I've been here for 1.5 years and you've made the exact same damn argument numerous times, and I still think you are ****ing daft. And stubbornly ignorant as to what the phrase really means.

Popularity counts for the fact that large numbers of people enjoy your product. Whether it be be bread, tires, video games, golf balls, or music. It counts AND MEANS SOMETHING to have a product that has lasted the test of time and remains "popular".

You, being on the fringe, hate to accept this simple concept, basically because most of what you enjoy, and create, will, or has never been, vastly popular.

To be clear: We're not talking validity here. Everything is valid: You abusing an acoustic guitar with a coat hanger being on the extreme fringe....

Don't discount popular as being inferior, in an effort to justify your fringe, unpopular, tastes.

Frowny comeback in 5..., 4..., 3..., 2...

Sometimes it just means that thing is lowest common denominator.

It doesn't mean anything to me though. I'm aware that popularity means that you're successful (that's what I meant by "popularity counts for nothing but popularity itself"), but I don't think that's relevant in determining the quality of something. Also I never equated popular with inferior, much like how I'm not saying that popularity determines superiority. Pretty simple.

I have no need to justify my taste and have never done so on a popularity based argument. Whenever I bring the subject up its usually in response to people saying or implying that popularity counts for quality.

https://45.media.tumblr.com/eeca280c...4373o1_500.gif
I agree. Some of the most popular music today is not what I'd call the least bit talented, and vice versa.
No, something else generally rises to the top, hence the charts. Popularity is no indication of something being good. Just because everyone does it/likes it/goes to it does not necessarily mean it's the best of its type. You could have the most talented singer/songwriter making dollars in a bar in Pasadena while people vastly inferior in talent, but very popular in the charts, rake it in. So this particular cream is held down and does not rise to the top. Doesn't make him or her any less cream. That sounded better in my head.
Of course they can. Many singers of note, sure even Sinatra, one of the most talented, and I believe Elvis (though correct me if I'm wrong as I'm no fan of his) never wrote any songs.
Then he must be arrested! Who did he kill???? :yikes:
What do you have against Jim's hat? Oh, no! You're not one of those awful hattist people, are you??
It certainly does, or can do.
This is of course correct. I've listened to and followed bands and singers here that nobody would even know, and who are certainly not popular, in the sense of having huge album sales or hits, but they're still damn talented. Sometimes in fact, being popular can work to the disadvantage of talent, as the artist thinks he or she need do the bare minimum and people will still buy their material. The creative urge dries up, but the bank account continues to grow.

Not inferiority, but you've used the label to semi-slam tons of **** - basically based on the fact that if lots of people dig it, it must somehow be less than what it is.

If I come at you with the fact that LZ-IV has sold 23 millions copies in the US alone, your immediate comeback is: "Sales doesn't validate that it's good".

I think you need new reading glasses, I've never said anything of the sort.

Because it doesn't.

Implication.

For the record, I think Kevin Gilbert may be the greatest rock/pop artist of all time.

Back to GnR. My fave thing they ever did was the video for Terminator II.

At the end of the video when the band was leaving the Rainbow, Slash was wasted out of his mind!

@6:10

You suck at inference, my friend.

Also, Kevin Gilbert was only popular because Sheryl Crowe got more popular than him and he got pissy about it.

We're saying the exact same thing using different terms. To me, the "cream" is the talent, and long-term, the talent generally sticks around and can become recognized by the mainstream. Everything else is the milk, the stuff that the general public is fed and accept as "good". I think of it in terms like a band such as The Ramones, who, to me, were special (or cream). They were ignored for the most part by the general public early on, for many reasons- they never had big hits, commercial songs, they weren't pretty, they played a style of music that had negative connotations to it, etc- but as their career lengthened, they became more appreciated by a wider volume of people. All I'm saying, like you, is that popularity does not equate quality, talent or technical excellence. I'm saying the cream has a better chance for a long career than the milk, albeit in a less financially successful fashion.

http://media0.giphy.com/media/Z1DUrsiHbxnfW/200.gif


All of those artists are glam ROCK. Glam ROCK. Not glam METAL. Which is what we are talking about. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or you're just clueless.