[Applerill]

OK, so I was trying to make this the topic of my last thread, but it ended up making me look like a total jerk instead.

The thing that got my attention with my mom was how, even if an album is considered among the "best ever" by experts, it can be easily labeled as trash by an outsider.

So, is music quality relative, or are there "absolutes" to it?

To tell the truth, I'm not really sure. Whenever I listen to a "critically acclaimed" album, nine times out of ten, I end up understanding what made it so "great". Because of that, it sometimes seems that greatness is an absolute, and is something that you should be able to recognize.

At the same time, though, there are a select few albums, most notably Avril Lavigne's Under My Skin, that, while only getting mixed reviews by critics, still bring chills up my spine in every track. That particular instance is probably formed from a good bit of nostalgia, but you get my point. This also explains why Telefunker (who is a great guy, mind you) can go and have an album like Dangerous on his top 10, even though it features certain rapping basketball players in notoriously cheesy ways . I could pick on him for it, but I don't, since he probably has the same sense of nostalgia with MJ's later stuff that I have with Avril.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. Here's what I'd like to end with: If an artist like Lady Gaga is able to sell a lot of copies, one could technically assume that he has more people that "love her" than Jeff Buckley (who I'm listening to as I write this). In a utilitarian mindset, I believe, where good is defined as "the most good for the most people", that would make sense. But, according to our chart, that isn't the case, is it?

So, what do you guys make of this?

[Freddie55]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_El2_enNFaI

[Mr. Shankly]

Interesting question. Ultimately, like all art, it's in the eye, or in this case, ear of the beholder and it all comes down to what moves the listener or what he or she enjoys. Take two of the most argued about ones on here; although many people revere them, to some the Beatles are nothing but an overrated pop band who wrote some catchy tunes that made the charts. Some people here love the complexity and arty fractured weirdness of Captain Beefheart's Trout Mask Replica, while others find it a mess of inaccessible, pretentious, self-indulgence. But both can be considered "good" for very different reasons.

Still, when one is really passionate about something, it's inevitable that opinions will form. Also, the more music you expose yourself to, the more you will start to form categories in your mind of what constitutes "good,"based on moments where you had an emotional reaction to music or it made you think or reflect in some way, or just felt thoroughly entertained, or sometimes you may be influenced by what you perceive as "cool." As you get older though "cool" becomes less important than the enjoyment factor. Hopefully your capacity to appreciate other genres ignored in the past expands too. My personal opinion is that most of the "good"music today is not on mainstream radio. You have to get past what the big corporate record companies are feeding you because most of it's crap. But then I wonder is this because the mainstream doesn't sound innovative,or more because in the past, I've found enjoyable music off the beaten path? In the end though, that's what it comes down to, good music is the music you enjoy.

[maxperenchio]

Whatever generates the most money is ultimately the best music. I'll take a few pretty faces over a A7#9 chord any day.

[Bork]

[RFNAPLES]

All music is good! Some music you may enjoy more than others. What the masses like, you may abhor. But today, somebody must like the music in order to play and publish it--composer, singer, musician, label, engineer, manager, mother, father, girlfriend, etc.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[SquishypuffDave]

Simple answer: No.

In regards to art, 'good' is a subjective term. Therefore, music being 'objectively good' is an oxymoron. If music is the best-selling, that doesn't make it good or bad music, all that can be determined is the objective information; that it has sold X many copies. Doesn't seem very complicated to me.

[mikeyskywalker]

[Mr. Shankly]

[Bork]

I've told you I was born in Sweden and don't understand sarcasm.

Either way, it's bullshit in any case. If it was an expression of an actual opinion I'll let that stand for itself, if it was sarcasm it is still bullshit as in that case it is nothing but a smartass comment that takes away from the serious intentions of the original post and the discussion that could follow.

The question has been debated since forever and probably will continue to be so. The easy answer of course is to stick with "No, it's all subjective and any attempts to say that one piece of music is objectively better than another is pretentious", but that answer doesn't tend to satisfy people and mostly is another attempt to find a simple answer to a complicated question.

I am not claiming to have an answer to the question, but I did find an interesting exercise a while back in a book by Julian Baggini & Jeremy Stangroom called Do You Think What You Think You Think?:
1. To the following six factors of what constitutes a piece of art assign on a scale from 0 to 4 how important you consider that part, with 4 being vital, 3 being very important, 2 being quite important, 1 being a little important, and 0 being not important at all: TECHNICAL ABILITY, ENJOYABILITY, EXPRESSES ARTIST'S FEELINGS, MORAL OR LIFE LESSONS, HARMONY AND BEAUTY, INSIGHT INTO REALITY.
2. Pick two artists that you are sufficiently familiar with, and decide which you prefer over the other (try the who-to-bring-to-a-deserted-island exercise if it's hard to choose, but don't choose one over the other purely based on bigger volume).
3. Rate the work of the two artists according to how far they reflect each of the six factors above using a scale from 0 to 4, with 4 being To the very highest degree, 3 being To a great degree, 2 being To a significant degree, 1 being To some degree, and 0 being Not at all.
4. Multiply the importance you assigned to the each factor with the rating you assigned to each artist on that factor, and sum up the total score for each artist.
5. Check if the score properly reflects your choice on whose work to bring to a deserted island at section 2.

Note: This is not science and don't bash me for trying to claim that this should settle the argument of objectivity-subjectivity. I am not. At worst it's a fun little exercise, and at best it might help in breaking down and analyzing WHY we consider some pieces of art better than others.