music that's "cool" to dislike

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

many genres popularly derided by the musical intelligentsia are the targets of pejorative bad faith criticism. in many cases music critics are just straight up classist, turning up their nose at styles like reggaeton, technobrega, new age, aor, country, nu metal, crunk and the like for their predominant working class or lower middle class fanbases.

they've successfully convinced generations of listeners that values they've arbitrarily selected are some objective truth.

hell i don't even like all the genres i just listed, but they at least deserve the credit of being taken seriously and disliked on their own merits. so many just dismiss them out of hand, uncritically accepting this baloney narrative the journalists have propagated.

[Thrudd]

I know there are creative, talented artists in most genres, along with some less-so. What is "cool" to like or dislike really depends on one's social group and the media and critics that one chooses to look at. I think people consume music in different ways and for different reasons, and will have different avenues of critique. Some people critique based on classical music theory and deep knowledge of how to play the instruments, others critique on how much or little mass-appeal a composition will have according to current trends.

It's true, people can be too derisive in criticism of music that wasn't created with them and their preferences in mind. We can all stand to consider the wider purpose for music, of all sorts, in human society and appreciate that there's a role for even the simplest single drum beat to exist next to the most avant-garde classical or progressive composition.

The most useful sort of critique is to compare "apples to apples", and analyze whether a specific song or artist is succeeding at what they're setting out to do, relative to other examples in the genre. It isn't really meaningful when someone compares two types of music that have entirely different goals.

[LibraryOgre]

The classic dismissal in my experience is "I like everything except for rap and country"... which generally doesn't mean they have a really eclectic music taste (they're probably not going to be into Tejano music, or will lump it in with country", it mostly means "I like pop and rock, but nothing 'weird' or 'ethnic'".

[Peelee]

I can't speak for all country, but I think the best criticism against modern pop country was delivered by Bo Burnham with his song Pandering (video not linked for obvious reasons).

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

The classic dismissal in my experience is "I like everything except for rap and country"... which generally doesn't mean they have a really eclectic music taste (they're probably not going to be into Tejano music, or will lump it in with country", it mostly means "I like pop and rock, but nothing 'weird' or 'ethnic'".

that one used to be a lot more common until people (rightly) started making fun of it. nowadays the tactic as far as hip hop and country music goes has been, in my experience, to gain 'musical omnivorism' points by projecting those same journalistic values on to it and segregating it into "the good stuff" and "the bad stuff". with country this manifests with vague statements like "pop country", evoking now-dated george w. era jingoist anthems or, once again, calling up noxious classist cliches which paint the south in broad strokes. so jason isbell and sturgill simpson are "real" country (read; masculine), not like that frivolous pop country wash (read; feminine.) and given the success of artists like miranda lambert, margo price, kacey musgraves, chris stapleton, brothers osborne et. al. the "country is good just modern pop country is bad" narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny, in my opinion.

and as for hip hop, there's always been a revisionist trend towards asserting that it's always been excessively lyrical and political. by doing this they get to erroneously claim that "alternative" hip hop artists like aesop rock and blackalicious more greatly represent 'the roots' of the genre because they call up those journalistic values. given that the roots of hip hop are disco dj's getting people hyped up over looped instrumental breaks, this is historical whiggism at its finest. if they prefer this omphalos gazing stuff, that's fine, but it's dangerous to assert that it represents some unspoken underlying hip hop code (which erases nearly two decades of hip hop's existence) and they definitely don't need to resort to hokey, lazy, boring pejoratives like "bling rap", "swag rap" and "mumble rap".

in both cases, so much of this is tied up in class it's unbelievable. the writers call it 'pandering' when it caters to a demographic they don't understand, but 'topical' when it caters to them. it's an unspoken double standard with some grim implications about how the tastemakers perceive the proletariat. "why does pop country fixate on southern pride, rural imagery and hypernationalism?" because that's the aesthetic substrate of their art (and if you got a problem with the nationalism, i would suggest country music is not the correct battleground.) "why is pop rap so superficial and violent?" because who else needs escapist power fantasies but america's inner city impoverished? it's disingenuous to act like these things don't have valid appeal.

I can't speak for all country, but I think the best criticism against modern pop country was delivered by Bo Burnham with his song Pandering (video not linked for obvious reasons).

i wrote the above not having seen this, so i hope it's not perceived as a direct attack. i haven't seen bo burnham's video (and don't really plan to, given that he's very much not my cup of tea), but i've become pretty cynical about musical parody towards country coming from outside of that establishment anyway.

sorry, though.

[Fiery Diamond]

Personally, I think people should stick to saying what they like and dislike rather than trying to call out specific genres as somehow objectively good or bad. I'm pretty particular about what I like, and I have some genres that I absolutely despise (country being one of them, mostly because the twang grates so hard I want to punch something - worth noting that country without the twang is much less irritating to me and easier for me to examine on a case-by-case basis), but I'd never claim that my preferences are somehow indicative of some objective truth about them.

I'm pretty fond of saying I like almost any style of music until they start singing; then I'm much pickier. I like a wide variety of instrumentals, from classical to techno to heavy metal and all sorts of others, but when it comes to music with singing (or speaking, or screaming... vocals, is what I'm getting at), I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like, regardless of what genre it technically falls into, though there are certain styles of vocals that I very much don't like that are either confined to or representative of specific genres, making me dislike those genres in general (like the aforementioned country twang or the screams in screamo).

I'm very much anti-artistic-criticism in general, actually. You can judge something on whether it has technical mastery, on whether it achieves what it sets out to do, or on whether you like it, but other than those three (very specific, don't cross the streams) types of criticism, I feel that criticism of art is pointless, arrogant, and elitist (and occasionally classist/racist/other ist).

[GloatingSwine]

Canadian.

It's cool to dislike Canadian music :P

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

Canadian.

It's cool to dislike Canadian music :P

people seem to like neil young and rush

[Murk]

I'm going to claim that the music that's cool to dislike is always also the music that's cool to like, in equal measures.

If fifty million people like listening to Taylor Swift, then it's exactly fifty million cool to dislike it.

Why? Because cool needs to be a bit rebellious and it also needs to be understood. You can't be cool disliking something nobody likes anyway or has ever heard of.
You mention technobrega which I've never heard of. If someone told me "I really dislike technobrega" I wouldn't think they're cool, because I wouldn't know what they're talking about. I'd just think "Okay, whatever" and that's not cool.
Similarly, classical music fans have been dwindling in numbers for a century and as a result it's not cool to dislike it. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who dislike classical music; just that disliking it is not something to brag about.

Rap and country are cool genres to dislike specifically because there are also so many people who like it. Rap and country are loved by millions, so it's millions cool to dislike it.
Pop is the most popular genre (by definition, I think) and has traditionally also been the most cool genre to dislike. Snobs and elitists everywhere will tell you they listen to better music than just cookie-cutter industry pop.
The same applies to artists. People like Justin Bieber could only ever be so popular to dislike because they were also loved by millions.

[Mokèlé-mbèmbé]

You mention technobrega which I've never heard of. If someone told me "I really dislike technobrega" I wouldn't think they're cool, because I wouldn't know what they're talking about. I'd just think "Okay, whatever" and that's not cool.

possibly more a brazilian thing, though i'm not brazilian and don't live there and i still hear tecnobrega take it in the neck from time to time.

besides, i spelled it wrong that first time. there's no h in it. oops.

[Precure]

"I like pop and rock, but nothing 'weird' or 'ethnic'".

This is literally my taste in music.

[JoshL]

I live by very few rules in my life

1) Genres are better to describe songs than bands (particularly if the band is eclectic). Doubly so once you start digging into micro-genres.
2) There are no bad genres. Everything has some songs I'd like if I dug into them. Except crunkcore (if I dug into that I probably would like some too, but it's fun to take shots at brokeNCYDE).
3) Just about any band would have at least one song I'd like if I took the time to dig through their discography. Even bands I hate. Except The Spin Doctors. Again, that's likely not true (and 90s alt-rock is sort of one of my things, so very likely not true), but I refuse to find out. Having ONE band I comically hate means I never have to spend time hating other bands.

I've always thought that the "except rap and country" had more than a little bit of class bias in there, or worse. I love lots of both, and I think if people kept an open mind, they'd find songs they love too!

[Velaryon]

I know the discussion has been more about genres so far than specific artists, but it still seems crazy to me that we've made it to post #12 in this thread before anyone mentions Nickelback. Being hated by millions of people is literally what most people know them for.

On the subject of nu metal, has there ever been another genre so strongly defined by the absolute worst artists who make that style of music? It seems like nu metal conjures scorn because of bands like Limp Bizkit and Staind, yet nobody seems to acknowledge that bands like Korn, Linkin Park, or Slipknot have endured for decades despite the fact they all are (or at least were at one point) nu metal acts.

[Tvtyrant]

I know the discussion has been more about genres so far than specific artists, but it still seems crazy to me that we've made it to post #12 in this thread before anyone mentions Nickelback. Being hated by millions of people is literally what most people know them for.

On the subject of nu metal, has there ever been another genre so strongly defined by the absolute worst artists who make that style of music? It seems like nu metal conjures scorn because of bands like Limp Bizkit and Staind, yet nobody seems to acknowledge that bands like Korn, Linkin Park, or Slipknot have endured for decades despite the fact they all are (or at least were at one point) nu metal acts.

I think a larger criticism of Nu Metal was that it was seen as extremely corporate, skipping over being underground to being pushed by record companies. After the extreme success of Metallica and then Nirvana and rap, there was a deliberate move by corporate music to get into breakthrough genres early, which in turn led to the hipster "before it was cool" anti corporate music movement.

Personally I doubt there is such a thing as good or bad music. It's so very societally contextual that we basically ignore any music older then a few hundred years, even the instruments get abandoned. Music is closest to fashion I think, it sounds silly out of context.

[Trafalgar]

It's cool to dislike anything in the Top 40.

[Traab]

We cant forget the classic nickelback hate. Its right up there with taco bell for internet hate. But yeah, beiber fever was a huge hate for awhile. Basically any of the modern pop music that is written by committee and assigned to an auto tuned pretty boy or girl to sing is treated as drek unworthy of being called music. Now ive gotten old enough that I dont even register whatever is getting hate anymore. I just have my library of 70s 80s, 90s rock with a little country mixed in for good measure and am happy with my life musically speaking. (And yes I have two nickelback cds in my playlist, lol) I could play music for 12 hours straight and never hear the same song twice. Thats good enough for me.

[Willie the Duck]

Kinda surprised disco hasn't been mentioned yet. It was cool to hate disco right up until it was cool to talk about how dead disco was which was right up until 'still talking about disco' would have seemed weird.

[Razade]

It got cool to talk about disco again because the huge backlash against it was motivated by anti-LGBTQ/Minority sentiments and we've moved to a better time in regards to those things.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

For me, good music is good, and bad music is bad, regardless of genre (if you'll excuse the tautology)!

Every genre has innovators who move the scene forwards, and great exemplars who showcase the best of the style. These are the people you want to listen to - probably also with a bit of musical history lesson beforehand if you're totally new to the style, so you can understand what the hell you've just heard!

But, there's so much dreadful, unimaginative music in every genre, just repeating the same clichés of the genre, without any special energy or feeling. If a style is outside your usual listening circle, then there's not a lot the dull examples can do to bring you in.
When a music genre has a mass market appeal, then this gets amplified, because there's just more of it - so there's more chance that any given example is a bad one.

And it isn't necessarily the good artists who get the most time on the media.

But yeah - people who look down on the music of the working classes? That's just snobbery.

[Wraith]

I know the discussion has been more about genres so far than specific artists, but it still seems crazy to me that we've made it to post #12 in this thread before anyone mentions Nickelback. Being hated by millions of people is literally what most people know them for.

I'm sure that Chad Kroger will continue to cry himself to sleep at night, consoled only by his tens of millions of dollars, enormous house and view of his personal private jet parked on his front lawn.

On the subject of nu metal, has there ever been another genre so strongly defined by the absolute worst artists who make that style of music?

Eventually, I would say all of them. It seems cliche to say that the best forms of music is the earliest stuff in any given genre, and when it starts to go mainstream the 'good' gets watered down by copy-cats, sell-outs and the likes, and the innovators start to grow old or go their separate ways... But there is also some truth to it. When something gets big enough, it starts to get 'too big' and either fragments into smaller genres that do their own thing really well, or it just becomes bloated and same-y.

Punk, for example, started out as a deeply political movement inspired by the aggression of a disenfranchised generation - eventually it turned into the Sex Pistols who A) aren't very good musicians and B) were basically a micro-managed boy-band, right down to their outfits being individually tailored by big named fashion company Vivienne Westwood. Hardly in the spirit of Punk.

In the mid-1990's, pop music was going the same way. Every year there was a new Cotton Eye Joe or Macarena, which were pretty bad even by the standards back then, and then they devolved further into stuff like the Crazy Frog and Blue (Da-Boo-Dee-Dab-Boo-Die). I'd even go so far as to say that pop (the biggest genre in the world) got so bad and incestuous that this is why nu metal got so big in the early 2000's - it was a backlash to make something as different to Hamster Dance as possible, only to eventually stagnate and do exactly the same thing itself.

To give more direct examples, the biggest bands always fall the furthest. The Beatles made Yellow Submarine. Metallica made St Anger. They were still the biggest (arguably) names in their respective genres, but there was very definitely point in history where someone was going, "Metal? What, you mean like those guys who did 'Purify'? Eww, no thanks!"

Or maybe I'm just a snob who doesn't appreciate something while we have it. I am aware of the 'damn kids get off my lawn' tendency of this post, so please don't take it at face value

[Willie the Duck]

In the mid-1990's, pop music was going the same way. Every year there was a new Cotton Eye Joe or Macarena, which were pretty bad even by the standards back then, and then they devolved further into stuff like the Crazy Frog and Blue (Da-Boo-Dee-Dab-Boo-Die).

To be fair, the 60s had Tan Shoes and Pink Shoelaces or Sugar Sugar. I don't think there was a decade where Pop didn't have it's fair share of bubblegum rock or however you want to phrase it.

[Peelee]

that one used to be a lot more common until people (rightly) started making fun of it. nowadays the tactic as far as hip hop and country music goes has been, in my experience, to gain 'musical omnivorism' points by projecting those same journalistic values on to it and segregating it into "the good stuff" and "the bad stuff". with country this manifests with vague statements like "pop country", evoking now-dated george w. era jingoist anthems or, once again, calling up noxious classist cliches which paint the south in broad strokes. so jason isbell and sturgill simpson are "real" country (read; masculine), not like that frivolous pop country wash (read; feminine.) and given the success of artists like miranda lambert, margo price, kacey musgraves, chris stapleton, brothers osborne et. al. the "country is good just modern pop country is bad" narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny, in my opinion.

{snip}

in both cases, so much of this is tied up in class it's unbelievable. the writers call it 'pandering' when it caters to a demographic they don't understand, but 'topical' when it caters to them. it's an unspoken double standard with some grim implications about how the tastemakers perceive the proletariat. "why does pop country fixate on southern pride, rural imagery and hypernationalism?" because that's the aesthetic substrate of their art (and if you got a problem with the nationalism, i would suggest country music is not the correct battleground.) "why is pop rap so superficial and violent?" because who else needs escapist power fantasies but america's inner city impoverished? it's disingenuous to act like these things don't have valid appeal.



i wrote the above not having seen this, so i hope it's not perceived as a direct attack. i haven't seen bo burnham's video (and don't really plan to, given that he's very much not my cup of tea), but i've become pretty cynical about musical parody towards country coming from outside of that establishment anyway.

sorry, though.

Nah, not at all. Burnham's song isn't attacking country music in general or even current pop country as I said, but rather the musicians who churn it out despite being significantly different from their base in a cynical ploy to get money. The version I'm familiar with even prefaces it with a message that I think you would very much agree with:

Spoiler: In case you don't care much about what he says

Show

"Boy, oh boy. Any big fans of country music out there?
[Applause]
Yeah! Ooh, some people extending my name, "Boo", that's also approval! I think country music gets a bad rep, you know? Why is it, when Bruce Springsteen sings about a ****in' turnpike, it is art, and then when someone sings about a horse, it's dumb, inherently? I don't know, I think some of the greatest song writers of all time are country artists: Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, you know? And if you're writing honestly, that is art! And I would never bash that! The problem is, with a lot of modern country music, what is called "Stadium Country Music" - sort of Keith Urban Brand of Country music is that it is not honest, it is the exact opposite of honest.
[Country music starts playing and Bo speaks in a faux-country accent]
Where instead of people actually telling their stories, you got a bunch of millionaire [word]s who've never done a hard days work in their life, but they figured out the words and the phrases they can use to pander to their audience, and they list the same words and phrases off sort of mad-libs-style, in every song, raking in millions of dollars from actual working class people!"

Spoiler: lyrics sample

Show

I walk and talk like a field hand
But the boots I'm wearing cost three grand
I write songs about riding tractors
From the comfort of a private jet

Yellow bit was self scrub for Forum reasons.

[Mordar]

people seem to like neil young and rush

But then there is Bryan Adams, Celine Dion, BNL...and the 49% of rock fans that hate Rush.

I find the "classist" narrative to be dismissive. Worse, I think it really misses the point. People in every "class", every demographic, virtually everywhere have their musical whipping boys. Cannibalism within genres, the drive to be on the bleeding edge of cool, the overwhelming need to climb over the backs of [something else] so your preferred choice stands higher...pick a genre, an era, whatever you like and it isn't even remotely difficult to find large swaths of people that dislike it because reasons.

In short, I don't think there is a genre that is known to more than 10 people that *someone* doesn't think it is cool to drag, bash or dislike.

- M

[Dr.Samurai]

But then there is Bryan Adams, Celine Dion, BNL...and the 49% of rock fans that hate Rush.

I find the "classist" narrative to be dismissive. Worse, I think it really misses the point. People in every "class", every demographic, virtually everywhere have their musical whipping boys. Cannibalism within genres, the drive to be on the bleeding edge of cool, the overwhelming need to climb over the backs of [something else] so your preferred choice stands higher...pick a genre, an era, whatever you like and it isn't even remotely difficult to find large swaths of people that dislike it because reasons.

In short, I don't think there is a genre that is known to more than 10 people that *someone* doesn't think it is cool to drag, bash or dislike.

- M

This gets my +1.

[Velaryon]

I'm sure that Chad Kroger will continue to cry himself to sleep at night, consoled only by his tens of millions of dollars, enormous house and view of his personal private jet parked on his front lawn.

There is no relationship whatsoever between quality and success in the modern music industry. Some people who rise to the top are phenomenally talented. Some are total hacks. Most, including Nickelback, are somewhere in between.

Eventually, I would say all of them. It seems cliche to say that the best forms of music is the earliest stuff in any given genre, and when it starts to go mainstream the 'good' gets watered down by copy-cats, sell-outs and the likes, and the innovators start to grow old or go their separate ways... But there is also some truth to it. When something gets big enough, it starts to get 'too big' and either fragments into smaller genres that do their own thing really well, or it just becomes bloated and same-y.

I think we're talking about different things. Even at the height of nu metal's popularity in ~2000 or so, Limp Bizkit was the worst band in the genre, bar none (a hill I will absolutely die on). And yet 20+ years later, they remain the poster child for the entire genre despite the fact they didn't create it, weren't really a driving force in popularizing it, and didn't outlast their contemporaries.

[Rynjin]

I think we're talking about different things. Even at the height of nu metal's popularity in ~2000 or so, Limp Bizkit was the worst band in the genre, bar none (a hill I will absolutely die on). And yet 20+ years later, they remain the poster child for the entire genre despite the fact they didn't create it, weren't really a driving force in popularizing it, and didn't outlast their contemporaries.

This is largely because Fred Durst was the man with the golden hands. Literally everything he touched was a success, and those things he touched include pretty much the majority of all nu metal bands in the late 90s/early 2000s.

If a band wanted to make it in the 90s and early 2000s, they didn't make a deal with the devil. They worshipped at the First Church of Durst.

[Trafalgar]

But then there is Bryan Adams, Celine Dion, BNL...and the 49% of rock fans that hate Rush.

Neil Peart is the GOAT

[Peelee]

Neil Peart is the GOAT

That's debatable.

[Wraith]

To be fair, the 60s had Tan Shoes and Pink Shoelaces or Sugar Sugar. I don't think there was a decade where Pop didn't have it's fair share of bubblegum rock or however you want to phrase it.

Fair point. I think that my point was supposed to be more along the lines of, music trends are cyclical. At one point, The Beatles were the biggest name in music and they revolutionised rock/pop music, which made them trendsetters as other bands tried to emulate their style and (hopefully) their success.

Eventually the Beatles made Yellow Submarine, which was bad. But they were still rich and famous, so other bands continued to make similar stuff until the whole thing fell in on itself and a new genre rose to take over. Everyone thinks of the Beatles as this massive colossus in 1960's pop, but by the end of their run they were awful.

I'm not harping on at the Beatles specifically, they're just the very famous example that sprung to mind. It's really really hard to become a music star and stay both relevant AND sound good at the same time. I'd argue that Madonna is another example, a massive icon of 80's pop who eventually released American Life... yuck.

Wheezer did the biggest single of 2006 in Teenage Dirtbag and their second album bombed at the peak of the nu metal era. Metallica made St.Anger. Michael Jackson covered an R. Kelly song. Music is one of those 'Die as the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain' kind of things, and I think that it's more likely that we get the latter than the next David Bowie or Mariah Carey. But that doesn't mean that whatever comes after them is always going to be bad forever.

There is no relationship whatsoever between quality and success in the modern music industry. Some people who rise to the top are phenomenally talented. Some are total hacks. Most, including Nickelback, are somewhere in between.

As much as I agree with you, it can't be entirely true. Someone, somewhere, is buying enough albums to make all that backroom-backscratching and sponsorship deals worthwhile. The music industry is affluent and the stars are often famous for spending money like its going out of fashion, but the execs tend to know better.

I think we're talking about different things. Even at the height of nu metal's popularity in ~2000 or so, Limp Bizkit was the worst band in the genre, bar none (a hill I will absolutely die on).

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage: Stain'd....

And yet 20+ years later, they remain the poster child for the entire genre despite the fact they didn't create it, weren't really a driving force in popularizing it, and didn't outlast their contemporaries.

This might be a cultural thing. I'm a millennial, I was a teenager in Y2K, and although I haven't thought about Limp Bizkit in years I still have Linkin Park on my playlist so arguably they are my poster child for the genre.

I'm not even disagreeing with you about Limp Bizkit, they were horrible. But as horrifying as it sounds, there are worse things than Fred Durst who are just as big in their own genres.

[thompur]

Fair point. I think that my point was supposed to be more along the lines of, music trends are cyclical. At one point, The Beatles were the biggest name in music and they revolutionised rock/pop music, which made them trendsetters as other bands tried to emulate their style and (hopefully) their success.

Eventually the Beatles made Yellow Submarine, which was bad. But they were still rich and famous, so other bands continued to make similar stuff until the whole thing fell in on itself and a new genre rose to take over. Everyone thinks of the Beatles as this massive colossus in 1960's pop, but by the end of their run they were awful.

I'm not harping on at the Beatles specifically, they're just the very famous example that sprung to mind. It's really really hard to become a music star and stay both relevant AND sound good at the same time. I'd argue that Madonna is another example, a massive icon of 80's pop who eventually released American Life... yuck.

Wheezer did the biggest single of 2006 in Teenage Dirtbag and their second album bombed at the peak of the nu metal era. Metallica made St.Anger. Michael Jackson covered an R. Kelly song. Music is one of those 'Die as the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain' kind of things, and I think that it's more likely that we get the latter than the next David Bowie or Mariah Carey. But that doesn't mean that whatever comes after them is always going to be bad forever.



As much as I agree with you, it can't be entirely true. Someone, somewhere, is buying enough albums to make all that backroom-backscratching and sponsorship deals worthwhile. The music industry is affluent and the stars are often famous for spending money like its going out of fashion, but the execs tend to know better.



Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage: Stain'd....



This might be a cultural thing. I'm a millennial, I was a teenager in Y2K, and although I haven't thought about Limp Bizkit in years I still have Linkin Park on my playlist so arguably they are my poster child for the genre.

I'm not even disagreeing with you about Limp Bizkit, they were horrible. But as horrifying as it sounds, there are worse things than Fred Durst who are just as big in their own genres.

Yellow Submarine was a great movie! Great music, entertaining story, and cool animation! Limp Bizkit though, was godawful.