the english army (skittlez) wrote in thequestionclub,
the english army

is "good" music REALLY subjective?

In a thread on a board someone is all "Guess what really awesome album came out?" and gives a link to the R.E.M. comp "And I Feel Fine... The Best of the I.R.S. Years 1982-1987" but someone in response to that question is like "The new Papa Roach album!" than someone in response to THAT statement says, "Papa Roach is not "really awesome". R.E.M. is." than a person is like "Pfft. Completely the opposite for me."

So where am I going with this? Well someone posted a rather interesting response to that "Completely the opposite." statement, here it is:

"These things aren't based on what you think, you see.

A quick comparison before I get the "OMGZ! DiZ iZ OPiNION ANd I caN BAsH WUT u ThINk But U cANt BsH Me!" speech.

You might think that that rookie shortstop on whatever team is a good athlete. You might think that he's the best ever, even. However, the fact of the matter is that, well, he's just not as good as Cal Ripken Jr.

There may be flaws there, because I haven't wached baseball in years, but the point is still the same. Good is not a really subjective term."

So it's a long way around to go ask a question I know (though, it's already been asked in the subject line pretty much anyway), but putting tastes aside and all would you say some bands/musicians are better than others technically? Hell, are their any bands/musicians that you really don't like or maybe even hate, but have to admit, "Well they are pretty talented musically"?
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded