Printable View
It seems to be an almost unanimously held view that whether a particular song/artist is better than another is just a matter of opinion. I'm not at all sure that this is correct though. For example, The Beatle's "Day in the Life" is clearly better than Joe Dolce's "Shadupa ya face'; and Joy Division's 'Heart and Soul' is objectively better than "The Chicken Song".
What do the rest of you think? Is it all just opinion, or are some tunes/artists just better than others?
Opinion!
Definitely just people's opinions.
I agree, its all about peoples opinions!Quote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
" The Chicken Song" is a wonderful piece of biting satire. It lampoons Black Lace and equally crappy records.
Opinions.
It's all down to what you mean by "better". For most people, it's that it's more popular, or they enjoy listening to it more. That's definately opinion.
If you can come up with some objective criterion as to what "better" is (the recording industry might use profits, for example), then it's clearer. :)
Opinions are like buttocks , everybody's got a set of them :D
ha ha ha;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I don't know what the criterion might be. But I think that even without a specified criterion, one can make objectively correct judgments about "better." For example, Jimmy Page is a better guitarist than I am. Or Shakespeare is a better writer than anyone who works for the Indo. These are objectively correct statements, not just opinion. My claim is that there are similarly objectively correct judments about music. For example: Prokofiev's "Montagues and Capulets" sequence from Romeo and Juliet is just better than anything Britney Spears has recorded (quite independently of whether some people happen to believe differently); or Sinead O' Connor's "I do not want what I haven't got" is better than her "Am I not your girl" album.
Or "New Kids on the Block" are not as good a band as "Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds."
Of course, some people might have different opinions about these issues--similarly, some people (like a certain football "expert" who is fond of a drink) might be of the opinion that Maradona was not a great player. Or some people might be of the opinion that Rio de Janeiro is the captial of Brazil. That just means that their opinion is wrong though.
Comparing NKOTB and Nick Cave is about as relevant as comparing The Kilfenora Ceili Band and RTE Symphony Orchestra ! :D
Comparing NKOTB with say the Backstreet Boys or Westlife would be comparing like with like to see which is the least sh1te boyband!
But the comparison makes exactly the point I'm looking to make: The Bad Seeds are objectively better than any boy band. You seem to agree too, going by your description of the boyband genre. If an entire genre is genuinely crap, then some forms of music are better than others, and objective comparisons can be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie
Not sure what all the stuff about Best and Pele is about. The reference to the "expert" who likes a drink in my previous post was to Dunphy, and his claims that Maradona was not a great player.
Surely NKOTB are better than NC&TBS when it comes to marketing, selling merchandise to teenagers, slick production value, record sales, chart position etc. So it, depends on your criteria, but you're still trying to compare apples and oranges.
And anyway, Joe Dolce urinates on the Beatles from a great height.
I mean, in 'A day in the life' the orchestra can't stay in tune, McCartney doesn't put on a silly italian accent, and they don't have the lyrics written out on a blackboard, so they can point out the words to the TOTP audience.