bigshot, the way you describe music makes it seem like you assume everyone looks for the same thing in music. Or, at the very least, you believe that your music taste is more refined than say, for example, mine. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but my music taste is (or at least was) similar to bcasey's, so I can only assume you would have a similar reaction.
I don't care about technicality. In fact, I feel it detracts from the music. You like to zoom in on the microdetails, I prefer the bigger picture. Repetition and Texture are more crucial to me than someone being more technically proficient.
Also, you mentioned that you felt someone's song had been done before, only better by James Brown. All music is merely a repeat of music before it. I assure you, as I'm sure you feel the same, that James Brown was bested before he even started playing.
I think I lost where I was going with that...
Anyway, I'm going to pull a bcasey. Would you mind listening to this:
and then perhaps this:
The first is an example of a band that I consider to have very little technical merit, but creates a very clear atmosphere through it's use of texture and repetition. The second is an example of a band which I consider has technical merit, but chooses instead to focus, again, on texture to create an atmosphere.
The reason I decided to respond to you is that you constantly preach how open-minded you are towards music and how "the kids don't get it" when you in fact disregard everything that doesn't require intense technical training. I feel that is hypocritical.
I prefer Erik Satie and you prefer Louis Armstrong. You are not right and I am not wrong. Music is not objective.
edit: OH YEAH, and you had the audacity to say that society is to blame for the lack of respectable music tastes. I don't feel that music has gotten worse. Rather, I feel that music has gotten more prevalent. It's different, but not necessarily worse.