It`s an interesting question, Xenith, and has in fact been debated here before; in this thread, for example, at some length:-

http://www.musicbanter.com/general-m...-good-bad.html

this but ironically

Not necessarily.

As a fan of Norwegian Black Metal I can tell you that many in the scene are highly elitist and only want a select few to know about their jams.

Again, not necessarily.

For example Kurt Cobain was a great transformative musician, but was a very mediocre guitar player. He managed to make up for his lack of technical skills with great song-writing.

:pimp:

Gud muzic is muzic that's n d charts. It's n the charts becuz it's gud muzic rite?

Serious answer

I consider good music anything that tries to sound unique while also progressing it's own particular sound. Basically, bad music is music I've heard before by a thousand different bands, or a band that plays literally the same song every time.

Also see most mainstream rap music. That's just lazy.

Non serious answer

See Grammy winners of the past ten years.

Yes. The barometer is personal taste.

If you're recognizing that certain groups tend to be placed in 'good' or 'bad' camps based on popular opinion you're really just noticing trends in the social hive mind for lack of better terms.

Different demographics are going to recognize different elements of the final creation in order to determine a relative worth. It's not so much a matter of celebrating stupidity so much as, if you grow up in a less than awesome area with little to no chance at higher education and you hear some dude busting out a deluge of verbose prose to accentuate their social soliloquies, you're gonna roll you're eyes until you're seeing behind you.

Like it or not, good / bad IS relative to the individual and entirely subjective to their personal views and morals regarding whatever is being judged by their mind in the moment.

There's no objective subformula to the subjectivity of music, for it's really just a factor of taste.

I know this is absolutely true, but surely there is a case for saying that aspects of music can make some music better than other music?

For instance, I think that one of these pieces is clearly far superior to the other:





I think most would agree that Gershwin here outclasses Rancid in almost every way. I picked pretty obvious examples, but the point is that we can't use the premise "all taste is subjective" to lead to the conclusion "music can not be defined as 'bad' because that's down to subjectivity" on to the dubious final conclusion "all music is equally good because it is all in some for appreciated".

I've not been too clear, but I think there is a case for there to be some sort of recognition of music that is better.
I appreciate that some people will PREFER the Rancid song, but at the end of the day, should this mean that neither can be considered "better"?

Well that's like, uh, your opinion, man.