Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
It's a bad indicator of quality because it is not consistent for popular artists. Some great artists are certainly popular, but that only works in one direction since there are plenty of popular artists that are certainly not great.
Plus, talking about music from an "objective" point of view makes no sense because it's such a subjective medium. If you want to go more in depth into why you do or don't like them with specific reasons that can be identified or at least interpreted on a shared premise by anyone regardless of how they feel about the record. But if you're going to go that deep and actually talk about the music, what's the point in resting on something as inconsistent and surface level as popularity?
|
When you make statements like 'people who like this don't really listen to music' it's no longer in a realm of subjectivity, now is it? You don't get to switch back and forth like that. I think artists objectively deserve some kind of recognition for what they have done regardless of if you like it or not. Which is the difference between music appreciation and music enjoyment. Like I will never call ATCQ terrible artists because I appreciate what they have created, their legacy, their influence and their talent even though I don't particularly enjoy their music. Even their classics are really boring to me. I think popularity plays a part in that kind of validation whether you want to accept it or not. So when you invalidate the popularity of an artist because you claim the masses don't have as good of a taste as you do, that's not being subjective, that's honestly as lazy as using an artist's popularity in a discussion about your opinions.