He-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-ells no. Check most thesauri. Best and favorite don't even appear on the same page, and neither do their synonyms. Best is all about quality, and favorite is all about personal resonance. Although many people would like something for both reasons, there are also many cases where a personal favorite is admittedly worse than others. Take some of my favorites. I love the 80's pop sound in Invisible Touch because I grew up with it. However, there are a couple songs on it that needed work. I think Selling England is the better Genesis album because I have no complaint about it's quality. As an aspiring critic, this is something I've learned to realize.

A better example is how one of my favorite albums is Funhouse. Not Stooges. Pink. But as far as the quality of the album goes, I'd give it an 80. But a lot of my favorite songs are on it, so I still listen to the whole thing.

However, quality is still in the eye of the beholder, so in case anyone's worried about objectivity v,. subjectivity, quality isn't something everyone will agree on, thus both are subjective in that sense.

Some are able to judge by both, and others may not understand quality being subjective. Personally, I like that aspect of quality.

And before anyone asks, I am a straight male who likes Pink.

Abbey Road is now the winner. :)

EDIT- lol at With the Beatles.

Those are some impressive mental gymnastics. Best is as subjective as favourite and really mean the same thing. Get over it.

Am I supposed to believe that someone who prefers reading Fifty Shades of Grey over Macbeth must then consider E. L. James the better writer than Shakespeare?


There's a degree of objectivity to art. Get over it.

Best in their eyes? Yes. Best in your own? Well that just depends on your own opinion of Shakespeare and the great James. You don't have to change your own opinion simply because it conflicts with someone else's. Now whether they have something to validate their opinion beyond having ****ty taste or being ignorant of quality stuff is a different story. Art is really not a phenomena that lends itself to any sort of objectivity.

No one said anything about changing personal opinions.

You can recognize what an artist contributed to their medium without personally appreciating their stuff. Influence, stylistic contributions, charting new territory and spawning imitators, standing the test of time.

I don't see Fifty Shades being read by high schoolers 500 years from now. But hey, crazier things have happened.

Does that really make it "best"? For me it doesn't if that's the only thing going for it.

Maybe 'most important' is more apt, but I think that's what Grungeman was getting at

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks James is the more important writer than Shakespeare, and I don't think you'd have too much trouble writing a dissertation refuting that. I just think saying James is the better writer is essentially analogous to that, but it's semantics

If someone likes James better than you can't really dispute that. They just plain like her better. Kinda like I'll always like John Mellencamp more than Bob Dylan :cool:

Get over it? What the hell? I didn't say anything to deserve that kind of response. If you think they mean the same thing, then you're the one who's wrong. How do I know? Simple. The definitions of words are not subjective. One can't assume "the" means "pencil." "best" means "quality," but "objectivity" means fact. And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder and opinions on quality can vary, yes it is subjective. But I can decide my own favorites and what I think is better. If you want to have an actual discussion, that's fine. But don't talk like that to me when I said nothing rude to you to begin with.

Best = quality
favorite = personal resonance.

If you want more examples, here you go.

Larks is the better album because of it's complexity and will to experiment. I have no complaint about the album's structure. But I resonate more with the almost new wave sound of Discipline because it's a bit catchier.

Dark Side of the moon is pretty much the definition of making an album, and everything about it is amazing. One of the ten best album's I've heard. But although The Wall doesn't quite meet that quality and needs a tiny bit of work on a couple tracks, I prefer The Wall for the story.

I love Achtung Baby's dancy sound. However, The Joshua Tree is a little better in terms of album making because the feel of the album is constant and produced in brilliance by Brian Eno, whereas Achtung spends a little too much time worrying about its catchiness.

You can't say "this is how it is," and then demand me to "get over it."