Popular music is mediocre! 

Going bald was the best thing Anthony ever did

This whole letter was r/iamverysmart material.

My IQ is over 400 and i listen to sine waves through my 10k dollar oscillator.

The Shrek soundtrack is mediogre

This guy writing the letter sounds like a 15 year old atheist.

If you think you are more inteligent based on the music you hear, this is a clear sign you are not

I can smell the fedora and vape machine off this letter

Everything is mediocre and we're all going to die.

"Listening to more obscure music doesn't mean you're smart" one thousand times yes

Don't dislike popular music if its popular music I dislike popular music if its bad music

SoRrY I OnLY LiSteN tO DeAtH GrIpS

I have an undeserved superiority complex partly due to my music taste, which constantly battles with my cripplingly low self esteem. Hey, atleast I admit it

"All music that is popular is bad". Literally the most closed minded thing I've ever heard.

It was a day like any other. Anthony Fantano, the Internet’s busiest music nerd, was hard at work listening to music that he was to review. It was sunny, and slightly humid, so he had left his shirt off for the day. His girlfriend was dealing with an emergency at work. But all of a sudden, Anthony heard a knock at his door. His muscles rippled as he got up from his desk chair. He slowly walked to the door… He saw a dark silhouette through the window. “I wonder who that could be…?” Anthony wondered. He slowly opened the door. And, to his great surprise, his biggest idol was standing before him… MC Ride. Or as his friends call him, Stefan. MC Ride peeked in the doorway, and said, “H-hey… um I don’t know if you know me… b-but I’m in a band and our van broke down about a half mile back… I w-was hoping you had some tools laying around…” Now, although Anthony had always loved Death Grips and their music, he tried to play it cool. After all, he kind of had a crush on Stefan ever since he heard his voice on Beware. Luckily, Anthony had a big shed in his back yard full of his dad’s old mechanic tools. Anthony smiled, and replied, “Sure… I recognize you. What band again? Deaf grapes or something?” “N-no… Death Grips…” answered MC Ride. Anthony laughed. “ha-ha, that’s right! just come on in! I could definitely give you a tool to use…” He led MC Ride to his back yard. On the way, He could feel Ride’s gaze on him. He wondered if he liked what he saw. He opened the door to the shed, and Ride quickly shuffled in to grab what he needed. “He’s even cuter in real life…” Thought Anthony. On the way back, Anthony hastily offered Ride a beer. “Hey man, want to have a beer? You seem like a cool dude.” “Well… Zach and Andy are waiting for me… but I guess a quick beer wouldn’t hurt I guess.” Mumbled Ride. At first, they sat awkwardly in Fantano’s living room. But then they started talking about Death Grips and other music. They were soon off on a riveting conversation. After a while, Anthony said; “hey… I haven’t really been honest with you Stefan… Can I call you that? To tell the truth, I know a lot about Death Grips. I’m pretty much your biggest fan.” “Ha-ha… Yes I know… and I have to confess something too. I watch almost all of your video reviews. Y-you could say that I’m your biggest fan.” Anthony then did something very risky. He laid his hand on Stefan’s leg, right above the knee. Their eyes met, and the next thing Anthony knew, their lips were locked and they were lying on the couch together. “Can Andy and Zach wait?” asked Anthony. Ride’s response was to continue kissing him. They made out like this for a few minutes, and then Ride started slowly moving down to Anthony’s private area, kissing his beautiful chest on the way down. “Please” whispered Anthony. MC Ride slowly unbuttoned Anthony’s black shorts. Anthony’s rock hard penis sprang up, and MC Ride started sucking it off. It was the best blowjob of Anthony’s life. Far better than any blowjob his girlfriend had ever given him. The way Stefan’s tongue moved… it was amazing. “Ohhhh Stefan… I think I want you to do the nasty in my taxi!” yelled Anthony. “I AM THE BEAST YOU WORSHIP” replied MC Ride as he took Anthony’s cock out of his mouth. Anthony bent over on the couch, and got on his knees. Ride undid his all-black jeans, and revealed his lengthy penis. He started to put his throbbing penis into Anthony’s butt, when all of a sudden, “IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES YUUHHHH!!!!!” “Oh my God!!” screamed Anthony. “You get-get-get-get got-got-got-got it in!” MC Ride wasn’t a tender lover. He pumped and pumped until finally, in euphoria, he came inside of Anthony’s butt. He withdrew, exhausted, and laid down next to Anthony, who had reached orgasm as well. “H-how was it?” Asked Stefan. “you’re good…” Whispered Anthony. Whispered Anthony. “I liked your lovemaking. I would give you a strong six, light seven.”

John sounds like a psuedo-intellectual who seems insecure of his own musical taste.

My IQ is 4 billion and I smell sounds and hear colors

since when did listening to obscure music make you smart??

To compare today's top 100 with that from 20 years ago is going to yield some unfair results. The internet has introduced a distribution route that decreases the need for radio airplay to sell music and therefore allows artists to take chances that major labels would not allow. Moving away from major labels is to move away from aggressive marketing and guaranteed chart positions. The result is more music for everyone but a chart that no longer reflects what a wide range of people are actually listening to.

I love the tone of the IQ argument. He round-about humble-brags by insinuating he's 130+ IQ and therefore just might not "get" popular music because he's just too smart.

Linking musical taste or any kind of taste to IQ is just a way of reassuring oneself about one's intelligence. It leads to poserism with people pretending to enjoy stuff that they think is smart just because it sounds smart, sometimes even lying to themselves. Don't be insecure, and do yourself a favor : find things you legitimately enjoy, not "smart".

I feel like the dude that wrote the letter should have added a "p.s. (tips fedora)".

I'm feeling a strong 3 on john's arguments and theory.

Anthony's rendition of "Yummy Yummy Yummy" completes my life. All of it. Guaranteed.

Sometimes simple pop songs are fun. Not everything needs to be taken 100% seriously. Of course if one only appreciates "art music", then a simple catchy pop song has no value to them. Also, I hate the pseudo intellectuals who try to prove they are somehow better than others because they listen to complex music or underground music or "art music" or whatever. There are even people who think listening to bands like Led Zeppelin and Metallica makes them somehow superior to people who listen to for example pop, hip hop or electronic music, even though LZ and Metallica are like the definition of mainstream (not saying there's anything wrong with LZ or Metallica - I think they are great bands but you are not special for liking them because they are some of the most popular bands ever). I do think to make a song that appeals to as many people as possible, it needs to have something catchy in it. And to make something catchy, it needs to be simple enough. It needs to be something people are already kind of familiar with but there's also something new in it so that it's not too boring. Well, obviously you can also make something catchy by just playing it over and over again. After enough repeats people will remember it and be able to sing along with it. But yeah, I think there's music for different purposes. Many hit songs work well as party songs. They are easy to listen to and have a beat that makes you want to dance and a chorus that's easy to sing along with. They work for having fun. They are not songs that you would seriously listen to just for the music. But for example progressive rock doesn't work as party music. To enjoy something like progressive rock, you need to focus on the music. It's not easy to listen to - you need to pay attention to it. And even then it may take a couple of listens to really get used to.

How can you be so pretentious to write out a note like that. Damn.

Suggesting that people with higher IQs like 'better' music is sheer pretentious elitism

"I don't think [Kanye West's] music is dumbed down" whoopity scoop scoopity whoop

He either likes Tool and Mozart or Arctic Monkeys and Tame Impala.

I hate musical elitists, the people who say 'You listen to that band, how can you call yourself a lover of music?", I just spring the Beatles fallacy on them. They say "It all sounds the same though". Yeah, because your 15 albums of obscure ukulele playing, banjo picking, quavering smokey voice "Indie Bands" are completely different aren't they?

Anthony Fantano is mediocre. Cal Chuchesta on the other hand...

Bring this series back fantonio

There's two types of popular music: 1. Music that is produced so well by great musicians that know how to create music that everyone will love both sonically, lyrically and deeply. 2. Bland trendy music that sells millions because of good marketing. However, example 1 will go down in history (Beatles, Bowie etc.) Example 2 will be lost in history (Archies, One Direction etc.)

I think it's just a case of liking music more then others. Because lots of people started their musical journey in the mainstream, but as they got burnt out on all those artists, they went deeper, seeking other music, gradually getting to more lesser know artists and more obscure genres. But at the same time, many people who are really into music like us, might not have a huge interest in say film, or TV, so all of our favorites there are mainstream. And that's because the more you indulge yourself in an interest, the further you get from the mainstream. It does not relate to intelligence.

It's ridiculous to associate mediocre 'popular' music, or any form of media, just with those of a lower IQ. Finding catchy music enjoyable is not something that is exclusive to those of a low IQ, regardless of lyrical quality. And what about people who listen to it ironically, for example, or when too drunk to care that it's crap? What it comes down to, really, is how much a person is interested in music. If they're not that interested, then they're not going to bother to find music with more substance that Katy Perry, nor are they going to put much thought into the lyrical or musical skill these artists show. Even if they're an Einstein. Conversely, a genuinely good band can appeal to morons. Look at the Beatles; as well as all the screaming girls that made up Beatlemania, they were a big influence on the teenage hippies that Frank Zappa tore into on his song 'Who Needs The Peace Corps?', who were merely following a fashion, rather than having any genuine concern for the social and political values of the movement. But does that make the Beatles a band for idiots? Surely it just means that bands can apply to both craze following morons and real music fans at the same time?

A good way to look at it is to look at it like the video game industry. That majority of people arnt "big gamers" and therefore only really play games like candy crush because they arnt really looking for a sit down experience. And also must popular music is just as good and bad as unpopular music.

I'm gonna assume that Anthony got this letter through carrier pigeon.

One thing that I think has changed and somewhat skewed our perspective, is that music is far more fragmented and diverse than it ever has been before. Back in the 60s, there were really only a handful of different kinds of Western music, so when something good came out, a higher percentage of the population caught onto it. That's why Baby-Boomers all tend to like the same music. These days we have so much more to choose from, so people are more divided between different kinds of music. I'd bet that if you added up all the Flying Lotus fans, Queens of the Stone Age fans, James Blake fans, Mayer Hawthorne fans and Chance the Rapper fans you'd get a group of people comparable in numbers to, say, Katy Perry fans. There's more people listening to non-pop music than people listening to just pop music, but they're so divided between different genres and scenes that they can never unite and compete with the millions listening to top 40 music. The guy writing the letter sure sounds like an elitist tosser though, ey?

What a pretentious letter...

David Byrne made a good point in his book "How Music Works" about this very subject. An excerpt: "The idea used to be that the record company A&R folks all had good ears, and, as Lenny Waronker said, they could sense that these kids and their songs could , just maybe, become hugely popular and make a pile of money for the record company. At some point in the 80's these guys with the special ears began to disappear. Most of the major labels began to merge with one another, or even with non-music businesses. Warner Bros., where I was, got absorbed by Time, Inc. (Maybe we'd all get good reviews from Time from now on!) And then, to make it even more confusing, that entity merged with AOL. The new stockholders and boards soon demanded quarterly accounting, which pressured the labels to produce significant hits on a regular basis. The "ears" who spotted and nurtured talent were well paid, so to pay off the debts accrued by the recent mergers, these guys were let go. Then even the guys who managed and used to own the record labels were paid handsomely to go away. Other guys who didn't have a history of dealing with musicians thought they could do just as well or better by being more ruthless and efficient. Mostly, though, they didn't do any better. The smaller labels that survived still relied on their love of the form and their gut instincts, and because they were actually paying attention, sometimes they hooked a big one. They knew when something moved them, but they didn't have the same financial resources and marketing manpower as the big boys. Turning one's heart, ears, and love into cash could only be a 'sometime' thing." tl;dr record companies merged with non-music businesses (AOL for example) and treated artists like cash cows that required quarterly profits, making the quality suffer.

I feel like his John's theory actually is kind of interesting until he starts using objective words to describe subjective things, as well as him starting to act "higher-than-thou"

Making generalizations about the entirety of music is idiotic. Thank you for making this video, it really needed to be said how people are biased when they look into the past.

i really do hate teenagers that think "oh it was on the radio? IT'S SHIT GOTTA HATE IT BLINDLY".

in fact Henry Rollins yelling at you can make you very smart

In my opinion the quality of the pop artists today is based on the artist's motivation. If you take an artist like Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber, a lot of their motive (not all of it though) is just to make money or be famous. Take some artists like Sia, Lady Gaga, or Beyoncé. Their music is taken more seriously and has better critical acclaim. What's different about them is that they make music because that is what they love. If you are passionate about something, the product will be better.

r/IamVerySmart

I think you could have even listed Kendrick Lamar as a mainstream figure today that doesn't sacrifice intelligence for popularity. And yes, to anyone who wants to try to tell me otherwise, Kendrick Lamar IS mainstream now.

I get your point comment section, however, if someone tells you that Toosie Slide is the greatest song that has ever been written, don't tell me that you wouldn't think said person is kinda stupid

i like this meme bald guy tqbh

Here's another thought. …The average American listener has had a very closed acceptance or mindset towards music. Take for instance Jimi Hendrix, when he was being introduced. What did his management do? They shipped him over to Europe first, knowing very well the U.S. wouldn't understand or accept him. He exploded in Europe, then they brought him back to the U.S., and then the U.S. thought he was amazing. …It's the same with the Beatles and the British Invasion; Black people had been playing the Blues for decades (Robert Johnson and the birth of Blues), then the Blues was exported and picked up and transformed by the English, and then they spat it back out to the U.S., where the average American raved the Blues, when it was born in their own backwards. …So, back to the question, Pop music is mediocre. Since it seems that the larger U.S. audience is unwilling or unable to accept new music or different forms of music (verse, chorus, bridge, etc.).

It's not that popular music is bad, but bad music has become popular.

alright, but music is just tuned sounds that only humans like. telling someone that their music taste sucks is like telling them their favorite color sucks. its stupid and pointless and just like all art its completely subjective.

will you ever do videos like this again? i always find myself rewatching these videos. they're the reason i give the needle drop a light to decent 9 tbh

I'm almost always turned off of popular music, but not for the sheer fact that it's popular. But because most popular music is really lively and almost fake in a way. Something I can't really connect with. And sure, maybe there is a talent factor to some of the songs, I won't disregard that. But if I can't get into the song, then it doesn't matter how talented the artist is. I won't listen to it if I don't like it.

I don't like being fed my music like what happens to a lot of more pleb music listeners through the radio and whatnot but at the same time I think there are artists in that spotlight that make great music (or at least did at one point), whether it be the Foo Fighters, Kendrick Lamar, Bruno Mars, or Coldplay, there's a lot of good music where maybe some more close-minded people wouldn't care to look (I'm looking at you, metalheads.) But also, everywhere you look there will always be dumbed down and bland music whether it be on the radio or in the underground.

"Are you trying to tell me that listening to indie amd underground music does not mean I'm intelligent?"

why do you have hair

The only problem i have with mainstream music is how it's idolized. Do you know how much i've heard drunk in love today? Too much. I understand that it's catchy but people have made it seem like it's the greatest thing to happen to earth since Jesus.

not all popular music is pointless theres some underground music thats garbarge and some thats not. theres some popular music that very meaningful.

Not liking something = it’s wrong . Adds up

Wow you mentioned 'Faust Tapes' that's the best album I've seen you mention in any of your videos.

What's the IQ of Cal Chuchesta?

Sturgeon's Law: ninety percent of everything is crap. Popular music in the past was "better" because we only remember the 10% that wasn't crap.

I'm dreaming of a day when TheNeedleDrop doe's a classic review of a Beatles album.

I also do think that popular music is (as a general rule) bad, but time and nostalgia acts as a bias, making the past look like it was filled with nothing but classics. This was not the case, it's just that people have forgotten the cheesy rubbish music that still existed back then as it does today. Honestly, I feel that many huge artists alive today will not be remembered fondly in 20 years time, but many cult artists who are struggling today will still be remembered by a devoted fanbase for many years to come.

There's two types of popular music, the kind that appeals to the lowest common denominator , and the kind that is just popular because it's good. The person who wrote the letter seems to group all popular music together and then gets confused because his theory falls apart. The idea that some music gets popular because it appeals to the biggest mediocre crowd isn't bad.

Radiohead's popular. I love Radiohead, and they're very complex/not mediocre. Like Fantano said, think it's very easy to shit on current pop music. Also, what's that term that was invented for current young people that talk about how great past music was and how everything now is shit? I forgot. I'd like to see you do a video about that subculture.

What the heck is that thing on your head Anthony?

His hearline looks like a glitch

Here's the thing guys: whether a song is good or bad is completely subjective. Just because "I Want To Hold Your Hand" by The Beatles is simple, short, and "poppy" does NOT necessarily make it bad. I still love it. Likewise, just because something like, say, Cygnus x-1 by Rush is complex and intricate does NOT necessarily make it good. (big Rush fan, don't mean to hate on them, just using this as an example.) All I am saying is that different music will appeal to different people and no one is ever really "right" or "wrong" in their opinion of "good" music. To each his own.

It's important to remember that music is popular for more then one reason. This is why labels put just as much focus on the looks of an artists, as they do on the music itself. As simply listening to something, doesn't create much of an identity on its own. Because when identifying something, we rely on the sense we use the most, which is our vision. And this means we sometimes also judge things based on how they look, more then anything ells. Especially if we don't have a lot of experience with what we are faced with. One example of this is food, which is why kids often say they don't like particular food, based only on how the food looks, rather then tastes. Music shares this problem as well. Teenage girls become fan of boy groups, not really because they love the music, but because they like the looks of the boys in the group. This becomes even more prominent by the fact that they are young, and therefor are more persuaded by their emotions. And their lesser experience with listening to music, means they won't be as critical about the music itself, which brings me to my next point. How we perceive music, is directly affected by the type of music we are use to listen to. Or in other words; we don't all listen to the same piece of music, in the same way. Because our experience with listening to music is very different from each other, depending on how much music we listen to, and how many different genres we listen to. If you are use to listen to a lot of jazz. you will experience a pop track very differently, then someone who just listens to the radio. This is, again, very similar to how we perceive food. An a la carte chef, who has developed his tastebuds for years through eating a lot of different high quality food, will taste food very differently, then someone who has no real interest in food. Not because the a la carte chef cares more about food, but simply because his tastebuds are much more trained in tasting different kinds of food. And therefor have a lot more pillars of which he can measure taste from. Listening to music is exactly the same. The more you listen, the more you learn to listen.

"true genius is being able to take something complex and simplify it."

I didn't know it was possible for you to grow hair on your head

Popular music is mediocre: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-be_HVMwiBAM.html

I can't stand people who go around commenting on old songs like "I'm 13 and I listen to this instead of shit today like Katy Perry. Sorry for what my generation did to music". Nobody cares. If you like Pink Floyd but hate Kanye West, then listen to Pink Floyd and don't listen to Kanye West.

great reply, only just started watchin your reviews, really appreciate what you have to say on albums and other subjects.

My IQ is 360 and I only listen to whichever XXL freshmen get downvoted the most each year. We exist

Hipsterism isn't actually that new a thing, there were always people who listened to obscure music or read obscure books to distinguish themselves somehow from the "majority", either to satisfy their ego or to troll the majority. I like obscure music but I never boast about unpopular bands I manage to find somewhere. And no, I don't think I'm more intelligent than anyone else. I simply like obscure music.

I honestly don't think, by asking this question, that John actually meant that people who like pop are stupid. I think he was asking it rhetorically or theoretically and he just added the comment about the IQ to make things interesting. I think John actually sounds like a pretty smart, inquisitive guy and by asking the question he did he was just pondering on a topic rather than full on 100% in agreement. If he agreed that dumb people listen to dumb music then I don't think he's be asking Anthony. I think he brought up a really interesting topic for conversation. I also agree with everything that Anthony said in his answer/explanation. Most pop songs have a set formula... dumb Verse, verse, catchy chorus, dumber verse, emotional bridge, catchy chorus chorus chorus. (something like that) And this same formula has been used for a very long time, and it is used because, well, it works. If an intelligent person finds a song catchy and they can't get it stuck out of their head it doesn't make them dumb. This is a sure fire formula for most folks and I have yet to find someone totally immune to pop music. (everyone have their dirty little secrets )**COUGH COUGH destiny's child COUGH COUGH** Just as Anthony states, it's like if an unintelligent person finds an intelligent song good, it doesn't make them smarter. So in conclusion, no one should be dissing John here, I think he asked a great question in an unbiased matter. And I agree with Anthony the end

look, he has hair

I had a interesting discussion with a friend the other day, after I started working as a teacher, about the music the kids listen to these days. And we ended up taking about the music of Justin Bieber, One Direction, Miley Cirus, etc. And talking about what we remember as music growing up. After searching a bit online, we found our, we had forgotten a lot of stuff from when we were young, and found out, when you start to compare the likes of Bieber and One D to stuff like "who let the dogs out", "Dr. Bombay", and "Cotton eyed Joe", suddenly, we figured, we have nothing to say to these kids, other than "Enjoy yourself" ...

2:33 NEW ORDER TASK FORCE REPORTING FOR DUTY WE MUST PROTECT BERNARD SUMNER

There is an element of romantic lonerism (to cite tame impala) at work here in the subtext. People who like obscure music tend to revel in the obscurity. We don't want to listen to what THEY're listening to. We're special. We need special everything. Or else how will we know we're special???

Music is music. I really dgaf

3:00 best moment from anthony

I thought you made a great point about listening to old music in a vacuum and forgetting all the terrible stuff. For example, I am currently in the process of listening to every Motown single ever released. We all kinda remember the label for its "Hitsville" moniker, but TBH like 90% of the singles range from crappy to meh. It's just that by the time you reach a full generation later, all the mediocre and bad stuff have been filtered out of the playback rotation (along with some really good stuff too)

I had this thought four years ago because I was forced to explain why I hated music on the radio. I was accused of hating music on the radio just because it was popular and I had to explain how that wasn't so. So I came to this thought. And I was still just a hipster...

I finally found the person that has the same outlook on popular music as me! Thank you for existing, we need more people like you in the vinyl community!

The phrase “you wouldn’t know them” personified

oxymoron dropped get to it Fantano

Now I have that terrible Yummy love song stuck in my head :( Btw, I liked how you answered his letter. I hate when people link intelligence with media and entertainement. People can listen, read, and watch whatever they want. It's all subjective. As long as it's not hateful stuff. I mean who cares?

I'll never ever forget sugar sugar, but only because of the Simpsons

Great video Anthony! There is a lot of songs that are considered terrible in the past as well that people have forgotten besides those two you have mentioned. People tend to see the past as 'having better music' even though there is nothing new under the sun - there will always be both good popular music and bad popular music existing all at the same time.

"The Monkees weren't about music, Marge. They were about rebellion, about political and social upheaval!"

I think that mediocre music tends to have greater potential to become more popular, but that doesn't necessarily mean that good music cannot or otherwise tends not to become popular. I did work for a long time in a supermarket where the same radio station playing in the store would play the same pop songs night after night after night, which eventually started driving me insane. So I am kinda biased towards the "popular music is generally worse than obscure music" angle. Then again, some obscure music is obscure for a reason...

Really enjoyed this. What could be added is that groups like Beatles, New Order, Hendrix, etc., arrive at simple accessibility and popularity through exploring music more deeply and broadly (i.e. the artists who put in the "10,000 hours"). A jazz appreciation teacher once noted that Miles Davis could only arrive at his "Kind of Blue" sparse slow thoughtful simplicity by exploring all the complex and speedy runs of his previous hard bop leanings. The reason you can separate a song like Yellow Submarine from one like Sugar, Honey, Honey is that you get a sense that it has more sturdy foundations. Intellect is probably less important than the exposure and attention you afford your musical life. I'll take a bandmate who has a killer record collection but only knows power chords over a prodigy who's only heard Segovia... (maybe).

Ayo wtf you mean? Yummy yummy yummy was a straight banger. That beat was straight bussin bussin on God on God

Every decade has its shitty music. Popularity is irrelevant.

What if one, like me, both digs some of the most popular stuff (I like We Can't Stop by Miley and Live While We're Young by One Direction as two examples) and stuff all the way down to experimental? Music can be so many things, so many different kind of experiences, have many different uses and approaches, I would hate to limit myself. I find good and bad music on both sides of the accessibility spectrum. Do I think One Direction is a great band and deserving of anywhere near as much praise as some of the bands I truly like? No. Do I think that people who only listens to the top-40 stuff have good taste in music? No. But that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge and enjoy that same music in it's own right. Music is a universe of it's own and people often unfairly compare things that are lightyears away from eachother.

The relationship between popularity and quality is complicated, usually what's in the charts is what gets marketed the most, not what's the most complex, deep or inventive. I have no idea whether intelligence is related to taste in music but that seems unlikely. Bands like The Beatles and PF do prove popular music can be the best of the best, though production and consumption today is very different, some of the best music from indie labels just doesn't get the exposure it deserves because the big corporate labels over-saturate the market and can afford waaay more advertising. The charts can't always be good, but every now and then something genuinely good manages to scrape to the top and you have to savor it. I think what all music lovers should aim for is a broad taste, listen to as much as you can and find as many different kinds of music as possible to enjoy. I'm proud that I can enjoy anything from punk to funk, blues to disco, soul to pop rock, alt country to hip hop, the list goes on. But maybe I'm a little self-righteous because nothing annoys me more than the person who only listens to the charts, or only listens to one genre, how do they not get bored?

my iq isnt 130. therefore i listen to justin bieber and one direction. he right