Christmas with Joe Kendrick

As a child, Christmas was always a wonderful time of year. I am fortunate to have had a loving, stable family with plenty of food and gifts to go around from day one. When Mom eventually told me that Santa Claus wasn't real, I cried. My sister, however, never bought in to the myth. We are pictured below with the best Santa in history at Gaston Mall in 1976: I was seven, Leigh was two. The previous year, she had refused to sit on Santa's lap.

Some of my fondest memories are of visiting relatives on Christmas Eve. First we went to my Mom's side of the family, where Maw-maw was joined by my two uncles, an aunt and three cousins (all in my oldest uncle's family). We kids would sit at a little card table in the kitchen, away from the adults. After dinner came the excruciating wait for adults to clean up, talk, smoke and generally drag their feet before opening presents.  When it was finally time, my cousin Lori and I would jump into the pile of presents and hand them out to everyone: there was only so much anticipation a kid could take.

Soon we would trek a few miles west to my Dad's folks, and enjoy an even more elaborate meal from Grandma. We would then open more presents, but there was none of the anxiety from earlier in the day. Dad was an only child, so there were no cousins clamouring for their first endorphine rush of ripping through wrapping paper. It was just my sister and me; the edges had all been smoothed off, and we could coast now.

As dusk approached, we would drive home, so filled with food and serene with the bounty of presents that I would doze off along the way. The next day was always good, but a bit of an anticlimax.

One thing that was not a big factor in our Christmases was music. Memories of A Charlie Brown Christmas, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and other shows on TV are there, but I can't recall much about what we heard on the radio. There was no purposeful listening to Vince Guaraldi, The Nutcracker Suite, anything. Perhaps my Dad would rib me if Spike Jones' "All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth" came around (he would kid me by saying that a lot), but such recollections simply aren't there.

Music became more and more important to me, and with my experience in radio, I am fortunate to listen to a lot of great Christmas music every year. 2012 has some great offerings, and a good overview from Blurt! Magazine can be found here.

My favorites from this year include: The Sweetback Sisters' Country Christmas Sing-Along Spectacular, The Bank Cormorants' Madonna & Rose, Sufjan Stevens' Silver & Gold, TriBeCaStan's The Twisted Christmas, The Eastern Sea's First Christmas, An East Nashville Christmas, JD McPherson's "Twinkle (Little Christmas Lights)", Sugar + The Hi Lows' Snow Angel, and last but definitely not least, Crocodiles & The Dum Dum Girls' "Merry Christmas Baby Please Don't Die", pictured on the left.

Thank you for reading and may the spirit of Christmas be with you all year long! -Joe

Christmas with Barbie Angell

The holidays always come with a musical connection in my brain.  From driving around, looking at Christmas lights while singing the inappropriate version of We Three Kings, to opening presents while Bing Crosby crooned in the background.  Our family was big on tradition I think.  One of the things which carried on from then was a small box of Whitman's chocolates.  My stocking always had one in it when I was little and, up until his death in 2001, my father made sure I got one every year.  Since then, I have picked up where he left off.  Each year I buy the little, yellow box for everyone in my family and think of him.
                                                                One holiday song that has also carried on in my mind as quintessential Christmas was also a favorite of my father's.  Snoopy VS The Red Baron by The Royal Guardsmen is certainly considered a novelty song, but I think that the category can sometimes diminish the value for people.  It's not just a happy Christmas tune, it's a song about war that prays for peace, if only for one day.  I think we could all use a little of that in our lives.

What Is Bad In Music: Dubstep and The Necessary Evil

Continuing our series, here is a conversation between Mary Hughes and Joe Kendrick, where they get at a few more angles of the debate:

Joe: One thing that always comes to mind is terminology. Referencing a broad genre when describing a specific piece of music is often the first step towards mutual misunderstanding. Casting a wide net like “jazz” to describe an album like Mose Allison’s Local Color, for example, ultimately fails to land this slippery fish. However, painting with too broad a brush is just one way of misusing terminology. It’s a lazy way of communicating, and most music deserves better (unless the music is bad enough to deserve a terse review, like the one that Spinal Tap received for their album Shark Sandwich).

Another way that terms and descriptors muddy the waters is when they are overly vague, like “post-rock”, “alt-country”, or esoteric, like “glitch-pop” and other hyphenated terms, and most everything ending with “esque”. Both types often fail to convey much of anything about what they are attempting to describe, but they can serve to puff up the people employing them. Many times, this will result in glazed looks on their recipients, which can be the whole point, especially in music’s small, private circles: they don’t want unhip people glomming onto their favorite unheard-of music, so their language employs a lot of indecipherable code.

Essentially, using language that employs short-cuts to critical thinking as well as barriers to understanding and inclusion is another large aspect of what is bad in music. As a famous song says, though, this is the “same as it ever was”, and will continue as long as there are cliques and laziness.

Here’s an example using a band I never cared for: Coldplay. While I haven’t spent a great deal of time detailing reasons why I don’t like their music, the first things that come to mind when I hear their songs is that there is something too cute about them, and that they tend to play to the lowest common denominator. The next time I feel like grinding my teeth for forty-four minutes and examine Mylo Xyloto, I may come up with something far better, but it will surely never be the phrase “Beatle-esque”. Do an internet search for “coldplay+beatle-esque”, and you will get over seven million results. Being lazy might not always be wrong, but being lazy almost eight million times is never right.

Mary: Well, Joe, here’s a term that I do not like - dubstep.

Unlike the above commentary, though, I do not dislike the term ‘dubstep’ because of it being a potentially lazy descriptor; I dislike the term ‘dubstep’ because it refers to a genre of music that I cannot stand.
Unsure of what dubstep is? Allow me to illuminate you.

It is (basically) a combination of two styles of electronic music: ‘dub’ - as in drum-n-bass that you might find in reggae/ska + ‘2-step’ – as in electronic music consisting of jittery, irregular rhythms. All of this equals into the mathematical sum of my musical nightmares.

But do not take this rather subjective criticism as a slam against the world of electronic music as a whole.

I’ve been surrounding my ears with variations of electronic music for as long as I can remember - daydreaming to my father’s Tangerine Dream cassettes, singing along to a myriad of synth-heavy songs from the 1980’s (Gary Numan is a genius, you know?), dancing into the wee hours with club tracks from Inner City and then drifting happily into the realm of trance via guys like Paul van Dyk. Even now, I continue to discover some of the most fantastic and interesting electronic music by looking further into the past – people like Raymond Scott or Louis & Bebe Barron… All this name-dropping is to impress upon you, dear reader, that I am not an electronic music hater.

However, ‘dubstep’ tries even my usually unlimited musical patience.

Perhaps it is the glitch-filled vocals that make me feel like I am suffering through a really horrible drug-trip. Perhaps it is that incessant wobble-bass that sounds like a synthesized chainsaw going down the middle of my skull. Perhaps it is the fact that you cannot escape this particular sound as there are dubstep-remixes of every song that is currently ‘popular’, making generally bad songs even worse.

But more than all of these reasons is the distinct feeling I get when I hear dubstep/brostep/post-dubstep (which, c’mon people, let’s give it a damn rest) – and that is no feeling at all. That is what I require from music: feeling. Just like with any other art-form, a song is a window into the artist who created it. You get to feel their happiness, their sadness, their anger; you get to be front-and-center for the revelation of someone’s soul. And yes, you can hear that in electronic music, too. I dare anyone to listen to Ulrich Schnauss’s ‘Never Be the Same’ and not find yourself swimming in some pretty deep waters.

Not all music has to have some grand meaning, of course. Sometimes you just want to shake your ass and have some fun… But even the somewhat-vapid offerings of the 1980’s (‘Safety Dance’ anyone?) have more heart than anything Skrillex could ever deliver.
Joe: Mary, I’m scratching my head right next to you when listening to dubstep. Still, it has very many fans, so there has to be something about it, right? I searched “how to like dubstep” and found this answer on Yahoo that may shed some light:

“Cam W” writes: “hi there, i am a big dubstep fan as well as an amateur dubstep artist. so i could go on for ages why i like it, but i feel that the majority of punters like it for different reasons to me. people like the filth of it all, its ment to sound as grose as possible, and the idea of the nice electro bits is to make the grose bits sound heavier because of the huge contrast. to realy get an understanding for it all you have got to go to a dubstep club, where they have proper speakers and subs (alot of dubstep cant even be heard through normal speakers because its sub bass). i find alot of people dont listen to it at all at home, but just love hearing it at a club, espeshialy after a few drinks, its heavy it's dirty, it's great!

i hope this helps you understand why people like it so much, and i completly get why some people dont like it, as it is nowhere near as melodic and i guess you could say "musical" as other electronic genres.”

Here’s another helpful response, from “Squidward”:

"Not all dubstep songs are repetitive. About the song you used as an example though (scary monsters and nice sprites - skrillex) I don't consider Skrillex to be dubstep. He's kind of his own genre in my own opinion, but I hate his sound. It sounds more like transformers having sex than anything else. :P

I love techno music in general, from house to trance to dubstep, it's all amazing. (except Skrillex) I like dubstep because of the bass, it just sounds good to me. Everyone has their own preferences I suppose.

Here's some GOOD dubstep:

Mt. Eden Dubstep: Beautiful Lies

Mt. Eden Dubstep: Still Alive

Mt. Eden Dubstep: Sierra Leone"

So now the question is, Mary: “Will you play it in a train? Will you listen in a plane?”...sorry, couldn’t resist.

While you were going all Sam I Am on us, I took the opportunity to ask some other friends on Facebook what their favorite “eyeroll” music terms were, and got some great responses from Kim Ruehl, Justin Farrar, Stephen Kaplan and Armando Bellmas, among others:

James Richards: Angular guitar
Justin Farrar: Soundscape
Kim Ruehl: Folk-electro-space-funk. THAT IS NOT A THING. Mostly I just hate hyphens in music descriptions.
Martin Anderson: Oh boy I see lots and lots that could be added. Does "evokes early Bob Dylan" count?
Kim Ruehl: ‎"The next Bob Dylan".
Justin Farrar: Is that esoteric or just an over-invoked death wish?
Douglas P Ewen: If Bob Dylan had a child with Patti Smith
Armando Bellmas: ‎*anything* sensibility
Jeff Eason: The musical "stylings" of so and so. Stylings is not a word. Also, an album or song is titled something. It is not entitled something.
Doug Keel: ‎"Organically" is fast on it's way
Steven Howard: the sophisticated elegance of dream pop
Stephen H. Kaplan: CESH, stellar, ground-breaking, shoe-gaze, discordian, ethereal, and brooding are all colorful ways to say "It's rather shitty."

I got a big grin out of these and hope you might add your own favorites in the comments section here, or tweet us @linguamusica, where we are always game for some good music conversation.

The ultimate conclusion I come to when trying to understand the whole of what is bad in music is that bad music is a necessary evil. Think of any story in history and there has to be at least one bad guy somewhere in order for there to be a plot. The tale that comes the closest to being without an antagonist might be “Waiting For Godot”, however Godot fills the role through his absence, so that leaves no memorable story without one or more antagonists (I consider disaster and survival stories as having their conditions and challenges as the primary antagonists). Still not here... The same can be said of our own musical stories: who doesn’t have music that they don’t care for? People will typically consider at least some music to be bad, and I understand that. In a way, I embrace the fact that lots of people dislike, even hate, some music that I love, and hope that they can do the same. What I don’t understand is someone who pretends to like everything. Perhaps they are telling the truth in their own mind, and they simply have not experienced anything they dislike. However, their musical plotline is going nowhere. It does not have holes; it is a hole. These people cannot be trusted with an opinion. Come to think of it, this kind of person’s undiscerning taste may be the one thing that is truly bad in music.

What Is Bad In Music: Rebellious Tastes, and Hatin' on U2

Here is a two-part article in our series "What Is Bad In Music", one from writer and editor Jeff Eason of The Blowing Rocket, and another from Becka Moore of the 9:30 Club. The two have very different takes on the subject here, but while Jeff looks at the question from a more psychological perspective and Becka openly addresses her dislike for an iconic band, they both have a common love for radio station WNCW. That is where in 2008, on the program What It Is, Jeff happened to take a Becka-like whack at his favorite "sacred cow" icon, Robert Johnson. You can hear his comments as well as my own debunking of Grateful Dead and Fred Mills' top ten reasons why John Lennon is overrated here

Please note that Jeff and Becka's opinions are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website or their employers. That said, I am glad they stepped up and have added to this conversation! -Joe


Above is a photo of Jeff from his days at UNC-Chapel Hill and WXYC. Here is his take on "What Is Bad In Music":

To the notion that the number of chords has something to do with the quality of music, it reminded me of a story I heard about Harry Nilsson. Supposedly, he made a bet with a fellow musician that he could make a hit record with exactly one chord in it. The other guy took him up on the bet. The result of the bet was the song "Coconut." 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 For me, bad music is like that old definition of pornography: I know it when I hear it. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I think a more interesting way to approach the question is how people develop the musical tastes that they do. A lot of it, in the beginning, is based on the music our parents listened to when we were growing up. Then, for most people, there is the eventual rebellious stage where we listen to music our parents hate (even if we don't totally embrace it ourselves). A lot of people get stuck listening to "ugly" music just because it allows them to feel part of a group of outsiders that other people just don't understand. It is used as a wall to keep other people out. Even some jazz lovers fall into this trap. 
I think the most subjective musical instrument is the human voice. I know some people just can't get beyond Tom Waits' and Neil Young's voices enough to appreciate their considerable songwriting skills. I know when the three-disc Chimes of Freedom disc came out earlier this year, I was amazed at how beautiful some of the songs were because the originals, sung in Bob Dylan's latter day rasp, just didn't do anything for me. Some voices have qualities that I can't tolerate. I find Joan Baez' constant tremolo to be incredibly annoying and John Hiatt's growl/yelp thing to be a bit contrived. - Jeff Eason
And now, here is Becka Moore's essay on the famous rock band U2

What is bad in music? What has been bad, grown stale, and yet continues to mold on the airwaves?


Surely I'll catch some flak for this, but music is personal right? It's my opinion. But I can tell you, plenty of people share it.

There is no shortage of people jumping on the Bono-Bashing-Bandwagon.  This is not about that.  As a bit of a bleeding heart, I can't fault him for wanting to help people. And if you haven't seen Million Dollar Hotel, a Dramedy he wrote/co-wrote, you should. 

What this is about is U2’s music. Having grown up with some of their songs on the radio, sure, a few stuck around and I might even enjoy listening to them if they pop up on the radio. Does that make their music good as a whole? Or does it just put them in the category of every other band that had some hits on the radio?

U2 often takes on heavy topics, which Bono's vocals just can't do justice. He sounds like a weakened Joe Strummer trying to croon.

Bono once said, "I remember the day I found I could sing. I said, 'Oh, that's how you do it.'" Maybe he should have talked to himself a little more. Or maybe he just has an odd view of what vocal talent is, considering he started out doing punk-ish music (yes, it's a genre, because I added -ish and because I said so). Not exactly the first place you go when you realize you can "sing".

Honestly, I find the band boring. A lot of guitarists would argue that The Edge is one of the greats. That's certainly debatable. Does he have a unique style, or is he just monotonous? And besides, you can’t say a band is good because of one member, right?

Are their live shows really all that entertaining? Or do they just have a lot of flashing lights (A LOT of flashing lights)? These guys have no stage presence. Bono attempts to move around, but comes off like a wounded duck stricken with Tourette’s syndrome. Enough has been said about Bono and his sunglasses, but can we talk about The Edge’s beanie

Their thinly veiled messages are borderline pompous and inappropriate.  Nobody wants to hear love songs all the time, so I won’t fault them for mixing it up a bit. And lyrics about God are pretty interchangeable with lyrics about love, sex, and relationships. But the actual message remains pompous at times and fairly hackneyed at the very least.

If U2 is so drab and boring (it is), why do they continue to mildew up the airwaves? It's pretty simple. I will give U2 credit for reaching beyond the pulpit and into mainstream radio. Unfortunately, that may be the very thing that has kept them around all these years. Religious Christians can listen to U2, rock out a bit, nod their heads bit, and not feel like they're a step closer to the fiery abyss. 

U2 is the gateway drug to Rock and Roll for a lot of young Christians.  For better or worse, that is their legacy.  But it doesn't make the music good. 

 --Oh, and if you’re one of the people that like U2 for their moral message, check out Million Dollar Hotel.  It’s full of filthy language, sex, murder and suicide.  Bono was so proud of his work, he cameos in it for a brief second.  Let’s add hypocrisy to the list of grievances. - Becka Moore


Thanks for visiting Lingua Musica and I hope you may take part in our conversation by commenting here, or writing us at if you would like to be featured in the series. - Joe Kendrick


"What Is Bad In Music" by the numbers

In my work as a radio DJ and programmer, constant listening to new as well as older music that I may play or suggest to other hosts for airplay on their shows is a way of life. Over the decades, I have learned to keep an open mind, to allow room for other tastes in determining what is worthy, and to try to avoid judging an album by its cover. Once in a long while, music that looks awful on the surface turns out to be pretty good. Perhaps one in a thousand records with covers like this will be a pleasant surprise.

A basic assumption for the purposes of this article is that bad music is ultimately in the ear of the listener, and cannot be proven to be inferior mathematically or otherwise. Music even can be played badly, but still have merit. Despite arguments such as that music requires a minimum number of chords to be viable, for example, I go forward with the belief that defining what is bad music boils down to personal taste.

Bad music can be a far different thing than what is bad IN music, which can be everything from business to technology to culture and so on. I'll get around to venting about those sorts of things in this series of articles as well, but first let's get down to some of the terms that help all of us define which music we dislike, and list a few common points of reference:

Musical Elements: These can be anything from lyrics to tempo to whether or not banjos are present. Some people only like "pretty" singing. Some cannot take feedback from electric guitar. Others want to listen to synthesizers, or minor chords, and on and on. There are plenty of buttons that, when pushed, drive away X percent of the audience, the folks who only like music made up by certain elements. There are a lot of us in this camp, and while I would like to think that its population has dwindled, anecdotal evidence tells me otherwise.

Production Style: To reverb or not to reverb? Strings? How about the dreaded Auto-Tune? There are almost an infinite array of production styles, and just as with musical elements, there are plenty of people who gravitate towards one style or another, or one end of the production spectrum over another. "It's way over produced!" is a common complaint I have heard about music, in some cases meaning that the basic song and execution could have been good, but the extra harmony singers, compression and string section ruined it. Conversely, some music that is performed solo and acoustic, for example, suffers when compared to the electric version with a full band to many listeners.

Era: Have you ever heard someone say something like, "All music is crap nowadays!" Their counterpart could be the person who listens to all of the famous covers of Robert Johnson classics while refusing to sit through any of the originals. Also, ageism is alive and well! Discrimination due to the age of artists is widespread, even to the point that some will revere a young artist's music but turn away from everything made by the same artist later in their career. How many people have trouble taking Taylor Swift seriously just for the fact that she is so young? How many will tune out the new Jimmy Cliff while cherishing their copy of The Harder They Come?

Genre: I heard an influential friend in the blues music world argue that artists advertising their performances with "blues" mentioned in it will draw a smaller audience than they would have if they had just left the word out. Instead of "blues guitarist X", use "electric guitarist X", or some other descriptor that does not play into preconceptions, they said. Also, I once heard an advertisement for a Mumford & Sons show call them a "bluegrass band". In the first case, the genre tag is perceived badly, while in the second, it is a compliment, however both examples show how silly the whole business of classifying styles of music can be. The blues encompasses large swaths of American music history and a great many styles; those shying away from seeing "blues guitarist X" while paying to go see the same person billed as "electric guitarist X" are doing themselves a disservice. Bluegrass is much more narrowly defined, with a specific blueprint invented by Bill Monroe in the mid-1940s, so hearing Mumford & Sons described as "bluegrass" is laughable. This is not to say that Mumford & Sons is laughable; they very likely had no input in that advertisement. To some, the presence of a banjo means the music can be called bluegrass.

Genre is often the easiest peg to hold your musical hat. When you ask someone what music they like, many times they will reply by mentioning one or more genres. Putting handles on music like genres often serves to spread misconceptions as much or more as it serves to give useful information on what the music is like.


Recently a friend of mine asked me who I thought could be added to his list of artists who received critical acclaim early in their careers, only to be widely ridiculed later on. His list included Elton John and Rod Stewart, and to it I added ZZ Top, Bee Gees, and to a lesser extent, Peter Frampton. Would you agree?

I hope you may join us in our efforts to define what is bad in music, and in doing so, learn more about what defines ourselves. Stay tuned for more on the "What Is Bad In Music" series, and feel free to comment here, or write us at if you would like to be featured in an article. -Joe Kendrick

What's Good In Music?

  Lingua Musica begins a series of articles on artists examining what is good in music today with Black Mountain, NC's Kellin Watson, pictured here with yours truly.

In a fast evolving music world full of pitfalls, I thought it would be helpful to spotlight some of the positive things that we have done and are fortunate to have in our lives.  After Kellin we will post fellow western NC singer-songwriter Dave Desmelik's article so stay tuned and feel free to join in! Your observations and comments are always welcome. -Joe Kendrick


I feel like music moves with overall feelings and rhythms of the world in general. Asking the question "what makes good music now", however, can be slippery when you dissect music today. I feel like there are so many different factors and opinions that dictate what "good music" really is, that it's next to impossible to give just one end-all answer. However, I would say that technology has made a huge impact on the music industry and has enabled more of an individualized view of what's "good".

Personally, one of the many music trends that has caught my attention in the past few years has been the trend of the throwback style in music. Since technology is making time seem to move so much faster, I think that as artists we might subconsciously or consciously (depending on the artist) decide to do the opposite of what the rest of the world is doing.  It is almost as if our need for comfort might be creating a longing to bring back an old, familiar feeling. Though technology has vastly changed the state of the music industry (and who dictates what's "good" music), the final word is ultimately decided by us all as individuals and consumers.

Technology has simply removed the smoke screens in a lot of ways, in turn making success more attainable to the artists and the product more tangible to the consumers. The technology boom that occurred in the past 10 years, overwhelming as it may be, is both a blessing and a curse for the music industry. It seems like every time you turn around, there is be a newer, sleeker, and better functioning version of some piece of technology you just spent $2000 or more on. For me, this started to create a small sense of anxiety, which is a feeling I'm sure is shared by many.  This could contribute to the need for getting back to something familiar in the world.

On the plus side, I feel like a lot of this technology boom helps musicians realize that they can take their careers into their own hands and run with it. It encourages more experimentation, faith, and confidence in what they do artistically, and allows artists to become more proactive. For instance, while I was recording my most recent album, Halo Of Blue, the fact that I had a program that came already installed on my MacBook Pro called Garageband made the entire pre-production and production process much faster and more efficient.  On top of that, for the tunes that I was collaborating on with my out of town producer, Skype allowed us to musically work through those in depth while he sat comfortably in his NY apartment, and I in my NC apartment. When you think about how difficult that task might have been 20 years ago, it becomes crystal clear what an advantage the power of technology can do.

While this technology boom comes with plenty of negative aspects, it also finds a balance by helping to make the process of creating music a much easier process.  Some might argue that the tech movement has also appeared to devalue records and CDs by making them available with one click for $5 for a digital copy instead of $15 for a hard copy. Again, the trade off is that an artist who might normally never be heard around the world now has the potential to "go viral" and become a pop sensation, all thanks to sites like YouTube and Myspace. Justin Bieber, Kate Voegele, Bo Burnham, The Gregory Brothers (the 'auto tune the news' guys), Pampelmoose and Arnel Pineda (the new lead singer for Journey) are just a few examples of artists who successfully achieved stardom through "going viral" on the internet. By creating functions such as the "like", "share" and "embed" buttons, technology gives us the social networking tools that have become very important for entertainers of all levels. Suddenly, we the public become the record label and entertainment executives, deciding who we want to invest in artistically!  Shows like American Idol, the X-factor and Americas Got Talent have capitalized on this theory.

Does that mean Justin Beiber is "what good music now" is? Of course not, that just means that the power of social networking is great. It all depends on the individual when it comes down to what's "good" and what's not, and who has the ability to tap into a universal feeling. Keeping with the idea of "staying one step ahead of the next big thing" though, I think a lot of people feel that "good music" is what's "underground" or "grassroots" at the moment. It seems like a lot of folks find what's "hip" to be what's good, while other folks find what's "traditional & classic" to be what's good, while others find what they're told is good to be good.

In my personal opinion, what makes "good music now" is the ability to connect with people on a human level, no matter what genre or style the music might be. Technology makes the creative transformation process easier and more fun at times, but in the end, regardless of technology, good music requires a personal touch. Technology has helped to put the control back into the hands of everyday people to decide what they like, and what's "good" to them. So, when asked what's good music now, the best answer I can really think to give is this: anything with feeling. When I hear a song that moves me or inspires me, I feel like it's good music. Music is good when I can pick up on a vibration that one artists picks up on and passes it on to me, which I can pass on to someone else. Any music that encourages give-and-take to the universe is good. Isn't passing on something good what it's all about anyway?

 -Kellin Watson