Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907383)

Popularity is too inconsistent to use as the main point of validation, but not as meaningless as you try to make it out to be. There are other factors that add into popularity like how consistently popular the artist was. The popularity of Lil Uzi Vert hasn't stood the test of time the same way a Kanye has so it could be completely reactionary. Or you could say that Lil Wayne's newest music is of quality because he's popular when he's really riding off the popularity of his past and the general consensus is that he was of quality and his newer stuff is trash. My Kanye example was perfect. You aren't going to accept the idea that Kanye is a good lyricist so I can bring up the general consensus of his lyrics to validate it. And there are artists that create the illusion of popularity when the consensus is that they are trash. So, as I've said this whole time, popularity is not the deciding factor on the quality of music, but it is more important of a piece of evidence than you want to credit it for because it contradicts your taste.

Originally Posted by Maajo (Post 1907440)

Some people think Metal Machine Music is a classic while others think it's just loud, obnoxious, and a joke at the expense of Lou Reed's record label (it was).

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907441)

Yo Lucem, this is what I was talking about when I said that I approach music differently from the casual music fan.

Originally Posted by Maajo (Post 1907442)

The thing is that the consensus has become that it's a classic. If you ever look at any time it's brought up on social media, about 4/5 comments are positive, and I think a lot of the reviews are like that too.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907443)

I definitely consider MMM a classic, but not because it's widely considered to be such. An album like that in 1975 is just so insanely unheard of and had a massive effect on the avant-garde scene. It might be a troll album, but I don't think that that's the only motivation behind it. Lou Reed always had a disposition toward the experimental, so it's not very unlikely that he used his jadedness as a jumping off point for something that he really wanted to do.

Originally Posted by Maajo (Post 1907444)

I like MMM too, and I don't think anybody listens to music just because it's popular. Maybe when you're in high school and you're trying to impress your friends or get laid, but those people always hate on music for the same reason. Regardless of Reed's motivation, I like abstract.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907559)

hey just stopping by to say no this is still false

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1907447)

This and Beck’s latest are going in the same bin

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907591)

Because it contradicts your own taste, I know.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907824)

laughing so hard at this

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907620)

That's a pretty dumb way to look at it. The only reason we're having this convo in the first place is because someone banked on popularity when someone else contradicted their taste. That's the only time I've seen it invoked, is when it's used as an empty "well bunches of people can't be wrong!"

It's a ****ty validation of an artist's worth even in context of other qualities because it is an unreliable model. The only reason you would think otherwise is because popularity doesn't contradict your taste.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907911)

Yeah, but he brought up a good point, Eminem can't be that bad if he's consistently retained popularity.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907916)

Wrong. Cut the faith in modern man.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907919)

No, it's true. Cut the need to feel validated.

Originally Posted by [MERIT] (Post 1907927)

I like how instead of judging his music on its merit, breaking it down and dissecting it, what's good, what's bad, we feel the need to compare our own internal responses to others in search for acceptance, thus making it abouts us, rather than the music itself.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907925)

Not considering the popularity of an artist when determining whether an artist is good is a need for validation?

You might have me confused with someone else.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907931)

You completely dismissed popular opinion, saying that most popular artists pull from musical morons that only listen because they don't know better.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907932)

you're the one seeking validation through popularity of artist

everyone else takes a "I like what I like" approach

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907933)

Strawman. That's clearly not how I view music. The rest is not worth reading if that's your premise.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907935)

Then why did you say that? Because you did say that. You literally said that popular opinion does not matter because it draws from people that are musical morons.

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907936)

*can draw

That ****'s inconsistent.

Are you reading my posts?

Quit hanging out with juggalos.

42069

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907937)

And you think that changes anything?

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907938)

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS. Obviously. Are you ****ing stupid?

If you're going to try to corner this dumb ass opinion into the objectivity corner, then you need to consider how inconsistent and unreliable popularity is for determining quality.



That popularity is out of the photo when determining whether an artist is good or not? If so then they have that part of music philosophy nailed down.

**** you.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907943)

We already established why popularity is inconsistent and it isn't you're ****ty attempt at dismissing it by saying that they CAN have musical morons, which is you attempting to make it as objective as he did.

When I determine whether or not I like an artist personally, it doesn't matter, but it will matter when talking objectively. Like you both tried to. Don't act like you guys didn't, telling people they are musically retarded or not as qualified as you seems to be the thing around here, and definitely does not come from a subjective 'like what you like ' approach you're pretending to come with.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907941)

Ive expressed what just happens to be the truth

quite a lot popular music is designed to be that way in corporate board rooms the same way a Transformer movie is concocted

if you're someone really into film you will probably be bored by a transformers movie

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907944)

No **** you. Stupid. Eat coal, it's popular.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907946)

I know a lot of people really into film that like those kinds of movies. Buttress comes to mind. Same with music. You're assuming that people who listen to popular music, which I know is designed to be simpler, catchier, etc. (typically) don't have anything better to compare it to, or that you require a better understanding of music and musical theory to understand that it's crap or something. No, that's not true. That is exactly what I'm talking about, you tell yourself that to feel validated in your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907949)

Terrible analogy, musical taste is a useless opinion while the opinion on what you should put into your body actually matters much more.

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907947)

I didn't assume any of those things and I'm well aware people can like vapid art for any arbitrary reason

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907950)

BECAUSE MANY GODDAMNED TYPES OF MUSIC FANS, DUMBASSES AND GENIUSES, CAN APPRECIATE IT, BUT NOT ALWAYS ARE YOU THIS DUMB? ****l

Originally Posted by elphenor (Post 1907955)

that's not the assumption you accused me of

which was more like "no one with good tastes could like something popular"

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907954)

You mad bro? Why is it hard to accept the truth? Do you NEED to believe that popularity has no merit at all because they CAN have fans that don't reach your standard of art appreciation?

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1907957)

Are you reading my posts? Popularity is neither here nor there unless you go deeper with it.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907959)

Yeah, and I agreed with that. The biggest question would be why is it popular? Initially, if something retains popularity, it has a good reason why. I think we both agree. And it's useless to bring up in personal opinions, we both agree.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre (Post 1907959)

Edit: And I think that statement tries to make it objective and if you want to make it objective I think musical opinion belongs to the masses. Maybe not on something as easily measured as technical ability or something like that, but just on the basic idea of what is good music.