Why is it with most teenagers nowadays?

I agree 100%!

It goes all the way back to my early days of high school. Even then when I was a straight up metal head, I was complaining about how all metal sucks these days. I have those music channels the direct TV, like 99% of all the new bands sucked!
IMHO: Only really good metal bands post-2000 were SOAD and Lamb of God, (and now their too big and fanboys fill youtube/music forums!!!)
As my musical tastes expanded I saw it's not just metal, very little good music is made nowadays....


Edited by JJLehto - June 06 2010 at 01:26

Yeah, if I ever did have kids I have to try my best to get them on jazz/prog/good metal/any good music! 

Gotta feel bad for my parents, now that I'm older I keep a great relationship with them, but through my HS days, as well as my younger brother we gave them that sh*t to deal with!
If I ever do reproduce god help this world anyway.
Keep doing your part ACR and make sure your daughter listens to good music!

To the OP, well you're 15 at the moment.
In 5 years time, when you gain more perspective, you'll look back at this thread you made and will laugh, seriously (and no offense intended by that).
Generally screamo is just a blend of alt rock, post hardcore and emo, and eh, hate me but like some bands that play that style of music, just as I also like death metal, jazz fusion, 20th century classical and post metal for instance.
It's really just time better spent just focusing on the stuff you like, discovering more music for yourself and just ignoring the stuff you don't like.

Don't go around trying to "introduce prog" to people either.
I find it pretty annoying when someone feels the need to want to introduce a band to me.
If I care enough and just hear a friend listening to something one day and I dig it, I'll ask them what it is.
But I don't go around saying "guize listen to this stuff, I like it so you'll probably like it" because that's just really annoying and obnoxious quite frankly.
Let them discover stuff on their own terms and ease they way into it, not be pushed into it.

That's funny. I'm 55and have the same problem.I remember my old man telling me how he got teased about liking classical music. He grew up way out in the country where all they  knew was country music. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

There's been badass musicians in country.
Chet Atkins, Jerry Reed, Brad Paisley (well okay, has some terrible songs, but his picking abilities pretty much destroys faces) etc.
It's too bad country music gets associated with that crap like Taylor Swift et al now

The reason why people can't listen to long pieces anymore is simple - because the Counterculture movement that was the craddle of psychedelicity and progressivity in music has ended.

The reason why long and complicated pieces had a chance to get to popular music in the first place was Counterculture with its contestation and refusal to participate in the culture created by establishment and so on. Therefore, as they weren't participating in a rat race, they had time to sit down and enjoy the music, that got the opportunity to became more complex.

But their ideals eventually wore off, and then came the Punk revolution with its short catchy songs, and this is the whole story. Since then, the life is only getting faster and faster, so the songs has to be short. Also there's no time to wonder about what was the meaning of the song, so the lyrics are rather simple and clear.

I could explain it all better in polish, as I'm not very familiar with some terms of Counterculture movement in english. Anyway, I'm a student of Culture Studies, and I am working at this particular subject, so I know what I'm talking about. ;)

Regardless, it's a bit of a simplification anyway because Maiden and Metallica began to bring back long songs.  I think the answer lies in what Wetton said in the interview that cstack posted in that other thread. Without an improvisational element, prog gets a little boring to listen to and personally I really would rather listen to a short song if the long song has nothing to offer that the short song can't.  

It's normal for teenagers to seek for music from the most accessible sources, these being, in growing order of importance: family, friends/peers, media. So it all comes to what's available at the moment, especially in the media. If the "offer" is rich, then the "demand" will sort itself - each personal sensibility will find something to fit its needs, and the spectrum of public taste will be diverse.

In my opinion, the available offer in 2010 is very, very limited. No wonder so many kids dumb themselves with crap, that's what they get when they open a TV... A decade and a half ago, during "my time", I was opening the MTV each day after school, and I was finding there on heavy rotation Radiohead, The Verve, U2, Oasis, Blur, Pulp, Metallica, Marilyn Manson, Faith No More, Nirvana, Massive Attack, Tricky, plus other nice pop, electro, hip-hop, etc. A lot of stuff that I still hold fundamental for me. Would I find such a diversity and quality on today's mainstream media?

That doesn't mean today's mainstream does not produce lots of nice stuff. Especially in the indie scene. But none of that can be discovered via the mainstream media. You need to find other "alternative people" to become one yourself.

I am definitely not going to have a TV when I'll have kids around.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Wiktor Hatif wrote: Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: Ultimately the most unique sounds come about from just doing what you do and what you do only, and not caring whether you're in the "in crowd" or with the "counter culture" or not. if you'd know what Counterculture is, you would know that "doing what you do" was one of their major  bywords :) Regardless how unconsequent and naive Counterculture was, there wouldn't be prog today without it. I'm writing Counterculture with capital "C" because I'm talking about this particular 60's early 70's movement. I know exactly what it is, and my opinion is that it's was just bullsh*t. I just think it's ridiculous that some people felt the need to announce to the world they would go out of their way to be "different" and "unique". It's no better than the mindless idiots that buy into the mindless consumerist crap, it's just the same thing with a different name and I doubt the "Counter Culture" was at all necessary for the rise of prog. People want to create music regardless of whether they feel the need to go out of their way to be different or not. I don't think Robert Fripp woke up one day and said "OH HAY GUIZE I'M SO COUNTER CULTURE!" because that's just stupid. He just played guitar and liked making music, that's all

You don't really understand it. I know that the most prog musicians wasn't intentionally counter culture, and the things that they were doing with music wasn't some deliberate plan. BUT the fact that the things they were doing met with such great feedback from listeners comes from Counterculture. Counterculture wasn't just a movement, it was a reflection of zeitgeist.

You can think what you want but these are facts. You are just blinded by your obvious hatred of this phenomenon. I don't think it was very wise either, but I'm aware of the impact Counterculture has on culture (sic! :P). I would send you to some books and publications written by the smarter and more educated people than I, but you wouldn't probably go for it. Your opinion is stronger than facts ;)

I'll say it one more time, there wouldn't be progressive music without Counterculture (capital C) and what is even more certain, it wouldn't have ever become popular. The progressive era wouldn't have happened.