Eminem - Revival

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

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?

It's more the fact that people appreciate music for different reasons. Some people only like quality emcees, others just want something on while they jog, others only want to listen to innovative music. We all interpret quality of music differently, therefore it's still subjective. I certainly have my own standards that the casual music listener does share in the slightest, but I'll tell those to you instead of just going "nyeh, popular" as you appear to be strawmanning here.

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.

That's a conversation on influence which is much different from and more objective than quality. Maybe we're using different definitions for this. When I say quality, I just mean whether you think an album is good or bad. Even if that can be established objectively, popularity wouldn't be the tool to do so.

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.

For quality? That makes no sense. If their music doesn't appeal to you, then you have no reason to deem it quality music.

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.

Idk about invalidating popularity since I will still recognize popular artists as such, but it is certainly idiotic to base your opinion of an artist on their popularity in either direction.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's more the fact that people appreciate music for different reasons. Some people only like quality emcees, others just want something on while they jog, others only want to listen to innovative music. We all interpret quality of music differently, therefore it's still subjective. I certainly have my own standards that the casual music listener does not have in the slightest, but I'll tell those to you instead of just going "nyeh, popular" as you appear to be strawmanning here.



That's a conversation on influence which is much different from and more objective than quality. Maybe we're using different definitions for this. When I say quality, I just mean whether you think an album is good or bad. Even if that can be established objectively, popularity wouldn't be the tool to do so.



For quality? That makes no sense. If their music doesn't appeal to you, then you have no reason to deem it quality music.



Idk about invalidating popularity since I will still recognize popular artists as such, but it is certainly idiotic to base your opinion of an artist on their popularity in either direction.

So you've never appreciated music that you didn't like? And you're arrogant enough to think that you're any different than a casual listener?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

So you've never appreciated music that you didn't like?

Artists like Tupac and Biggie have massive influence and I would easily call them classics even though I hate their music and would never call it quality. Not sure if that counts as appreciation for you.

And you're arrogant enough to think that you're any different than a casual listener?

I can 100% guarantee you that I approach music differently from the casual listener, yes. Pretty sure that's not even arrogant lol.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Artists like Tupac and Biggie have massive influence and I would easily call them classics even though I hate their music and would never call it quality.



I can 100% guarantee you that I approach music differently from the casual listener, yes. Pretty sure that's not even arrogant lol.

And you don't think massive popularity counts as influence? I can find quality in plenty of things I don't like. Like I said, the difference between appreciation and enjoyment. I know the kind of music I gravitate towards and all though I may find lots of quality from some artists, I'm not running out of my way to listen to it because it's not something I enjoy as often. That's why rather than calling them trash, like this trash Eminem album, I just say it's not my cup of tea or not my preference. It's like that rap album you were giving Goofle **** for not enjoying. He recognized the quality of the project but just could not enjoy it because the content went against his views. And don't pretend the personal views of an artist does not influence you're enjoyment. It's kind of weird that this concept of appreciation vs enjoyment is lost on such a huge music nerd.

Edit: On top of that, bringing up reasons on why you enjoy an artist or a song or what ever takes it away from being a subjective conversation and put it into an objective stance because you are then trying to validate your opinion to others who aren't really appreciative enough to try and understand where somebody is coming from. If you don't appreciate music you don't like then what's the use of discussing it when you're just a wall of opinions. You'll never find or understand something new, you're just there to push your opinions at people then **** on them for not having the same ones, which I guess some people could find that fun. Or maybe you're hoping for an echo chamber so we can all **** on the same ****. Which would be cool, I'd hope that we all hate Hopsin enough to **** on him.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

And you don't think massive popularity counts as influence?

I do. This is why I clarified that influence is different from quality.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Edit: On top of that, bringing up reasons on why you enjoy an artist or a song or what ever takes it away from being a subjective conversation and put it into an objective stance because you are then trying to validate your opinion to others who aren't really appreciative enough to try and understand where somebody is coming from. If you don't appreciate music you don't like then what's the use of discussing it when you're just a wall of opinions. You'll never find or understand something new, you're just there to push your opinions at people then **** on them for not having the same ones, which I guess some people could find that fun. Or maybe you're hoping for an echo chamber so we can all **** on the same ****. Which would be cool, I'd hope that we all hate Hopsin enough to **** on him.

It's a far more valid way to approach talking about music objectively than banking on an artist's popularity.

You even reading my posts?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by Frownland

It's a far more valid way to approach talking about music objectively than banking on an artist's popularity.

You even reading my posts?

And I never said that an artists popularity is the end all be all approach to discussing music objectively, just that it is much more important to the discussion than you want to acknowledge because it contradicts your taste. First post I literally said that.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

And I never said that an artists popularity is the end all be all approach to discussing music objectively, just that it is much more important to the discussion than you want to acknowledge because it contradicts your taste. First post I literally said that.

In light of superior ways to determine objectivity, why rely on something so inconsistent though? You can use it to justify your opinion as more than some dude that's realy into x artist if you can show other people sharing your specific thoughts on the artist. Cause for popularity is incredibly ambiguous, so you have to go far beyond something's popularity to confirm that the popularity is because of the artist's high quality music.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by Frownland

In light of superior ways to determine objectivity, why rely on something so inconsistent though? You can use it to justify your opinion as more than some dude that's realy into x artist if you can show other people sharing your specific thoughts on the artist. Cause for popularity is incredibly ambiguous, so you have to go far beyond something's popularity to confirm that the popularity is because of the artist's high quality music.

And again, for the third time, it's not the end all be all thing that ultimately validates an artist, but it is more important to the discussion than you want to accept because it contradicts your taste.

Plus, I can bring up Kanye West. I can tell you all day that Kanye does not have terrible lyrics that his lyrics are exactly perfect for what he's doing and you aren't having it, so at that point what is the use of discussing it with somebody who doesn't know how to appreciate music they don't enjoy? You're not going to accept the objectivity of any reason I give for enjoying an artist like Kanye so it's just as pointless and futile as bringing up the popularity. And I can obviously just bring up that the lyrics can't be that terrible if so many people, not just casual fans but huge lovers of hip hop in general rally behind Kanye and his lyrics. It's the validation you don't want to accept because it contradicts your taste. No matter how detailed I get into why Kanye's lyrics aren't terrible you're not going to accept it any more than if I just leaned on his popularity.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

And again, for the third time, it's not the end all be all thing that ultimately validates an artist, but it is more important to the discussion than you want to accept because it contradicts your taste.

On a scale of one to ten, how important is popularity when determining the quality of the artist in the grand scheme of things? I say 1 because it's too inconsistent of a trait.