I have to agree. I used to be a huge "alternative music" (an offshoot of punk and glam rock whose heyday was in the 80s) fan and I also liked plenty of what they now call "classic rock." (Mostly old 60s and 70s warhorses like Led Zeppelin.) But the thing I remember most about those days is how most of the product even of the supposedly less-commercial (and therefore less musically compromised by the need to appeal to the mainstream) indie bands was about 99% dreck. And these days I hardly ever listen to any of my collection -- some of the songs I thought I couldn't live without now prompt only an "eh, what did I think was so great about that?" reaction. These days I mostly listen to classical (well, I always listened to classical), and I have been getting into jazz, which I used to not care for at all.

But the less I say about "Empty-V" the better. There was a very brief period when music could be interesting and fun, like little short films. But that didn't make the record companies enough money, or get MTV enough eyeballs, so out came the thug music and the women shoving their behinds in your face, and then actual music videos began to be replaced by those awful tv shows MTV came up with, like "Jackass" and that "Real World" horror. If you don't hate humanity, watch a few episodes of "Real World: Miami."

As for the state of modern rock music, never mind pop and rap, I can't stand most of it. What strikes me is how whiny most modern rock bands are. They all seem to be no-life shlubs who are down in the mouth about everything. At least in the old days of "classic" rock the musicians (such as they were) seemed to go at their decadent, awful lives with gusto. Today's rock singer sits around moping. I call it "Prozac Rock."

I just find myself perpetually disappointed at how most musicians really just don't have anything interesting to say. Didn't used to notice it so much, but anymore I just laugh at them...

In fact, the only genre I find interesting anymore is rap - at least they're talking about something they understand most of the time, even if it's not interesting stuff of itself.

Rap "artists" do seem to be the only "musicians" who seem to be enjoying themselves in the old heavy metal manner, though shooting each other is a poor substitute for throwing televisions and cars into swimming pools.

I still listen to a lot of rock - mostly modern alternative (Radiohead, Audioslave), but I agree entirely with Ethan's point that musicians don't seem to have anything interesting to say. In fact, I think that applies across the entire art world.

When I go to the Art Institute to see works by new artists I never see anything even remotely interesting or provocative. Most of it is just boring and some of it laughable.

I have made a conscious effort to read some contemporary literature. I have found some authors who write beautifully, but I have trouble finding anyone who has anything truly interesting to say. Most don't even seem to be trying. There are some exceptions, but very few.

Rappers may just be talking about booty, its relative quality, quantity, and what they would like to do to it - but at least they know what they're talking about. Unlike pop divas discussing endless love, or Conscience Rockers talking about geopolitics, or rich-ass 60's and 70's stars telling us about poverty and what we aren't doing about it.

Barbara, just tell me what it's like to berate the service; Bono, tell me about your cars and investment portfolio; Brittany, tell me about farting and belching in the bayou; and 50 Cent, tell me about bitches, money and prison; all of you, talk about what you understand. And 50's the only one of them doing that.

(Christ, how depressing...time to put on some Sibelius...)

Mike - I'm right there with you.

But I would warn against the natural bias against one's own times. By which I mean, if you were driving around in 1965, the year of the Beatles Help and Rubber Soul, the Beach Boys Summer Days, three Rolling Stones albums, the Byrds Mr. Tambourine Man and Turn! Turn! Turn!, a bunch of classics from the Supremes, the Temptations, etc., etc., etc...you're driving around, and mixed in with all this great stuff, probably ten parts to one, are things like the Monkeys, We Five, songs about a Red Rubber Ball, just loads and loads of dreck. From our vantage point in 2006, we get to pick out the best of the best to preserve - but in 1965, you were stuck with the whole mix of trash...

I prefer the Monkeys to the Beatles.

Wow - but hey, personal taste is a funny thing - I'm a big, big Barry Manilow fan...I have an Eminem CD and a Barry Manilow CD in the car right now...so I certainly ain't about to find fault with you!

Though wow, that is surprising!

Dude, try progressive (or progressive metal.) Sure, most of the popular bands are European, but they sing in English and their music has some depth.

Actually, if you look at music as a language, the problem with pop music is that its creators largely have been exposed to the musical equivalent of baby talk all of their lives. Children will not be able to grasp classical the first time they are exposed to it: it's too complex, and comes across as just noise.

I *know* that happens because I had the same experience upon being exposed to certain musicians who used complex forms in their music. It was just noise; I couldn't get a handle on it. The key for me was watching a performance DVD of one band— it brought enough order to what I was hearing that I could enjoy it and understand it better. (They are known for complex, shifting time signatures, and until you grasp the phrasing you're off balance.)

You have to lead people to liking classical music gently. I find that old Warner Brothers cartoons are a good start.