CladInShadows said:
I would definitely say it's more ignorant, mainly because it's factually incorrect. Though the original coment was silly and not necessary. Metal (granted, not all of it is super technical) takes a lot of talent despite what non-fans may think. You write songs THAT fast and THAT technical, and then play them night after night (on REAL instruments, even), you better have some serious talent in your instrument of choice. Much more so than your average pop song. I'm not trying to start anything or be one of those people who say they listen to metal just to be shocking or whatever. But I think most can agree that pop is the most manufactured and cookie cuttered genre. Aside from a few isolated artists, pop stars are a voice, and nothing else, with a bunch of producers and writers churning out easily digested ditties. I think this image sums it up pretty well. http://www.melancholymen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/music-queen-vs-beyonce.jpg For what it's worth, I know that there are more technical genres of music out there than metal. But metal is my expertise. Jazz fans can pipe in about how their music of choice destroys all other genres if they want. |
That image...lmao! You don't have to argue the merits of metal vs pop with me. Whenever I watch those guitarists shredding away I can't keep my jaw off the floor. There isn't a lot to pop songs. They're usually short, and lacking in depth and diversity. They just have to be catchy and have a nice "hook." That said, I don't look down on, or find the need to belittle those who enjoy pop more than my chosen style of music. After all, it's not like we're the one's who write and perform the music we so love to fight over, so what does it really matter how simple or complex the styles of music we listen to are?
And that's why I think both comments are equally silly. They're making ridiculous statements about the types of people who listen to different genres of music, neither of which have any basis in reality, imo.
