Is "Good Music" an Absolute? - Music - Forums : Best Ever Albums

HyperBully

Gender: Male
Location: US

Applerill wrote:

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.

So, what do you guys make of this?

I knew it.

purple

[quote="Bork"]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.[/quote]

[purple laughs]

videoheadcleaner
formerly Harkan

Gender: Male
Age: 38

Good music could not be an absolute.

This site would not exist if 'good' music was an absolute. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

My personal example is Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion. Last year, this was applauded as the best album of the year and almost of the decade. I tried several times to listen to the album and look at its greatness but I couldn't. Maybe my young adult ears have not developed far enough but to me it was not 'good' music.

'Good' music is personal. A general consensus could be taken that the Beatles are good but I know people, young and old, that cannot stand their music. Personal taste. 'Good' in an artistic merit is like other artforms. Films like Godfather and 2001 are considered 'good' but not by everyone.

Artistry is one thing, but a deep seated connection is also needed. Even though the Cure can release crap, I regard them as 'good' and with an artform to their work. On the other hand, I don't like Bob Dylan's music but I can consider his artistry in his work.

teodor_matz

Location: Sweden

It's a very hard question. I think music can be good in a lot of different ways. VU and Nas is good in a very intelegent way and i love them for that. But i also love silly eurodisco just because it's nice to listen to.

Elston

'Greatest of' lists do a good job of presenting sound aesthetic experiences, albums that are cohesive, well-rounded, and just you know, good. So in a way I do believe in aesthetic excellence, but I don't think it matters much because we never fall in love with the 'right' albums. Usually when we like an album it's not because of how 'good' it is, more often it's because it struck a chord, or just the tone of it feels right. It can even be a simple matter of hearing the right thing at the right time. Love of music isn't rational I suppose, so even if there are absolutes it wouldn't make a difference. Are there absolutes? If you go looking for them you may miss out on actually enjoying the music, on actually hearing it.

HyperBully

Gender: Male
Location: US

harkan wrote:

Good music could not be an absolute.

This site would not exist if 'good' music was an absolute. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

My personal example is Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion. Last year, this was applauded as the best album of the year and almost of the decade. I tried several times to listen to the album and look at its greatness but I couldn't. Maybe my young adult ears have not developed far enough but to me it was not 'good' music.

'Good' music is personal. A general consensus could be taken that the Beatles are good but I know people, young and old, that cannot stand their music. Personal taste. 'Good' in an artistic merit is like other artforms. Films like Godfather and 2001 are considered 'good' but not by everyone.

Artistry is one thing, but a deep seated connection is also needed. Even though the Cure can release crap, I regard them as 'good' and with an artform to their work. On the other hand, I don't like Bob Dylan's music but I can consider his artistry in his work.

I completely agree. Except for the part about Bob Dylan. I just can't understand how you don't like his music. That little disagreement right there was an example of how good music is never truly absolute. We all have our opinions, and the entire purpose of this site is to share and compare them.

maxperenchio

Location: Chicago

Bork wrote:

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.

does it? are those really your views? how well do you know yourself? can sarcasm be measured objectively?

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

maxperenchio wrote:

does it? are those really your views? how well do you know yourself? can sarcasm be measured objectively?

Yes. Yes, albeit intentionally a bit harshly stated. Pretty good, why do you ask? No.