Society conditions us to like older music.

  • 81 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -
The Beatles suck. Depending on your music tastes, I may have caused you to have a negative reaction and you may have had the urge to tell me that "I have no taste in music". However, If I said a more modern band with roughly the same popularity like Radiohead sucks, I typically wouldn't provoke as strong of a reaction from people. Now, I think the reasoning behind this is that we're all conditioned to believe that the classic rock bands from the 60's-70's are the best and can't be beat. That's why everyone is so quick to defend classic rock bands from that era. I'm saying this out of personal experience. I grew up being told by everyone that "The Beatles are the best band of all time". Being a kid, I believed everyone else and listened to The Beatles and I thought that I liked them and "they were the best band ever". However, I always found myself not wanting to listen to The Beatles in favor of listening to other bands that I found far more interesting. Another band I had a similar experience with is AC/DC. People always told me they were an amazing band, so I believed them. But whenever one of their songs was being played on the radio, I always had the urge in the back of my mind to change the station. As I got older and discovered music that I never even knew existed, I realized that I never really liked many classic-rock bands to begin with. I was just told by society what was good and went along with it. It's pretty much developed from just individual bands that are "the best" to the music of the 60's to 70's era as a whole. Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz1ex78QeQI It's a pretty bad song, yet it has a lot of thumbs up and positive comments which kind of proves my point. Edit: I don't actually think The Beatles suck. I have to put this because not everyone reads the entire post before responding.
#2 Posted by Rich3232 (2628 posts) -
yea, it's called nostalgia.
#3 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

#4 Posted by Kevlar101 (6284 posts) -
How about this: you are a tool. People just have different tastes in music than you, get over it. I hate AC/DC, and I don't think the Beatles are the best band ever.
#5 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -
yea, it's called nostalgia. Rich3232
Not necessarily. Many fans of classic rock weren't even alive when it was being released.
#6 Posted by DevilMightCry (3498 posts) -
There is a reason why classical music is around. It's not nostalgia. It's because it's good.
#7 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

jimkabrhel
The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.
#8 Posted by WolfattheDoor34 (3278 posts) -
The Beatles are great, AC/DC is garbage maybe if you hadn't been a complete idiot when you were younger wouldn't have just gone along with what you were told was good and you would've developed your own taste sooner and then you wouldn't have this stupid resentment and you wouldn't have made this dumb thread
#9 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -
Different strokes and all. PS, Radiohead is pretty bad.
#10 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -
[QUOTE="WolfattheDoor34"]The Beatles are great, AC/DC is garbage maybe if you hadn't been a complete idiot when you were younger wouldn't have just gone along with what you were told was good and you would've developed your own taste sooner and then you wouldn't have this stupid resentment and you wouldn't have made this dumb thread

I can't tell if the second part of your post is sarcasm or not.
#11 Posted by Nonstop-Madness (9503 posts) -

"The Beatles suck." ......

simpsons-leaving-room.gif

#12 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

Reed_Bowie

The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

#13 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

jimkabrhel

The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

If you actually read more into it, you'd see that my first statement isn't my opinion. It was just an example. I actually had to put an edit at the end of my post because of people like you who didn't read into the post.
#14 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

There is a reason why classical music is around. It's not nostalgia. It's because it's good. DevilMightCry
And because people feel compeled to share the the oppinion of the majority, so they don't look like the outcast.

#15 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"] The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.Reed_Bowie

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

If you actually read more into it, you'd see that my first statement isn't my opinion. It was just an example. I actually had to put an edit at the end of my post because of people like you who didn't read into the post.

It all comes down to an idea based on your opinions. You post a video that you say is a bd song, but obviously a lot of other people like. Yes, many people will try to convince you that certain groups or artists are good, but you have obviously gone your own way. Good for you, you aren't a lemming.

#16 Posted by VanHelsingBoA64 (5455 posts) -
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavors to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the "Fab Four". And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
#17 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

jimkabrhel

The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?
#18 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24991 posts) -

I hate Pink Floyd.

#19 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -
[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"]The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavors to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the "Fab Four". And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

Thank you Based-Scaruffi.
#20 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"] The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.Reed_Bowie

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

#21 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

jimkabrhel

And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.
#22 Posted by InEMplease (6356 posts) -

Society may expose us to certain music early on that we'll find we have a preference toward later on, but eventually we learn we have the option to explore as much as we want, and from there we can choose what we like and dislike. 

#23 Posted by wis3boi (32070 posts) -

I grew up on vinyl records, very few CDs, and no digital music.  So of course I had loads of old music, and I'm glad it was that way. 

#24 Posted by lonewolf604 (8558 posts) -
I half agree with you on the Beatles. Their early music was just Rockabilly/Rock and Roll boyband. However later on they started to get experimental and that's where the real gems are.
#25 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17834 posts) -

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

#26 Posted by DevilMightCry (3498 posts) -

Society may expose us to certain music early on that we'll find we have a preference toward later on, but eventually we learn we have the option to explore as much as we want, and from there we can choose what we like and dislike. 

InEMplease
Pretty much this.
#27 Posted by lonewolf604 (8558 posts) -

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

jun_aka_pekto
Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.
#28 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I could have sworn those open to societal pressures went for top-40 offerings.
#29 Posted by GreySeal9 (25531 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

lonewolf604

Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.

Nobody needs an excuse to listen to anything.

#30 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage. lonewolf604
Depends on if Bieber is performing it, or a beat-boxing cellist is.
#31 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

ITT: people confuse their subjective opinion with objective fact.

#32 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

lonewolf604

Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.

People need an excuse to like stuff you don't like?

#33 Posted by lonewolf604 (8558 posts) -

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

worlock77

Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.

People need an excuse to like stuff you don't like?

They themselves don't need an excuse, I didn't mean it literally. What i'm trying to get as is, if you just say "well let them listen to it", you're saying its okay for crappy music to come out. I'm glad Rebecca Black came out with that Friday song, tons of people hated it, but the funny thing is, its an accurate parody of actual pop music.
#34 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

What i'm trying to get as is, if you just say "well let them listen to it", you're saying its okay for crappy music to come outlonewolf604

And indeed it is ok.

#35 Posted by XaosII (16705 posts) -

They themselves don't need an excuse, I didn't mean it literally. What i'm trying to get as is, if you just say "well let them listen to it", you're saying its okay for crappy music to come out. I'm glad Rebecca Black came out with that Friday song, tons of people hated it, but the funny thing is, its an accurate parody of actual pop music. lonewolf604

But it *is* okay for crappy music to come out.

I think it can be akin to comparing junk food to a finely crafted gourmet dessert. A dessert is meant to be savored with each bite, enjoying it composition and complexities. A bag of chips is meant to be eaten one after another until you hit the bottom of a bag. And some times, i just want mindless junk food that i eat while watching a TV show.

Theres room for both. And room to enjoy both.

#36 Posted by YoshiYogurt (5999 posts) -
I agree with this like 40% Some of the Beatles albums do suck, most are pretty good, and Rubber Soul is a masterpiece IMO. Revolver is very close. Guns and Roses sucks ass. AC/DC is pretty bad too. Pink Floyd, Yes, Rush and all that good "old" progressive rock still matches up with good progressive rock and metal of Today.
#37 Posted by dissonantblack (34002 posts) -

Even though it's 2013, hit songs from the 60's and 70's are still mainly what i hear on the radio, as well as in movie trailers. I guess it's nostalgia. 

#38 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -

Don't you dare disrespect Radiohead:P. I love your Thom Yorke meme-thing though:D

#39 Posted by jimkabrhel (15436 posts) -

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"] And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?Reed_Bowie

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

#40 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

Let's see...

 

Beatles: decent.

AC/DC: Garbage

Led Zeppelin: 9.5/10

Lynyrd Skynyrd: 9/10

Guns & Roses: Average

Slayer: 100000000/10

#41 Posted by GreySeal9 (25531 posts) -

I agree with this like 40% Some of the Beatles albums do suck, most are pretty good, and Rubber Soul is a masterpiece IMO. Revolver is very close. Guns and Roses sucks ass. AC/DC is pretty bad too. Pink Floyd, Yes, Rush and all that good "old" progressive rock still matches up with good progressive rock and metal of Today.YoshiYogurt

I prefer Revolver (which is easily one of my favorites albums of all time), but Rubber Soul/Revolver is indeed The Beatles' best period.

I'd rank them like this: Revolver>Rubber Soul>The White Album>Abbey Road>Sgt. Pepper>everything else. Let It Be had the potential to be one of the great Beatles albums (Let It Be and Across The Universe are easily some of their most beautiful songs), but there's too much half-backed crap on that record.

#42 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11404 posts) -

I hate Pink Floyd.

THE_DRUGGIE
Fvck you.
#43 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17834 posts) -

[QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

lonewolf604

Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.

Is there any reason why 13-year olds can't listen to music they like? We were all 13-years old once.

#44 Posted by lonewolf604 (8558 posts) -

[QUOTE="lonewolf604"][QUOTE="jun_aka_pekto"]

It's all a matter of personal taste. Why don't you list the music you like out here and let everyone scrutinize it? You're going to get diverse viewpoints from each person based on their own music tastes.

I have my own tastes and some here would think my taste in music is either derivative or crap. Personally, I couldn't care less what they think. The only thing that matters is I like it.

 

jun_aka_pekto

Everyone has their own tastes yes. With the second thing you said, you're almost giving people an excuse to listen to commercialized crap. I don't care if 13 year olds like Justin Bieber, his music is still garbage.

Is there any reason why 13-year olds can't listen to music they like? We were all 13-years old once.

Oh no, they can listen to it. I still hate the fact that Bieber is commercialized crap. I'm trying to be more tolerant. Talk to me 3 years ago I hated anybody that listen to extremely commercialized music.
#45 Posted by Reed_Bowie (506 posts) -

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

jimkabrhel

When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

Honestly, if you're that bad at reading then you shouldn't be instructing anyone. My thesis is clearly stated in the sentence: " Now, I think the reasoning behind this is that we're all conditioned to believe that the classic rock bands from the 60's-70's are the best and can't be beat." Hell, if you're that poor at reading, it's even the topic of the thread. Just because I may encounter people who are this bad at reading doesn't mean that I'm going to make my opening sentence: "THE TOPIC OF THIS ESSAY IS HOW SOCIETY CONDITIONS PEOPLE TO LIKE OLDER MUSIC" because, to me, that sounds blunt and stupid. I started with a rhetorical statement as a persuasive technique. And even after that, I like to introduce the topic so people have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
#46 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24991 posts) -

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I hate Pink Floyd.

22Toothpicks

Fvck you.

I'm fine with you being wrong.

#47 Posted by Abbeten (3132 posts) -
i don't really like pink floyd either
#48 Posted by Wolfetan (7522 posts) -
i don't really like pink floyd eitherAbbeten
Join the club. Not a fan of 70s/80s rock.
#49 Posted by GreySeal9 (25531 posts) -

i don't really like pink floyd eitherAbbeten

I think they are decent, but I prefer Genesis as far as prog rock bands go. Well, I prefer Genesis up until the self-titled album anyway.

#50 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17577 posts) -
i hate music threads