GravitySlips

I have respect for plenty of things I dislike - I respect the blues musicians I've heard, even though I don't care much for the genre. I can respect a good football player, even if he plays for a rival team. If there's talent, often that's accompanied by respect... I dislike the way many musicians use their instrumental talent, but usually I can still respect the talent itself.

If you've no respect for the album, then fair enough. People react differently to different things... some people, though, seem to be too keen to denigrate things based on popularity and status, instead of perhaps realizing that some people actually DO enjoy the music.

I actually think a lot of these "anti-scenesters" probably spend more time worrying about how albums they like/dislike are perceived, than the scenesters themselves.

starrynight

I'm talking more about elevating something to classic status even if you don't like it than just general respect for someone. Those who do genuinely like it I have no problem with as I said. And I never talked about denigrating a whole genre, that isn't part of what I am saying at all, or what most people at Amazon say. I would say those who are most concerned about whether they like albums that are considered good are more likely to stay with the famous things than ever dare mention anything which is far less well known.

GravitySlips

All I'm saying is that if one dislikes an album, then saying that other people only like it because it's acclaimed or because it's (somehow) "cool" to like it, is almost always stupid, useless and plain wrong. I'm not accusing you of anything, it was a few of the Amazon comments that struck me as the typical nonsense that's spouted by people who try to justify their dislike of something by blaming "scenesters" or the fact it's "cool" for its acclaim and popularity. When, in fact, there are thousands if not millions of people who genuinely LOVE albums such as Loveless, and are inspired by it.

Insofar as people should form their own opinions about albums, of course I agree. Critics and music journalism are good ways to find music you MIGHT enjoy, but ultimately the listener either enjoys something on some level, or they don't. If people focused solely on the actual content of the music itself, rather than being blinded by abstractions relating to how the music's perceived, then that would be much better. Even in what I dislike, I can usually see some iota of merit and can understand why others enjoy it, or why it's highly regarded. And so I don't appeal to these tired notions of how "scene" or "cool" or popular it is, in order to explain my own dislike/indifference/whatever.

starrynight

People often go beyond the basic content of the music though talking about influence and originality as if these are as important (I don't think they are) and can be objectively and clearly assessed.

GravitySlips

Whether or not they're important, I find it quite interesting to talk about the influences of a band and the "originality" of a band (which often ties in to the way they sound in general, which is worthy of discussion of course). So I do think these things are worthy of discussion, but yes - the thing of prime importance is the music itself and whether or not you enjoy it on any level.

starrynight

They can be used to discuss their sound but people do it to say a band is important as they are original or they are important as they were influential. I think a band is important as the music is good to me. Influence is partly through chance and fashion and isn't always good either, and originality is nearly always way overstated and ignores other people so as to focus on the favoured artist.

GravitySlips

It depends what you mean when you say "important". An influential band IS important, in the grand scheme of things. Important to you personally? Well that's another matter.