Not really!

Problem is: even if music experts are able to recognize and name certain technical aspects, they still tend to judge them differently.

SquirrelMeat said:

Good shit = My music collection

Shit = Everyone elses music collection

I think that's a very clear golden standard for objectively categorizing music.

Problem solved.

I just can't get this quote of Bob Dylan out of my mind: Don't compare me to ME! Compare me to somebody else! Do you compare Neil Young to Neil Young?
My first reaction when I read this interview was that this is what we music lovers are doing all the time: a new Dylan or Prince album comes out and we listen to it and wonder if we like it as much as Highway 61/Sign o the Times... But that may be because we already made up our minds about how our favorite artists' albums are supposed to sound.
What am I saying here? Try to listen to music with as much of an open mind as possible.
Then again, I don't think anyone with ears on their head would put Andy Allo as a guitarist on the same level with Jimi Hendrix. So I guess there IS a general consensus about musicians who aren really good.
One of the reasons I started listening to Dyla was that I was thinking, someone with a reputation like his can't be bad!
So I guess if fans/critics/general public keep coming back to an artist we can objectively say (s)he is good.

^^^ Yeah, I like that!

=====


My taste may still be awful to some/many/most/all. But I can safely assure that it's profoundly improved over that guy who sat in the booster chair spitting out the peas from up high.

Surely any expansion above the cultural norm is going to stir insecurity, I just try to make sure that I'm neither returning serve nor participating in the back and forth of implied superiority.

If someone is at or chooses only to go to C, while someone else is at P, they both still can express a lot of enviable joy, passion and knowledge.

But while all human worth/value is created equally, all opinions are not.

And I think equally true is that even the most knowledgeable person ever to walk the face still knows almost nothing compared to all that there is to know.

V10LETBLUES said:

I love all of the "top 100" lists of all time. And I get upset whenever my favorite artist is not as high on the list as I think they should be. lol

But I know it is all for fun. One year my favorites are at the very top, a couple of years lower, and back and forth.

Could there be a DEFINITIVE objective list? I do not think so. Do you?

My favorite color is blue. My friend likes pink best. To think there is a quantifiable way to definitively say which is better, I think we would all need to take way more meds.

This topic pretty much boils down to this for me.
Music consists of how skillfully one utilizes or combines rhythm/melody/harmony.
I believe that among mature adults, these are things that can be discussed.
Not argued about (to try and establish a winner/loser), but discussed.


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I love all of the "top 100" lists of all time. And I get upset whenever my favorite artist is not as high on the list as I think they should be. lol

But I know it is all for fun. One year my favorites are at the very top, a couple of years lower, and back and forth.

Could there be a DEFINITIVE objective list? I do not think so. Do you?

My favorite color is blue. My friend likes pink best. To think there is a quantifiable way to definitively say which is better, I think we would all need to take way more meds.

This topic pretty much boils down to this for me.
Music consists of how skillfully one utilizes or combines rhythm/melody/harmony.
I believe that among mature adults, these are things that can be discussed.
Not argued about (to try and establish a winner/loser), but discussed.


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I completely agree. But I will also add that sometimes how "skillful" you are is NOT what makes something wonderful. It is not about the mechanical skill. It is about something far more than that. It is about that certain intangible quality that makes something distinctive or applealing to us. That je ne sais quoi. Bob Dylan's singing for example, Monk's piano playing, Jackson Pollock's paintings.

theAudience said:

electricberet said:

What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

I believe that you can, in the right environment.
This type of forum would not be a very good choice.

Subjective: (placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions)
A song is considered good because "I like it".
End of discussion with no facts or further explanation required.

Objective: (not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts)
A song is considered good because of how well specific musical techniques are employed.


Most here would prefer that discussions stay in the subjective realm because it's easier.
Those that dare to go objective will generally get the "snob" tag.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I agree with this point of view. If the listener is honest with themselves, they could/should be able to differentiate between these two perspectives.

This topic pretty much boils down to this for me.
Music consists of how skillfully one utilizes or combines rhythm/melody/harmony.
I believe that among mature adults, these are things that can be discussed.
Not argued about (to try and establish a winner/loser), but discussed.

You nailed it with that

V10LETBLUES said:

I completely agree. But I will also add that sometimes how "skillful" you are is NOT what makes something wonderful. It is not about the mechanical skill. It is about something far more than that. It is about that certain intangible quality that makes something distinctive or applealing to us. That je ne sais quoi. Bob Dylan's singing for example, Monk's piano playing, Jackson Pollock's paintings.

Aah, but I think there is still a certain type of skill at play in each case.

With Dylan, it's his skillfull way with lyrics that trumps what some may consider an objectionable singing voice.
With Monk, it's his skillfull way of figuring out a non-traditional approach to the piano which gives him his unique playing style.
With Pollock, it's his skill in envisioning a different way to apply paint to canvas.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I completely agree. But I will also add that sometimes how "skillful" you are is NOT what makes something wonderful. It is not about the mechanical skill. It is about something far more than that. It is about that certain intangible quality that makes something distinctive or applealing to us. That je ne sais quoi. Bob Dylan's singing for example, Monk's piano playing, Jackson Pollock's paintings.

Aah, but I think there is still a certain type of skill at play in each case.

With Dylan, it's his skillfull way with lyrics that trumps what some may consider an objectionable singing voice.
With Monk, it's his skillfull way of figuring out a non-traditional approach to the piano which gives him his unique playing style.
With Pollock, it's his skill in envisioning a different way to apply paint to canvas.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Ok, I can't argue with any of that becasue you do have a point there.

This is an age old question that I certainly don't have any answers for, I do agree with most of what you say, I do agree that there is good and bad, I merely state that the definition of good and bad is subjective.

We can go around and round but this is as far as I want to go . It was fun though.

theAudience said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I love all of the "top 100" lists of all time. And I get upset whenever my favorite artist is not as high on the list as I think they should be. lol

But I know it is all for fun. One year my favorites are at the very top, a couple of years lower, and back and forth.

Could there be a DEFINITIVE objective list? I do not think so. Do you?

My favorite color is blue. My friend likes pink best. To think there is a quantifiable way to definitively say which is better, I think we would all need to take way more meds.

This topic pretty much boils down to this for me.
Music consists of how skillfully one utilizes or combines rhythm/melody/harmony.
I believe that among mature adults, these are things that can be discussed.
Not argued about (to try and establish a winner/loser), but discussed.


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Yes, there is not really a winner in art, and there is not supposed to be a winner. But an argument (not a fight, but a discussion like you say) can definitely be made to support something being technically superior.

But a superior argument doesn't objectively establish a correct opinion any more than superior technical musical skills make objectively superior music.

What it really comes down to is an exchange of ideas, and it says as much about the listener as it says about the music itself.

[Edited 10/3/11 15:15pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

Ok, I can't argue with any of that becasue you do have a point there.

This is an age old question that I certainly don't have any answers for, I do agree with most of what you say, I do agree that there is good and bad, I merely state that the definition of good and bad is subjective.

We can go around and round but this is as far as I want to go . It was fun though.

Agreed.

And we had a discussion.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Seems to me that you have to assume that there is such a thing as objective merit in order to compare different works of art, even if you don't actually believe in it.

I have only a vague memory of mathematics but it seems like the concept of an imaginary number might be a good analogy. As I recall, they aren't real numbers but they are useful in a lot of contexts.

NDRU said:

What it really comes down to is an exchange of ideas, and it says as much about the listener as it says about the music itself.

And there you have it.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

electricberet said:

There's a thread running in PM&M that was originally about the Lovesexy cover art but has veered into a discussion on whether art in general and music in particular can be objectively superior or inferior, or whether it's all a matter of taste:

http://prince.org/msg/7/367997

Since the discussion has veered off topic for that thread, I thought I would start one here. What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

[Edited 10/1/11 9:46am]

A good test would be to examine songs with cover versions. The same song performed from a different perspective. Take for example, Come Together, first performed by The Beatles and covered by Michael Jackson, The Brothers Johnson, among others. All three versions are distinct - with Jackon's containing a more edgier, rock sound than the othe two. Objectively, it's not easy for me say which is the best version - how can one decide? Technical proficiency of the musicians and the lead vocals? Production value (surely a subjective measure)?

Subjectively, my personal musical tastes lend themselves to preferring Jackson's version above the rest.

So it's a tricky one.

ForgottenPassword said:

electricberet said:

There's a thread running in PM&M that was originally about the Lovesexy cover art but has veered into a discussion on whether art in general and music in particular can be objectively superior or inferior, or whether it's all a matter of taste:

http://prince.org/msg/7/367997

Since the discussion has veered off topic for that thread, I thought I would start one here. What do you think? Is it possible to say, for example, that Rebecca Black's "Friday" is objectively inferior to "A Day in the Life" by the Beatles? Or does it just depend on your preference? I think there is such a thing as objective quality in music (and other art) but others seem to disagree.

[Edited 10/1/11 9:46am]

A good test would be to examine songs with cover versions. The same song performed from a different perspective. Take for example, Come Together, first performed by The Beatles and covered by Michael Jackson, The Brothers Johnson, among others. All three versions are distinct - with Jackon's containing a more edgier, rock sound than the othe two. Objectively, it's not easy for me say which is the best version - how can one decide? Technical proficiency of the musicians and the lead vocals? Production value (surely a subjective measure)?

Subjectively, my personal musical tastes lend themselves to preferring Jackson's version above the rest.

So it's a tricky one.

How about a third version: me singing "Come Together" in the shower? Pretty sure that would be universally regarded as inferior to all those you mention.

electricberet said:

ForgottenPassword said:

A good test would be to examine songs with cover versions. The same song performed from a different perspective. Take for example, Come Together, first performed by The Beatles and covered by Michael Jackson, The Brothers Johnson, among others. All three versions are distinct - with Jackon's containing a more edgier, rock sound than the othe two. Objectively, it's not easy for me say which is the best version - how can one decide? Technical proficiency of the musicians and the lead vocals? Production value (surely a subjective measure)?

Subjectively, my personal musical tastes lend themselves to preferring Jackson's version above the rest.

So it's a tricky one.

How about a third version: me singing "Come Together" in the shower? Pretty sure that would be universally regarded as inferior to all those you mention.

Well that depends on how many other people are in the shower with you singing Cum Together offering harmonic support.

ForgottenPassword said:

electricberet said:

How about a third version: me singing "Come Together" in the shower? Pretty sure that would be universally regarded as inferior to all those you mention.

Well that depends on how many other people are in the shower with you singing Cum Together offering harmonic support.

Zero. And the one person who might conceivably be in there would prefer that I not sing anything.

electricberet said:

Seems to me that you have to assume that there is such a thing as objective merit in order to compare different works of art, even if you don't actually believe in it.

I'm guessing this would be a very interesting discussion for musical academic types.

As a matter of fact, i'm going to pose it to a good friend who is a Professor.

On a music forum like this, i'm not sure how popular a discussion like that would be.

Yet people seem to set them up all the time.

For example, all the "Best" threads. There's one that's recently been started.

These are always started with no parameters established (best based on what?) to even attempt an intelligent answer.

Why is it so hard to substitute the word "Favorite" instead?

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I don' think so. I am in the subjective camp and I am the biggest snob here. I think most of the music a lot of people here cherish is crap. That's my opinion. That's why I remain on the subjective camp. You just cannot quantify personal taste. You cannot do it no matter how anyone tries. It can NEVER be objective. No way, no how.

I think we're talking about two different types of discussions.
I'm not interested in discussing anyone's personal tastes but rather an objective discussion of a specific piece of music.

There are tunes I may not like personally but I feel I can recognize and discuss certain musical merits they may have.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

tA, don't forget that there are those on here who aren't as well versed and don't have the musical understanding that you do. For those who have not studied and only view music as a "soundtrack to their life" or what have you, its hard to discuss composition, structure and theory objectively. Those are often the same people who completely dismiss and discount any form of proficiency except when it comes to their favorite artists.

Whereas you might hear a musical passage and think "Man, the way he hit that C# ionian scale over that F minor chord was cool", somebody else might just think "well, that was...uh,...different."

Scholars, students and enthusiasts have always been called elitists for delving deeper into whatever the subject, be it art, music, literature or even science. Its just a defense mechanism for those who haven't taken as deep of an interest as you have to cope with the idea that they may not know as much as they think they do. Sometimes you just have to step back and remember where you are and who you're talking to.

BlaqueKnight said:

tA, don't forget that there are those on here who aren't as well versed and don't have the musical understanding that you do. For those who have not studied and only view music as a "soundtrack to their life" or what have you, its hard to discuss composition, structure and theory objectively.

Not being formally trained, I don't even try and get too far into that end of the pool.
Most of what I know is self-taught or learned from others who are trained.
But I understand what you're saying.

Those are often the same people who completely dismiss and discount any form of proficiency except when it comes to their favorite artists.

The "Prince-bots" who think he's untouchable on guitar being a case in point.

Scholars, students and enthusiasts have always been called elitists for delving deeper into whatever the subject, be it art, music, literature or even science.

Yes this is a major problem in many areas of society today.
There seems to be a wave of anti-intellectualism running rampant currently.

Sometimes you just have to step back and remember where you are and who you're talking to.

Most of the time when things start to go off the rails i'll just back away knowing the conversation will go nowhere.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

BlaqueKnight said:

theAudience said:

I think we're talking about two different types of discussions.
I'm not interested in discussing anyone's personal tastes but rather an objective discussion of a specific piece of music.

There are tunes I may not like personally but I feel I can recognize and discuss certain musical merits they may have.



Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

tA, don't forget that there are those on here who aren't as well versed and don't have the musical understanding that you do. For those who have not studied and only view music as a "soundtrack to their life" or what have you, its hard to discuss composition, structure and theory objectively. Those are often the same people who completely dismiss and discount any form of proficiency except when it comes to their favorite artists.

Whereas you might hear a musical passage and think "Man, the way he hit that C# ionian scale over that F minor chord was cool", somebody else might just think "well, that was...uh,...different."

Scholars, students and enthusiasts have always been called elitists for delving deeper into whatever the subject, be it art, music, literature or even science. Its just a defense mechanism for those who haven't taken as deep of an interest as you have to cope with the idea that they may not know as much as they think they do. Sometimes you just have to step back and remember where you are and who you're talking to.

C'mon, of course we may be able to quantify technical difficulty or complexity, but that still does not equate something better than something else.

"coping mechanism" GTFOHWTBS

V10LETBLUES said:

BlaqueKnight said:

tA, don't forget that there are those on here who aren't as well versed and don't have the musical understanding that you do. For those who have not studied and only view music as a "soundtrack to their life" or what have you, its hard to discuss composition, structure and theory objectively. Those are often the same people who completely dismiss and discount any form of proficiency except when it comes to their favorite artists.

Whereas you might hear a musical passage and think "Man, the way he hit that C# ionian scale over that F minor chord was cool", somebody else might just think "well, that was...uh,...different."

Scholars, students and enthusiasts have always been called elitists for delving deeper into whatever the subject, be it art, music, literature or even science. Its just a defense mechanism for those who haven't taken as deep of an interest as you have to cope with the idea that they may not know as much as they think they do. Sometimes you just have to step back and remember where you are and who you're talking to.

C'mon, of course we may be able to quantify technical difficulty or complexity, but that still does not equate something better than something else.

"coping mechanism" GTFOHWTBS

Its more than that. Thats an oversimplification of what I was saying.

You can argue that Prince's symbol is as great of a piece of artwork as the Sistine Chapel. In YOUR OPINION, it might be. At the same time, there is room for the discussion of how Michaelangelo's use of fresco is far superior and intricate of a painting technique than a simplistic design created with ink pens and how those techniques result in a far more interesting or complex arrray of textures. This type of conversation often contains uses of words like "better than" in order to communicate in simplicity a much more wordy phrasing of thoughts as well as interject an opinion.

That is why this sort of conversation is often better suited in less general company where people have a general standard that they agree upon. Anyone can argue anything at any time but oopinions rooted in facts or from a similiar mindset are far more respectable than baseless opinions.

You go to the doctor. The doctor tells you that you may have myoclonic epilepsey.

The janitor thinks you might just have gas.

Both are opinions.

BlaqueKnight said:

V10LETBLUES said:

C'mon, of course we may be able to quantify technical difficulty or complexity, but that still does not equate something better than something else.

"coping mechanism" GTFOHWTBS

Its more than that. Thats an oversimplification of what I was saying.

You can argue that Prince's symbol is as great of a piece of artwork as the Sistine Chapel. In YOUR OPINION, it might be. At the same time, there is room for the discussion of how Michaelangelo's use of fresco is far superior and intricate of a painting technique than a simplistic design created with ink pens and how those techniques result in a far more interesting or complex arrray of textures. This type of conversation often contains uses of words like "better than" in order to communicate in simplicity a much more wordy phrasing of thoughts as well as interject an opinion.

That is why this sort of conversation is often better suited in less general company where people have a general standard that they agree upon. Anyone can argue anything at any time but oopinions rooted in facts or from a similiar mindset are far more respectable than baseless opinions.

You go to the doctor. The doctor tells you that you may have myoclonic epilepsey.

The janitor thinks you might just have gas.

Both are opinions.

true, even though everyone is entitled to their opinions, and even the experts can be wrong, still it's worth considering that there are experts in EVERY field. Their opinions are at least worth listening to and considering before dismissing.

There are movies and music that I would have never liked had it not been for the critics who are paid to observe, or the artists who are paid to create. Without the endorsement of those experts, I might have dismissed a lot of art after a glance or 30 seconds of listening. And I would have missed out.

I don't always agree with the experts, but they surround themselves with this stuff all day every day. I owe it to myself to try to see what they see in something before deciding they are full of shit.

[Edited 10/3/11 20:50pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

Its more than that. Thats an oversimplification of what I was saying.

You can argue that Prince's symbol is as great of a piece of artwork as the Sistine Chapel. In YOUR OPINION, it might be. At the same time, there is room for the discussion of how Michaelangelo's use of fresco is far superior and intricate of a painting technique than a simplistic design created with ink pens and how those techniques result in a far more interesting or complex arrray of textures. This type of conversation often contains uses of words like "better than" in order to communicate in simplicity a much more wordy phrasing of thoughts as well as interject an opinion.

That is why this sort of conversation is often better suited in less general company where people have a general standard that they agree upon.

Prince's symbol is a logo. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is a mural. They are two completely different types of art that serve two different purposes entirely even if they are both fall under visual art. It would be like comparing the Happy Birthday song to Johannes Brahms - Hungarian Dance No. 5. They both fall under music, but they are two totally different types of music entirely and they serve two totally different purposes.

If someone were to go: Prince's Symbol is far superior logo than the one for The Rolling Stones then yeah, that's a MUCH better comparison. They are both logos that represent their respective bands. If someone were compare the Sistine Chapel from Michaelangelo with Loggia di Psiche from Raphael that is ok, because they are both fresco murals.

I know what you are trying to get at though and I agree somewhat, but I just wanted to clarify your example. (If someone were to say that to me I think I would question their sanity.) If I, personally, were to compare and discuss both sets of examples, in a logo I would be looking something that perfectly simple/cunning/smart that symbolizes what it is supposed to representing. That comes before execution. The simpler the logo, the better.

With murals, there's a lot to look for, but first I would be looking for how well they explored/represented the theme. Does it tell a story and if it does how well does it do it? What sort of painting techniques were employed? Colors? Style? And etc...

Ultimately, though, what matters most is how does it look, because that's the first thing people look for in visual related arts. I also assume that for music, it's about how does it sound, way before anything else. Sometimes I think that as people adept in the arts you get too lost in some of the details and lose focus of the bigger picture at hand.

Unholyalliance said:

Prince's symbol is a logo. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel is a mural. They are two completely different types of art that serve two different purposes entirely even if they are both fall under visual art. It would be like comparing the Happy Birthday song to Johannes Brahms - Hungarian Dance No. 5. They both fall under music, but they are two totally different types of music entirely and they serve two totally different purposes.

If someone were to go: Prince's Symbol is far superior logo than the one for The Rolling Stones then yeah, that's a MUCH better comparison. They are both logos that represent their respective bands. If someone were compare the Sistine Chapel from Michaelangelo with Loggia di Psiche from Raphael that is ok, because they are both fresco murals.

I know what you are trying to get at though and I agree somewhat, but I just wanted to clarify your example. (If someone were to say that to me I think I would question their sanity.) If I, personally, were to compare and discuss both sets of examples, in a logo I would be looking something that perfectly simple/cunning/smart that symbolizes what it is supposed to representing. That comes before execution. The simpler the logo, the better.

With murals, there's a lot to look for, but first I would be looking for how well they explored/represented the theme. Does it tell a story and if it does how well does it do it? What sort of painting techniques were employed? Colors? Style? And etc...

Ultimately, though, what matters most is how does it look, because that's the first thing people look for in visual related arts. I also assume that for music, it's about how does it sound, way before anything else. Sometimes I think that as people adept in the arts you get too lost in some of the details and lose focus of the bigger picture at hand.

I made an extreme example like that deliberately. I am obviously very aware of the difference. You didn't clarify it - you changed it. And in some musical cases, comparing the happy birthday song to Johannes Brahms is exactly what goes on around here.

While I respect what you are saying and appreciate your comparison, I was extreme for a reason. Just like some art (logos & murals) are created for completely different purposes, so are some songs. You could say that almost all pop music is created to be sold or to sell something (like a logo) whereas jazz fusion, for example, is created for the audience of jazz fusion fans and I highly doubt there are any (sane) fusion artists looking to be rich, famous pop stars.

Thank you for the exchannge.

BlaqueKnight said:

I made an extreme example like that deliberately. I am obviously very aware of the difference. You didn't clarify it - you changed it. And in some musical cases, comparing the happy birthday song to Johannes Brahms is exactly what goes on around here.

While I respect what you are saying and appreciate your comparison, I was extreme for a reason. Just like some art (logos & murals) are created for completely different purposes, so are some songs. You could say that almost all pop music is created to be sold or to sell something (like a logo) whereas jazz fusion, for example, is created for the audience of jazz fusion fans and I highly doubt there are any (sane) fusion artists looking to be rich, famous pop stars.

Thank you for the exchannge.

Ok...I understand..I guess.

Though I thought that all popular music is meant to be sold even if some don't really sell as much as others? I mean...does something that targets a niche market have more artistic weight than something that targets a more mainstream market? Is artistic merit solely based on how big the demographic is?

Is that what you are saying?

Unholyalliance said:

BlaqueKnight said:

I made an extreme example like that deliberately. I am obviously very aware of the difference. You didn't clarify it - you changed it. And in some musical cases, comparing the happy birthday song to Johannes Brahms is exactly what goes on around here.

While I respect what you are saying and appreciate your comparison, I was extreme for a reason. Just like some art (logos & murals) are created for completely different purposes, so are some songs. You could say that almost all pop music is created to be sold or to sell something (like a logo) whereas jazz fusion, for example, is created for the audience of jazz fusion fans and I highly doubt there are any (sane) fusion artists looking to be rich, famous pop stars.

Thank you for the exchannge.

Ok...I understand..I guess.

Though I thought that all popular music is meant to be sold even if some don't really sell as much as others? I mean...does something that targets a niche market have more artistic weight than something that targets a more mainstream market? Is artistic merit solely based on how big the demographic is?

Is that what you are saying?

Its not about markets. Markets are just divided categories that were part of a way business people figured into the process of making money from music. Artistic integrity can exist in pop music but it is not the primary nor is it the sole reason for its existence. What we see as top 40 music today solely exists for the purposes of selling something, be it the artists' images, CDs, merchandise, etc. With music that requires a more detail-oriented ear and more advanced proficiency, it is understood that not everyone is going to take the time to try to understand it. The "market makers" understand that it is not going to generate a lion's share of capital, so they don't bother with it much. Artists who create it tend to create from a different motivation than those who create pop music with hopes of "being a star". So in effect, I suppose the answer is "YES" - certain niche markets carry more artistic integrity than mainstream markets. Mainstream markets have far more limits in their parameters than certain "niche" markets.

dJJ said:

SquirrelMeat said:

Good shit = My music collection

Shit = Everyone elses music collection

I think that's a very clear golden standard for objectively categorizing music.

Problem solved.

Yeah that pretty much sums it all.