Strange.

Short one today.

By gradually changing the style of music we listen to, with each new song tending slightly towards a particular genre but retaining enough of the stuff that made us like the old song, we can become able to listen to pretty much anything (Aside from Crazy Frog. May God show no mercy to his soul or any other body parts. May the pearly gates fall on and suffocate him like an oyster mafia. May he rot in the fieriest chasms of obscurity that constitute the history of child pop. That creature filled my infant life and was creepier than the set for a Tarzan movie. I detested). You can imagine a string of songs that would link Nirvana to Red Hot Chilli Peppers to Kasabian to Snow Patrol to Mumford and Sons to I dunno, Damien Rice, to No Surprises by Radiohead, to Spiegel im Spiegel by Arvo Part, to Adagio for Strings by Samuel Barber, Chopin prelude opus 9 number 2 in E flat major to Rachaninov's prelude opus 23 number 4 in D major to Le Grande Porte de Kiev by Mussorgsky to Beethoven's fifth symphony. Easy (By the way I'm perfectly aware there are probably people existing for each progression I just stated that would find it offensive. It's meant to give an impression, okay?) So then,  if we can't distinguish between music because "That's just what we like", as we can like anything if we really set our minds to it, what can we judge it by? Well surely we should be judging it by how, well, musical it is. And it's hard to deny that while we may not always entirely adore it (Although all the pieces I mentioned above I must assure you are hot stuff), the most technically proficient music is classical music. So what is it that makes us not listen to Bach's unaccompanied cello suite, and turn instead to the slightly less scholarly but certainly sexier Take That? And why is Queen just obviously infinitely better than Europe? And why is Liam Gallagher an utter arse? Beats me.