Yeah, I noticed that even with classic rock radio stations they tend to repeat the same sets, just in a longer loop. This kind of dawned on me when I heard "Hotel California" three times over the span of a day or two. I love classic rock, but even there I need some variety.
Also it's difficult to really determine the quality of music until you hear it live. When you hear a person singing live, you then know whether they have an actual voice or whether it's just autotuned. Of course this only covers the singing talent of the group, and says nothing about the instrumental and composition talent. James LaBrie of Dream Theater has a voice that kind of throws people off sometimes, and in my opinion his singing is not the group's strong point. However, this is completely made up for (and then some) by the instrumental talents of John Petrucci and (formerly) Mike Portnoy. So then you're getting down to a question of what makes music good and bad. Is bad singing enough to override good technique? Is bad instrumentalism enough to drown out the soaring talents of a singer? Or does the quality of both aspects have to be bad to make the music bad as a whole? This in itself poses a problem with definition, because different people have different ideas of what constitutes "bad". As for myself, I define bad in the singing aspect as a person's inability to hit the notes properly, or to even stay on beat. Having some musical background, I can tell when a person is too "flat" or "sharp". Also, another factor in my definition is the originality of the music. If I hear a song that sounds exactly like everything else that's out, I will usually consider it "bad". The performer might have talent, but that is negated by the fact that they are indistinguishable from other artists.
tl;dr - everyone has a different idea about what makes music "bad", so it's difficult to argue and relate. Further, everyone has different levels of knowledge and experience with music, so you're inevitably going to have a disconnect as well.
Of course, this is why you have debates like these - to express opinions. Too bad a lot of people can't do that without being drawn into a flame war.
Also it's difficult to really determine the quality of music until you hear it live. When you hear a person singing live, you then know whether they have an actual voice or whether it's just autotuned. Of course this only covers the singing talent of the group, and says nothing about the instrumental and composition talent. James LaBrie of Dream Theater has a voice that kind of throws people off sometimes, and in my opinion his singing is not the group's strong point. However, this is completely made up for (and then some) by the instrumental talents of John Petrucci and (formerly) Mike Portnoy. So then you're getting down to a question of what makes music good and bad. Is bad singing enough to override good technique? Is bad instrumentalism enough to drown out the soaring talents of a singer? Or does the quality of both aspects have to be bad to make the music bad as a whole? This in itself poses a problem with definition, because different people have different ideas of what constitutes "bad". As for myself, I define bad in the singing aspect as a person's inability to hit the notes properly, or to even stay on beat. Having some musical background, I can tell when a person is too "flat" or "sharp". Also, another factor in my definition is the originality of the music. If I hear a song that sounds exactly like everything else that's out, I will usually consider it "bad". The performer might have talent, but that is negated by the fact that they are indistinguishable from other artists.
tl;dr - everyone has a different idea about what makes music "bad", so it's difficult to argue and relate. Further, everyone has different levels of knowledge and experience with music, so you're inevitably going to have a disconnect as well.
Of course, this is why you have debates like these - to express opinions. Too bad a lot of people can't do that without being drawn into a flame war.
