the same sort of thing. This is, if you will, one of the problems with having a developed taste. You say they're missing out on all these new genres (or new music in previously existing genres), I say you're missing out on more obscure older bands. Either way, you miss out. Why tell someone what's okay to miss out on and what's not?


not at all, man. i was just giving a reason for why im partial to modern music myself, but then saying that even without the aspect of modern technology im still able to appreciate older music on the same level for alternate reasons, one being that the production itself tends to sound different anyway, which you reiterated in the section below.

Yes, and the great thing about you being able to appreciate older music for alternate reasons is because you have the ability to create your own personal preference. That's what this all boils down to. Why should we value your personal preference over theirs?

my argument is closer to, "you're ignorant for ignoring all new music, because there's plenty of it that isnt so far off from the oldies stuff, both in terms of writing and aesthetic." and this works both ways.

Even if we take this argument to be true, who's to say it's any good? Yeah, I've heard a lot of beatles influenced bands. They weren't as good as the beatles. I've heard a lot of newer psych, it's not as good as Piper At The Gates of Dawn. I say both of these things because I'm a free thinking individual. My dislike for the newer stuff is not ignorance, it's a developed taste.

Your argument presupposes that said person never gave newer shit a chance. How do you know this is the case? One of my ex roommates basically only listened to 60s/early 70s shit, but he tried getting into all sorts of new music. It just never clicked for him. As weird as that sounds, this is the truth. I think you're trying to presuppose a level of reason to taste that doesn't exist.


come on, chris, really? you're arguing this? im not devaluing any of the production tricks that were indulged back in the day; in fact, when a band did something like that then it was a hell of a lot more subversive and impressive than it is now. however, most of the beatles' revolutionary production tricks can be performed rather easily in the studio these days. on the other hand, you even take simple albums such as death cab for cutie's post-photo album discography and a lot of the stuff chris walla is doing in their studio wasnt even possible 30 years ago. like, i dont know how you can argue that three or four decades' worth of technology, in an age where it's expanding at a far faster rate than it has in centuries, contributes nothing to the breadth of post-recording production tactics available.

Yes, I am arguing this for two reasons.

First, your average band from now isn't doing all of these awesome amazing production techniques that you're trying to bring up. They go in, record their shit, it gets overcompressed, they don't care, such is life. Your average band from back in the day uses the same basic effects that your average band today uses, but the difference being, analog recording sounds different (thus creating a legitimate reason to like or dislike bands based on when it was recorded).

Secondly, you presuppose that new technology that's "expanding at a faster rate than it has in centuries" means "good technology". There's no proof of that whatsoever, and one can make a strong case against digital recording. I agree with you, the way in which my old band recorded their demo would have been impossible 30 years ago. That didn't make it good. In fact, I hated a lot of it. Like I said, there's a reason I want analog effects pedals instead of digital ones. Sure, I could get a boss dd20 and do all sorts of bad ass delay effects, but it doesn't sound the same.

there's one huge thing im surprised you missed in your rebuttal: not all new music is recorded digitally. in fact, the very example i gave, sufjan stevens' album Illinoise, was recorded entirely through analog. hell, american analog set proclaims it loudly in their name that theyve never digitally recorded any of their shit, and stylistically they are a fair exemplification of the krautrock of the 70s, which they themselves claim to be an influence. while the improvements in technology have allowed for more possibilities for artificial creation, refining, and texturing of sound, there are plenty of bands out there with a similar preference that you have when it comes to the production of their music.

I didn't ignore it because it's not relevant. Obviously the fact that I own a ton of pedals who's schematics remain relatively unchanged since the 1970s shows that you can do things the old way. I would contend that a lot of modern bands that are recording in what you refer to as "the old way" are actually recording in a modern take on analog recording. Are you seriously going to tell me that Illinoise never ended up on a computer? So like, his label pulled out the master tapes he recorded on and made your cds from that?

i didn't think so. At some point, it becomes inescapable.

i can completely understand why the older production aesthetic is preferred; it's clear to see that the recordings sounded very different in general back then. however, just because it isnt mainstream anymore doesnt mean it isnt around anymore. i feel that if a person cares enough about music to venture and find what suits them, they can find music in the modern day which shares common ground with the things they admire most about older music. and this includes components outside of the sound of the production

Why should they do this though, and how do you know modern music is going to suit them?

"Common ground"=/= sameness. Yeah, one could, for example, get into a ton of neo-hippie jam bands, but are those really the same as the originals? No. Some people think there's a difference between being from the sixties and acting as if you're from the sixties, who are you to criticize them? It's just as subjective as saying someone should listen to death cab because of their revolutionary music production.

] for example, i remember you arguing in favor of the frequent comparison between gaslight anthem and springsteen when i said it was farfetched, using the lyrical topics and i think the sound of his vocals to support your point. surely there are several more, and probably better, common links between certain newer bands and classics -- some of whom are the parent influence of the modern band.

great example dude, it proves my point. Gaslight Anthem isn't as good as Springsteen, and a ton of people think they're inauthentic and lame for what they consider stealing his sound. Are you going to say this is an ignorant criticism? I think people can have similar attitudes towards modern music that has throwback elements.

maybe not but theres a difference between ignorance due to lack of exposure, and ignorance due to adamant abstinence from and bias against that whole period,

I think the difference is so negligible that it's pointless to complain about. I still say the root cause of your arguments is that their taste differs from your paradigm of music listening. Why do people have to suddenly care or know about every kind of music/every time period? Why can't they be happy listening to their boring old man rock? If they like it, then it's all that matters.

especially since music has only really expanded since the late 60s and only the music that's even older than that (say, pre-1950) has been effectively rendered obsolete.

this argument will apply to radiohead eventually. just pointing that out.

im not saying i know which one his friend is, but i know im not the only one who knows people trying to pep up their cred by digging through their faded-mullet-rocker-dad's old collection of cassettes, and becoming a self-proclaimed "revivalist" with their heads so far up their asses all they see is the past. now, what i will give you is that this is a very small part of the population when compared to those who have the same mindset, only with the bias against the older music.

how is this different than dudes who only listen to radiohead or dudes who only listen to drone or anything else? It's a matter of taste. The awesome thing about taste is that you don't have to agree with it. You can think it's stupid or whatever, and that's awesome. I'm just wondering how it suddenly becomes "ignorance", that's all.

[Machu505]

Haha at people saying let him listen to what he wants. What's so wrong with a friend recommending music to someone?

But here's some broad post-1970 music he might appreciate:
The Who
The Smiths
Bruce Springsteen
90s Weezer
The Mars Volta

[x togepi x]

Haha at people saying let him listen to what he wants. What's so wrong with a friend recommending music to someone?

But here's some broad post-1970 music he might appreciate:
The Who
The Smiths
Bruce Springsteen
90s Weezer
The Mars Volta

read the whole posts. there's a difference between recommending new music and telling someone their taste is ignorant.

[The Personist]

read the whole posts. there's a difference between recommending new music and telling someone their taste is ignorant.
You realize this friend probably doesn't like Andrew WK, though, right?

[x togepi x]

You realize this friend probably doesn't like Andrew WK, though, right?

andrew wk transcends time, so he probably does.