I will watch Christmas top of the pops tomorrow, as I have done since I was little, but last few years I spend my time asking granddaughter 'who are they then?' each time an act comes on

It's bland karaoke - but that's not even the worst part, between the singing we have to have tedious 'life' stories and fake drama. I find it weird if your not interested in the music you could possibly find it remotely entertaining. Maybe it's me that's being weird instead, but when I want to watch something entertaining I look for something I'm interested in - and celeb culture, and red top tabloid stories aren't my thing, giveme a decent written drama or an interesting documentary.

Same here. In fact all this celebrity culture bores me. I have absolutely no interest in it. Who cares what some z-lister is up to? There are more important things in this world. What annoys me most is when some people consider celeb gossip to be news and think of it as being more important than real-world events. I find that sad.

i dont disagree with your assesment, especially celeb culture which i detest.

but for me saturday night tv has always been about light entertainment, and whilst i prefer britains got talent, txf fits the bill for a noisy, meaningless, brash show. i dont want serious, deep, meaningful, brain fodder on a saturday night especially if ive been out all day.

however, i can take it or leave it, my o/h then has the final say.

I find these kind of threads moronic. I'll never understand why this kind of snobbery exists in the music industry and not around films or literature. And snobbery is definitely present in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not liking a certain style of music, but using your music taste to gain some sort of sense of superiority over others is frankly pathetic.

If you don't like a certain style of music, don't listen to it. If you despise the charts and the modern music industry that much, it's not difficult to dissociate with it and listen to what you enjoy.

Modern chart movies are shite too.

.... but music isnt all of equal worth. how can it be? how can a well crafted, intelligently composed meaningful track be regarded as on a par with a kiddies nursery rhyme? it isnt 'snobbery' to look down on lazily composed generic crap, its what it deserves.

However it is always remarkable that on the music forum if you say you don't like a particular style or genre of music one is instantly labeled a "music snob".

I don't like chart or "Urban" music and don't listen to it as I find it lyrically dull and the music tedious. That doesn't make me a "music snob", it is simply my taste in music.

The current top 10 in the UK

1. (-) The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
2. (1) Frozen
3. (2) The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
4. (3) Gravity
5. (4) Saving Mr Banks
6. (-) Falstaff - Met Opera 2013
7. (5) Homefront
8. (6) Free Birds
9. (8) The Butler
10. (7) Carrie

Which one's are shite exactly? Homefront possibly and a performance by the Met which isn't actually a movie.

The difference is that there is an established canon of what is good in the cinema and what is poor. There is also an established method of assessing what is good and what is poor. Much the same applies in literature where there is both critical theory and method.

Attempts to apply the same sort of theory and methods to popular music exist but are generally ignored in these sort of threads.
The 33 and a third book series for example attempts to apply some critical methods in re-assessing individual albums throughout the modern history of pop. Rather like the BFI series on cinema.

There is a tradition (Matthew Arnold the poet being a notable adherent) which suggests that there are 'High' arts such as poetry, painting, classical music and 'low' arts such as popular music and arts and that the latter are not worthy of study.

I'm probably trying to justify musical snobbery to some degree. My argument would be that whether music is in the chart or not isn't a measure of it's quality.

The fact that you call the Met Opera shite (yes it may not be your style but there is no denying they are talented performers) probably says something about you!

Film charts are based of films aimed at all ages, as seen by animated film Free Birds and horror movie Carrie (which is actually pretty terrible). Chart music is generally aimed at kids, as I have said before it can be seen as an introduction to proper music as opposed to nursery rhymes, before people develop their own tastes and make their own mind up of what they want to listen too.

Take two music fans who spend an equally large amount of time and/or money basically being a music fan. Who is anyone to say the person who likes pop over rock, or showtunes over classical music, is of lesser merit? What is defined as 'lazily composed generic crap' and what is a 'well crafted, meaningful track'? Surely, it's all opinion?

Of course not, that's not the point I was making. It's also remarkable that any time the word "snob" is mentioned people think it's in reference to anyone who doesn't like a particular style of music - if the shoe fits! I think it's quite elitist to suggest things like people who listen to a certain style of music are "sheep" or "lowest common denominator", that's the issue I have (not in reference to you Glawster btw). A good music discussion is always ruined by these kind of claims, it just gets my back up.

Some people can get quite hostile about their music tastes, I've come across this many, many times in real life. They want to feel their music tastes are the best and anyone who listens to anything other than what they listen to are below them. Everyone has their preferences

Let's whizz back in time 20 years and take two big hits of the period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijZRCIrTgQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h37KQu64RY4

One of this is a said well crafted, meaningful track, and one is crap, quite frankly. I'll leave people to decide which is which. But if they give the wrong answer, then they have poor taste in music I'm afraid. Don't go giving me none of that 'It's all subjective' nonsense, either.

I was actually trying to say that the Met wasn't actually a movie not that it was shite because that only referred to movies. You've no idea what I like in Opera so no judgements please!

Charts reflect sales or should we say they are the match results of marketing campaigns. Movie and pop music marketing campaigns are essentially aimed at the same age groups. The charts aren't as bad as people suggest, they are probably more generic these days but there are some good albums on there. Also all alternative musics are not high quality, I make a point of listening to many of the recommendations cited on here and I conclude that much of the alternative music is far from exceptional. Often it is as good as anything in the charts but seldom is there anything startlingly original. So many of the rock recommendations sound just as formulaic and retro as any of the modern pop and dance music. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't like it or that an other AC/DC clone isn't worth a listen but let's not overstate the situation.

(Carrie is a competent remake rather than terrible, it doesn't add anything to the original. Gravity is a quality original movie)

I hardly think that the latest horror movie, gangster movie or Tarantino movie is marketed at the same audience as the latest song by One Direction!

Pop music is just disposable .99% of it is forgotten in a few months .

I don't see it as an either/or choice. Like many people, I love watching light entertainment shows like XF, despite the fact I wouldn't buy music by anyone involved in the show if you paid me. I also like having a laugh and rolling my eyes at celeb culture, as well as watching high quality drama, documentaries and serious current affairs programmes. For me, each has their place

I don't like the X Factor, not because i think its 'uncool' and want to appear hipster and cool or anything, but because I don't like the way on the X factor the contestants are moulded and the talent they are allowed to show us is controlled by their mentors, 1 of the 4 judges. Sadly contestants aren't allowed to choose the songs they want to sing, and they turn the show into more of a karaoke show, I feel like the contestants talent is actually stifled by the arrangement of the show.
I also don't like the way that only certain styles of music are accepted on the show, and I also can't stand Louis Walsh that man just really irritates me.
If I thought that the winners of the X factors singles were worth buying then I would buy them though. I'm not a mainstream snob in any way atall, I have many mainstream artists in my music player, emeli sande, Rudimental and so on.

So not everybody who has a dislike does it purely because they are sheep for not wanting to seem 'uncool' I really couldn't care whether people think I'm cool or not, I have my likes and dislikes.
I don't just completely disregard a single just because the artist has come from the X factor either, I've enjoyed a Leona song and an Olly Murs song. I always give it a listen but most of the time I don't feel they are offering anything special, not because that person doesn't have any talent, but because they aren't putting their all into their work and aren't being true to themselves and their music. And to me the winners first single is always just a cover that doesn't bring anything new or better from the original, like it should.

That's just my opinion though.
Everyone is entitled to listen to whatever music they like.
BUT I do think people that ONLY and I mean ONLY ever listen to music that is on the radio and in the charts is abit sheepish. But could it just be they aren't as passionate about music as what some other people are?

I do get what you are saying though as there are many music snobs that just listen to a load of indie bands and think that makes them superior, musically to other people.

im not talking which genre is 'better', theres good and bad in all. and ...


... hits the nail on the head.

surely this example highlights that there is 'good' and 'bad' music. or are you(glassballoon) suggesting that mr blobby is of equal merrit to r.e.m? because if you are, youll not get very much support for that pov!

There seems to be a bit of confusion about how music gets in to the charts.

At the end of the week, the 40 singles with the most sales that week get compiled in to a chart and broadcast. Now obviously, the singles that sell the most are the ones that most people want to listen to. Therefore people who mostly listen to chart music must just have a taste in music which generally represents the UK, so how exactly does that make them sheep? Because they like popular things? It's not because anyone's telling them "here's the 40 songs we want you to download this week".

So by that theory, is your taste in music really so brilliant, if it doesn't chart? Not enough other people seem to think so.

People tend to buy what they hear. If the music isn't played on radio or TV it's likely to chart poorly. You can't assign an opinion to those who have never heard it.

But the people who decide what gets played on the radio are the radio executives, DJ's and record company executives.

Essentially they are telling you what to listen too, so therefore by your thinking you are a sheep

I really dont understand when people say that tbh, a song becomes number 1 when it is popular enough to be bought in large quantites by the public, surely that means something!

However on DS that is nearly always the inference that is made. If someone doesn't like a particular genre of music they are often labeled a "music snob" by others.

Personally I couldn't care less what music other people listen to, although it does annoy me when they insist of sharing their often appalling taste on everyone else within range of their tinny ear pieces.