No, I really do. I laugh at the idiocy of some people. I was reading several reviews on albums over at Amazon.com and I was just stunned at the idiocy that some people have. It's amazing the things they say. If you stop to think about it... How can bands like Linkin Park, P.O.D., Staind and Disturbed be marking the downfall of music when they are more popular now than ever before? It makes no sense to me how someone can review a CD without ever listening to it, call it worthless crap and then have the nerve to go and call a band "the beginning of the end" when they're the biggest band or one of the biggest bands in the world. I just can't understand how these people can think this way. Is it jealousy or just their tastes? Who knows. All I know is that it's pretty stupid of someone to say that a band is marking the downfall of music when they're selling more records than that person can EVER hope to sell in their life. Then there are the people who make the lists of "crappy bands" and make the weirdest comparisons I've ever seen. One person compared I believe it was Creed to the Bee Gees. I seriously doubt that person knows what he's talking about. Other comparisons are just as lame, such as Puddle Of Mudd to Nirvana and Linkin Park to Rage Against The Machine. Other reviewers don't appreciate the fact that not all rock and metal has to make your ears bleed to be good music. I respect people who listen to death metal and stuff, but once they start bashing bands like Cold and 12 Stones because they're not exactly going to give you a nosebleed when you listen to them, I lose respect for them. Rock is a broad genre, ranging from lite-rock or pop-rock (Sugar Ray), rap-rock (Linkin Park, limpbizkit), hard rock (Staind, Taproot), metal (TRUSTcompany, Disturbed), heavy metal (Mudvayne), alt. rock (Nickelback, Seether), grunge rock (Creed, Puddle Of Mudd, Nirvana)... The list goes on. But it really gets me when people say that "that band isn't rock because they're not heavy." And what's worse is when you have bands like Linkin Park releasing songs like "In The End" or "Somewhere I Belong" and you get the metal-heads going "Oh, that song is pop because it's really popular!" Alright, pop music is Britney or Justin, not Linkin Park. When's the last time you heard driving guitars in a pop song? That's right, never. When P.O.D. released "Alive" it became one of the biggest singles in 2001 and because of that it was considered pop when it's clearly not. Then you have your bands like Evanescence. I find it funny how people classify them as pop just because of the vocals. It's almost as if the people just listen to the vocals and completely ignore the heavy riffs laden behind them. It's pretty asinine for a person to call a band pop just because of their vocals. It's happened to Linkin Park and now it's happening to Evanescence, and neither are pop. ... Mmm, I think I'm done. I just had to vent a bit. What are your thoughts?