If you combine the output of Joy Division / New Order...

[Shareefruck]

In the judgement of a work of art, I don't think popularity has any place at all. That being said, I can never understand why popularity is held against a work of art. If a work of art is popular, that's a positive thing as far as I am concerned, though it has no place in evaluation. The Beatles popularity is pretty impressive and certainly not of the Donny Osmond variety, though; the effect that they had on pop culture was amazing to behold at the time. Through every stage of their development they managed to take most of their initial audience along with them and actually add to their numbers while making wonderfully creative music. In a way they are exemplars of what artistry can sometimes accomplish. While their popularity doesn't influence my estimation of their music--some of their most popular songs are among my least favourites--the Beatle's cultural significance dwarfs other rock bands. Kind of hard not to notice. Even if it shouldn't be a determining criteria in evaluating their music, it's a nice feather in their collective cap, to say the least.

Your penultimate paragraph makes my head hurt. How do you subtract Beatlemania from the Beatles? Why would anybody want to unless stretching to make a point not grounded in reality. If, like me, you think popularity should not be a way of judging artistic endeavour, why would you care if the Beatles were more popular or less popular as seen through a lens of hypotheticals that never saw the light of day in the first place? In the end what would it prove and who would care?

Final paragraph: My standard answer is no, popularity is not a factor in determining the quality of a work of art. In film and the other established arts this is pretty clear cut. But in pop art, maybe less so, which is why they call it pop art to begin with, I guess. If it is a popular art, then shouldn't popularity be a factor? For me, no; for others, yes, it seems--but then are they really talking about art anymore? I don't think so. All that says to me is that pop art has lousy standards.

Okay, then it sounds like you aren't really taking the same position that others are (I was baffled by why you were supporting their arguments). There is merely some miscommunication about the argument being made then.

Nobody has held popularity against a work of art. The popularity of the Beatles is incredible and a wildly impressive feat-- nobody is denying this, scoffing at it, or pretending not to notice this. The only thing being argued IS precisely that it has no place in the evaluation of their work. Whether someone thinks The Beatles are a stronger artist than Velvet Underground or vice versa, popularity and reception should not be the basis for why. That is the contention being discussed here.

The purpose of the hypothetical is not to suggest "Wouldn't the Beatles be so much better if they were the same thing but less popular?-- Popularity is evil" The purpose is to illustrate a scenario that contradicts the idea that popularity or overwhelming positive reception/consensus actually correlates with quality, which is something that other posters were arguing. There's nothing wrong with popularity, but there are instances where something that ought to be evaluated more highly (like replacing Beatlemania with the equivalent of their best work) would/could result in it becoming less popular. That simple idea is ENTIRELY what it would prove (it's a direct contradiction of the argument being made against us) and why anyone would care. It has nothing to do with any of the objections you're expressing and the offenses you're taking. I don't understand why you seem unwilling to entertain that line of reasoning, even though it sounds like you actually agree with the principle of what's being argued.

If applying that reasoning to Beatlemania hurts your brain simply because you hold it so sacred, then apply the same reasoning to something which you do not, like replacing Creep with a better, In-Rainbows-quality song. The same point would be made (albeit perhaps a bit less strongly).

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Okay, then it sounds like you aren't really taking the same position that others are (I was baffled by why you were supporting their arguments). There is merely some miscommunication about the argument being made then.

Nobody has held popularity against a work of art. The popularity of the Beatles is incredible-- nobody is denying this, scoffing at it, or pretending not to notice this. The only thing being argued IS precisely that it has no place in the evaluation of their work. Whether someone thinks The Beatles are a stronger artist than Velvet Underground or vice versa, popularity and reception should not be the basis for why.

The purpose of the hypothetical is not to suggest "Wouldn't the Beatles be so much better if they were the same thing but less popular?-- Popularity is evil" The purpose is to illustrate a scenario that contradicts the idea that popularity or overwhelming positive reception/consensus actually correlates with quality, which is something that other posters were arguing. There's nothing wrong with popularity, but there are instances where something that ought to be evaluated more highly (like replacing Beatlemania with their best work) would/could result in it becoming less popular. That simple idea is ENTIRELY what it would prove (it's a direct contradiction of the argument being made against us) and why anyone would care. It has nothing to do with any of the objections you're expressing and the offenses you're taking. I don't understand why you seem unwilling to entertain that line of reasoning, even though it sounds like you actually agree with the principle of what's being argued.

Yup. I've got to say I'm confused as well by kihei's stance. Popularity shouldn't matter but it's wrong to argue against those who think it should be defaulted to?

For whatever it's worth, I've never made the distinction between art and pop art and I'm not sure why it should matter in this instance. The Beatles are undeniably art, and even if they weren't, I'm not sure why the standard should be different. And more to that point, if the assumption being made is that it was argued that popularity is a flaw, wouldn't the argument fall apart simply on the back of the bands being mentioned? Yes, VU and JD aren't The Beatles in terms of popularity - but nobody is! The former bands are still massive names who enjoy a legendary amount of critical acclaim and mainstream popularity. To read the reaction, you'd think a random soundcloud band was the one defended.

 

[kihei]

Jeez. all this ruffling of feathers because I liked a couple of X Tame Impala posts.

I don't believe popularity correlates with quality obviously, but I do find it interesting that when something so good becomes so popular that it becomes a phenomenon that can hardly be ignored. It is not a factor I use to judge the quality of the band"s music; it is a factor--call it, cultural significance--that I would consider in judging their overall greatness as a band. "Greatest" and "best" are two different arenas. My basis for believing the Beatles are the best rock band in history has to do solely with the music they produced--about 100 good to great pop/rock songs with seldom any two of them sounding exactly alike, the vast majority of which sound good today. Add to this, John, Paul and George separate genius levels and skills and the quality of their performances and record production, all amply in evidence in the music, and I don't see any band that comes close to attaining musical superiority, certainly not Velvet Underground. Ain't got nuthin' to do with popularity.

I don't really see myself as being on a side. I'm not a purist. If a point seems reasonable to me, I will think about it, regardless if it comes from "my" supposed camp or not.

 

[NyQuil]

It's kind of a bizarre hypothetical.

Ultimately a band is probably penalized if they have a long career because of the unlikelihood of maintaining a sufficiently high quality or standard of output over that time period.

You're much better off releasing one big album and then disappearing or dying. The "What Might Have Been?" question is launched from a much more forgiving footing.

Ironically, it's being argued in this thread that Abbey Road sacrificed popularity for quality or artistry, when in fact the top three Beatles albums in terms of all-time sales are:

1. The White Album
2. Abbey Road
3. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Now, obviously you can make all kinds of determinations around the number of people buying albums and the prevalence of record players at different time periods, but ultimately, in terms of raw numbers, the most popular Beatles albums happen to coincide with the very period that is assumed involved the alienation of a significant portion of their fan base due to increased focus on artistry and unwillingness to compromise in order to be more musically accessible.

In fact, you might be able to argue that Beatlemania was actually much more narrowly focused on a niche audience, as a boy band with a targeted demographic of young (and female) fans, and judging by sheer sales, their later works were far more mainstream and had much more mass appeal.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Nobody has held popularity against a work of art. The popularity of the Beatles is incredible and a wildly impressive feat-- nobody is denying this, scoffing at it, or pretending not to notice this. The only thing being argued IS precisely that it has no place in the evaluation of their work. Whether someone thinks The Beatles are a stronger artist than Velvet Underground or vice versa, popularity and reception should not be the basis for why. That is the contention being discussed here.

@Amerika and yourself are asking people to pretend that "Help!" and "Please Please Me" never existed and were instead swapped out with their more 'high quality' music to see if they'd still be as popular.

THEN you two knuckleheads are asking people to take that hypothetical and use it as a strength towards NO/JD's popularity. You're asking people to ignore significant accomplishments from arguably the greatest band of all time to bring them down to the level of a band that was pretty good for 2-3 years. Which itself has two problems...

1) You're implying that the work on "Help!" and "PPM" is low quality enough to be removed from the discussion, which I don't think it is at all.

2) You're assuming that John, Paul, Ringo, and George would have automatically become the musicians they became on Abbey Road or Revolver or whichever, as well assuming that these guys didn't want to play this music in the beginning and were eagerly waiting to drop their 'high quality' songs.

It's all irrelevant to the discussion because it DID happen. The Beatles were able to become a worldwide sensation from those first two albums. Then they were able to do something phenomenal and transcend from one genre into something more. That's a tremendous accomplishment and the way you and your amigo are brushing it off as appealing to the lowest common denominator of fans is ridiculous. Again, it shows a severe lack of musical history and appreciation for exactly what these guys did to music.

The Beatles are legends. They were stars. They took music places it probably never would have gone if not for them. They sampled all sorts of genres and styles to make great music for everyone to enjoy. New Order and Joy Division played moody rock/alternative songs to a select group of people and/or people in a very specific mood. They were great at it, but for you guys to push this nonsense hypothetical where we swap out something proven to be a massive success for something that might not be just so you can prop up a band that didn't even come close to reaching the heights The Beatles did is insane. The only interesting thing about this thread idea has been why people would be so out of touch to think it in the first place.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

@Amerika and yourself are asking people to pretend that "Help!" and "Please Please Me" never existed and were instead swapped out with their more 'high quality' music to see if they'd still be as popular.

THEN you two knuckleheads are asking people to take that hypothetical and use it as a strength towards NO/JD's popularity. You're asking people to ignore significant accomplishments from arguably the greatest band of all time to bring them down to the level of a band that was pretty good for 2-3 years. Which itself has two problems...

1) You're implying that the work on "Help!" and "PPM" is low quality enough to be removed from the discussion, which I don't think it is at all.

2) You're assuming that John, Paul, Ringo, and George would have automatically become the musicians they became on Abbey Road or Revolver or whichever, as well assuming that these guys didn't want to play this music in the beginning and were eagerly waiting to drop their 'high quality' songs.

It's all irrelevant to the discussion because it DID happen. The Beatles were able to become a worldwide sensation from those first two albums. Then they were able to do something phenomenal and transcend from one genre into something more. That's a tremendous accomplishment and the way you and your amigo are brushing it off as appealing to the lowest common denominator of fans is ridiculous. Again, it shows a severe lack of musical history and appreciation for exactly what these guys did to music.

The Beatles are legends. They were stars. They took music places it probably never would have gone if not for them. They sampled all sorts of genres and styles to make great music for everyone to enjoy. New Order and Joy Division played moody rock/alternative songs to a select group of people and/or people in a very specific mood. They were great at it, but for you guys to push this nonsense hypothetical where we swap out something proven to be a massive success for something that might not be just so you can prop up a band that didn't even come close to reaching the heights The Beatles did is insane. The only interesting thing about this thread idea has been why people would be so out of touch to think it in the first place.

I'm done with this. You don't know how to f***ing read. I think discussions about whether Kanye West or Drake is better is enough for your nuanced capabilities. Philistine.

 

[Shareefruck]

@Amerika and yourself are asking people to pretend that "Help!" and "Please Please Me" never existed and were instead swapped out with their more 'high quality' music to see if they'd still be as popular.

THEN you two knuckleheads are asking people to take that hypothetical and use it as a strength towards NO/JD's popularity. You're asking people to ignore significant accomplishments from arguably the greatest band of all time to bring them down to the level of a band that was pretty good for 2-3 years. Which itself has two problems...

1) You're implying that the work on "Help!" and "PPM" is low quality enough to be removed from the discussion, which I don't think it is at all.

2) You're assuming that John, Paul, Ringo, and George would have automatically become the musicians they became on Abbey Road or Revolver or whichever, as well assuming that these guys didn't want to play this music in the beginning and were eagerly waiting to drop their 'high quality' songs.

It's all irrelevant to the discussion because it DID happen. The Beatles were able to become a worldwide sensation from those first two albums. Then they were able to do something phenomenal and transcend from one genre into something more. That's a tremendous accomplishment and the way you and your amigo are brushing it off as appealing to the lowest common denominator of fans is ridiculous. Again, it shows a severe lack of musical history and appreciation for exactly what these guys did to music.

The Beatles are legends. They were stars. They took music places it probably never would have gone if not for them. They sampled all sorts of genres and styles to make great music for everyone to enjoy. New Order and Joy Division played moody rock/alternative songs to a select group of people and/or people in a very specific mood. They were great at it, but for you guys to push this nonsense hypothetical where we swap out something proven to be a massive success for something that might not be just so you can prop up a band that didn't even come close to reaching the heights The Beatles did is insane. The only interesting thing about this thread idea has been why people would be so out of touch to think it in the first place.

You keep misframing these arguments in such disingenuous ways.

Nobody has suggested ignoring pre-Rubber Soul Beatles and comparing THAT to JD/NO's popularity. You're combining two completely separate points into some made up Frankenstein monster of an argument and concocting a wild straw-man out of it. How is anyone supposed to engage with that?

Nobody suggested that the hypothetical was something that could feasibly happen in reality or imply anything about their evolution. It was an example of how outcomes could be measured in different scenarios.

Suggesting that the nature of popularity is at the mercy of the whims of the lowest common denominator and should therefore not sufficiently be trusted as some authority on quality because of this ambiguity is not the same thing is saying that The Beatles accomplishments are therefore guilty of resulting from appealing to the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, the "transcending from one genre into something more" part was never anything that was dismissed as irrelevant to quality. There are TONS of reasons to consider The Beatles better than Joy Division-- and they dwarf NO by a country mile, IMO, but the fact that their fame, popularity, and name recognition demands it is not compelling reasoning for believing this, to me. Their actual individual cases of innovation and contributions to music are valid points in their favor, but bands that do not achieve comparable fame, popularity, and name recognition can, in theory, also show significant innovation and contributions of comparable magnitude (someone like Brian Eno might be a more easy to appreciate example of this than VU). Most bands do lose to The Beatles (especially if you consider prolific output an important factor, which if you do, completely blows both Joy Division and VU out of the water), but the comparison only seems relevant to me on the basis of merits such as these instead these appeals to fame and reputation.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's kind of a bizarre hypothetical.

Ultimately a band is probably penalized if they have a long career because of the unlikelihood of maintaining a sufficiently high quality or standard of output over that time period.

You're much better off releasing one big album and then disappearing or dying. The "What Might Have Been?" question is launched from a much more forgiving footing.

Ironically, it's being argued in this thread that Abbey Road sacrificed popularity for quality or artistry, when in fact the top three Beatles albums in terms of all-time sales are:

1. The White Album
2. Abbey Road
3. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Now, obviously you can make all kinds of determinations around the number of people buying albums and the prevalence of record players at different time periods, but ultimately, in terms of raw numbers, the most popular Beatles albums happen to coincide with the very period that is assumed involved the alienation of a significant portion of their fan base due to increased focus on artistry and unwillingness to compromise in order to be more musically accessible.

In fact, you might be able to argue that Beatlemania was actually much more narrowly focused on a niche audience, as a boy band with a targeted demographic of young (and female) fans, and judging by sheer sales, their later works were far more mainstream and had much more mass appeal.

I think this is a fair point. The example falls apart if their Rubber Soul-Abbey Road era was in fact a greater catalyst for their fame and accessibility than their Beatlemania period. I don't think that's conclusive, though, because the numbers of that period did benefit from Beatlemania creating a large enough audience to make creative experiments from that period more palletable than they otherwise would be and continue to spread their name. I'm a bit skeptical, myself. If their first album was Sgt. Pepper for example, what would the reception of that album be like? The same thing? I kind of doubt it, but I suppose there's no proof of that.

In my view, something like this doesn't even fully require that someone be sure of the outcome, though-- If you can imagine any scenario where something is deservedly recognized in they or anyone's discography but hypothetically wouldn't be under different circumstances, that alone would be enough to be bring the correlation into question, in my view.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

This is incredible content.

 

[Shareefruck]

Jeez. all this ruffling of feathers because I liked a couple of X Tame Impala posts.

I don't believe popularity correlates with quality obviously, but I do find it interesting that when something so good becomes so popular that it becomes a phenomenon that can hardly be ignored. It is not a factor I use to judge the quality of the band"s music; it is a factor--call it, cultural significance--that I would consider in judging their overall greatness as a band. "Greatest" and "best" are two different arenas. My basis for believing the Beatles are the best rock band in history has to do solely with the music they produced--about 100 good to great pop/rock songs with seldom any two of them sounding exactly alike, the vast majority of which sound good today. Add to this, John, Paul and George separate genius levels and skills and the quality of their performances and record production, all amply in evidence in the music, and I don't see any band that comes close to attaining musical superiority, certainly not Velvet Underground. Ain't got nuthin' to do with popularity.

I don't really see myself as being on a side. I'm not a purist. If a point seems reasonable to me, I will think about it, regardless if it comes from "my" supposed camp or not.

I can respect this individual opinion about the preference itself (I do not see a reason to distinguish between great and best, personally, nor do I think treating them as the same takes away from the significance of their impact and cultural achievements, which were never denied-- and this is also where differences in perspectives when it comes to peaks vs. consistency comes into play), but the way you were jumping into a debate about a specific bad argument that suggested that popularity DID correlate with quality and taking offense to similar charges that were never implied in the defense of that was wildly confusing, to say the least. I'm glad you cleared that up, though.

 

[kihei]

I can respect this individual opinion about the preference itself (I do not see a reason to distinguish between great and best, personally, nor do I think treating them as the same takes away from the significance of their impact and cultural achievements, which were never denied-- and this is also where differences in perspectives when it comes to peaks vs. consistency comes into play), but the way you were jumping into a debate about a specific bad argument that suggested that popularity DID correlate with quality and taking offense to similar charges that were never implied in the defense of that was wildly confusing, to say the least. I'm glad you cleared that up, though.

That wasn't the part of the argument I was popping in on. X Tame Impala's line was "Imagine if someone other than the three of us came in here and said that David Bowie, Talking Heads, or the Velvets were better than the Beatles. I think you two are confusing a band you really love (maybe even your favorite band?) with a band that's the greatest of all time." The bolded was what I found most interesting. True, my inadequate "ditto" was aimed way more at Amerika in this instance than you. Still, the quoted bit underscores something that I have wondered from time to time about you. I love your elaborate contentions that are filled with complex argumentative scaffolding, delicate filigrees of fine tuning and intricate reasoning. But I do wonder sometimes if this imposing critical apparatus doesn't serve as a means of elevating your favourite bands to perhaps a more exalted status than they deserve. This would certainly not be any kind of sin in my eyes, quite the contrary as you are good at it and always worth reading.

Now I'm confused. You decline to draw a distinction between "great" and "best." My distinction is the "best" is related to strictly musical concerns, while "great" allows a broader field of variables to come into play, including extra-musical concerns such as cultural significance. So far we are both in familiar positions of long standing, I think. Where I am confused now is this line "nor does treating them as the same [great and best] take away from the significance of their [The Beatles] impact and cultural achievements." Okay, dokey. One major cultural achievement is that for fifty years and more after their first single, they still win nearly every poll going as the best band ever, including every inclusive "tournament" style poll on HFBoards. That is a cultural achievement of some significance, is it not? It's as impressive as hell to me anyway. Yet is it not also an achievement directly related to their long-standing popularity. I don't have a problem with that, because that fits in my "great" category which includes extra-musical concerns. But you have only one category that conflate "great" and "best." So how can you allow The Beatles this particular achievement without accepting their long-term popularity as one indication of what makes them "the best/greatest" rock band in history?

 

[Shareefruck]

That wasn't the part of the argument I was popping in on. X Tame Impala's line was "Imagine if someone other than the three of us came in here and said that David Bowie, Talking Heads, or the Velvets were better than the Beatles. I think you two are confusing a band you really love (maybe even your favorite band?) with a band that's the greatest of all time." The bolded was what I found most interesting. True, my inadequate "ditto" was aimed way more at Amerika in this instance than you. Still, the quoted bit underscores something that I have wondered from time to time about you. I love your elaborate contentions that are filled with complex argumentative scaffolding, delicate filigrees of fine tuning and intricate reasoning. But I do wonder sometimes if this imposing critical apparatus doesn't serve as a means of elevating your favourite bands to perhaps a more exalted status than they deserve. This would certainly not be any kind of sin in my eyes, quite the contrary as you are good at it and always worth reading.

Now I'm confused. You decline to draw a distinction between "great" and "best." My distinction is the "best" is related to strictly musical concerns, while "great" allows a broader field of variables to come into play, including extra-musical concerns such as cultural significance. So far we are both in familiar positions of long standing, I think. Where I am confused now is this line "nor does treating them as the same [great and best] take away from the significance of their [The Beatles] impact and cultural achievements." Okay, dokey. One major cultural achievement is that for fifty years and more after their first single, they still win nearly every poll going as the best band ever, including every inclusive "tournament" style poll on HFBoards. That is a cultural achievement of some significance, is it not? It's as impressive as hell to me anyway. Yet is it not also an achievement directly related to their long-standing popularity. I don't have a problem with that, because that fits in my "great" category which includes extra-musical concerns. But you have only one category that conflate "great" and "best." So how can you allow The Beatles this particular achievement without accepting their long-term popularity as one indication of what makes them "the best/greatest" rock band in history?

I feel like the whole subjective/objective and best/favorite being the same thing spiel that I get into every other week and beat like a dead horse (and that you've never agreed with) is at the root of both points. It's hard to properly express this without sounding like a loon, but here's my best effort.

I think that every work is objectively capable of generating a level of appreciation that could only ever be measurable if we as human beings (with more or less the same equipment and capacity for experiences) could hypothetically step into each other's brains and fully experience exactly what everyone else is actually getting out of it-- If we had an eternity to expose ourselves to this information, I think that everyone's views would gradually become similar and approach something resembling objective value. Beyond that, I don't think this objective value can be logically derived from any observational standards/measurements and must actually be experienced and personally felt to ever be approached, precisely because art is something that is made for the purpose of subjective intake. While knowing this objective value is impossible (making authoritative possessiveness wildly unjustified even if it's well reasoned), the closest I think we can get to this is based on our own experience-- which doesn't come close to the objective truth and is biased, but it's at least firmly along a relevant path and moving closer towards it (if a sincere effort is made to do that anyways), as opposed to completely off the rails (which I think basing it on other factors would be).

So it's not that I'm trying to artificially elevate my preferences beyond what it probably deserves and pass that off as fact, it's that my value judgements are the only sincere opinion that I feel I can fairly offer about objective value without feeling like I'm prematurely and disingenuously guessing or lying about my opinions based on some outside meta that isn't really my own conclusion (such as something being beloved suggesting that it's good). I can be (and probably often am) wrong, obviously, but I'm still going to express my closest understanding of what "right" could possibly be (as well as what leads me to believe that, and what I don't think it is). As long as I don't smugly demand that people do the same, I don't think that's uncalled for or puffs me up somehow.

With that in mind, it's a matter of definitions for me. I view "favorite", "best", and "great" each as basically the same all encompassing term that's representative of this concept (which is kind of neither fully subjective nor objective, at least not in the way that a lot of people like to use those terms). The other factors that people like to attribute to these terms, I don't deny are significant ideas, but I would consider them mislabeled and referring to what I think is something else altogether. I can acknowledge and appreciate the accolades and wide-spread global appreciation of something, the impressiveness of it, or the overall joy that it brings the world, but in my view, that can't be my observation of how good the music itself is-- that could only be my observation of the circumstances surrounding it. If we want to give this the credit that it deserves, we can do so by labeling it "The most widely appreciated band", "The most popular/iconic band", "The most talented band", "The most fashionable band" or "The most impactful band." Keeping this separate from "favorite" "best" or "greatest" doesn't trivialize the achievement at all, in my view-- it's just a different category to me.

I could only personally justify rolling all of those factors into how "great" I view them as figures who impacted the earth, not as artists specifically. Because their music doesn't communicate their popularity, reputation, influence, and accolades to me, their popularity, reputation, influence, and accolades itself communicates that.

 

[McDeepika]

I do think favorite and greatest are 2 different things.

There are tons of people who love their mothers cooking and would prefer it over a 3 Michelin Star chef. I think it would be foolish to say their mom is a greater cook.

The Kinks are my favorite band and I much prefer listening to them over the Beatles but I would not say they are the greater band.

How greatest is defined is obviously tricky and I don’t have an answer for that.

 

[kihei]

Shareefruck: Would you call your theory of judgement basically solipsistic in nature? And if not, why not?

 

[Shareefruck]

Shareefruck: Would you call your theory of judgement basically solipsistic in nature? And if not, why not?

I mean, I had to Google what it was just now, so this isn't going to fully address the question, but I don't think it fits. I only think that way about art because it's so elusive in nature, and subject to a million other factors and logical contradictions that blur my vision of exactly how it works (or if that's even knowable). I don't doubt that other people exist feeling what they feel about it, but I can't know where that's coming from exactly, or whether it's more or less developed than where I'm coming from (and I don't think that's necessarily determined by how well they explain themselves, either), especially if we're broadening that to everyone in the world that I don't know anything about. I could guess at it based on outside evidence (that isn't necessarily indicative) and agreed upon standards that I can't actually trust (or worse, feel bullied into it by raw numbers and just say that I do), but I don't think I can pass that off as my own genuine observation or understanding of it, really. Like for example, I could say that this movie that I didn't care for or get anything out of or actively had problems with is good because Kihei knows more about movies than I do and he thinks its good and I don't doubt that, plus every other standard points in that direction (which seems like what a lot of people do-- they just trust the process that much), but I think there's something dishonest about that (at least, for someone like me who doesn't trust the process or think that there's some definitive way to measure it)-- I still wouldn't have any sense of the actual truth of that without re-evaluating my experience and going "Oh yeah, I actually agree." Even if the explanation for why sounds compelling, that's all it is-- I could still imagine a scenario where every point made could be contradicted, because art can kind of weirdly work that way sometimes. This is doubly the case when my own experience directly contradicts it even after being exposed to this reasoning and gaining that perspective. At best this knowledge of other experiences would lead me to look forward to the possibility that it might turn out to appear true to me later (which is usually how I'm influenced by that). But for me to say that it IS what I think is true (let alone actively campaign on that notion)? No ****ing way.

It's very different to me than being able to trust and defer to the standards of the scientific method for facts that are much more reliable and concrete in nature.

---

Even the 3 Star Michelin chef example falls under that for me. With enough exposure, I'm guessing that your genuine opinion in your heart of hearts would probably eventually favor the chef and the sentimental factor would wash away pretty quickly as you chisel away at that. You can suspect that the 3 Star Michelin chef would turn out better to you under more exhaustive measures, which should lead you to be less confident and outspoken in your current perception that your mother's cooking is more rewarding in discussions about greatness, but I don't think you can truly feel that the Michelin chef's food is better in your current state, just on the authority of it being a 3 Star Michelin chef alone. I wouldn't, anyways.

 

[x Tame Impala]

So is this settled then, finally, three years later? If you combine the works of New Order and Joy Division it would NOT be better than the real world, actually accomplished, not limited to imagination and the hypothetical, discographies of “The Big 3”

I think so.

 

[Miguel Cairo]

So is this settled then, finally, three years later? If you combine the works of New Order and Joy Division it would NOT be better than the real world, actually accomplished, not limited to imagination and the hypothetical, discographies of “The Big 3”

I think so.

What if you add in their live work as Warsaw?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

So is this settled then, finally, three years later? If you combine the works of New Order and Joy Division it would NOT be better than the real world, actually accomplished, not limited to imagination and the hypothetical, discographies of “The Big 3”

I think so.

See, this is where you have it completely wrong: there's nothing to settle and it was never argued that they were a more succesful band. My ears preference doesn't change because of someone's else opinion and a band's accomplishment and popularity. If you want to argue that other bands greater in terms of cultural impact and success - fair. I would not have disagreed with that, even three years ago. But you tried to equate bands with hockey players, which I think is just painfully stupid, is a comparison that falls apart in 2 seconds and shows a relationship to art that I have extreme disdain for and find so retrograde. It treats art as some sort of competition and a social marker that I find so distasteful. I view that sort of attitude the same way I would a pig happy in his own shit.

 

[x Tame Impala]

See, this is where you have it completely wrong: there's nothing to settle and it was never argued that they were a more succesful band. My ears preference doesn't change because of someone's else opinion and a band's accomplishment and popularity. If you want to argue that other bands greater in terms of cultural impact and success - fair. I would not have disagreed with that. But you tried to equate bands with hockey players, which I think is just plain stupid, is a comparison that falls apart in 2 seconds and shows a relationship to art that I have extreme disdain for and find so retrograde. It treats art as some sort of competition and a social marker that I find so distasteful.

Retrograde??? Yeesh.

Well I’m clearly on the other end of the spectrum. One of my absolute favorite bands is “Gorillaz”. I think I even made a thread about them saying they (technically he) have the best discography of any band since the year 2000.

Are you saying that entirely based on my personal preferences, a valid argument can technically be made as to why Gorillaz are better than The Beatles?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Retrograde??? Yeesh.

Well I’m clearly on the other end of the spectrum. One of my absolute favorite bands is “Gorillaz”. I think I even made a thread about them saying they (technically he) have the best discography of any band since the year 2000.

Are you saying that entirely based on my personal preferences, a valid argument can technically be made as to why Gorillaz are better than The Beatles?

Yes. I think so. It's why I said it baffled me that you could say the VU were your favorite band but weren't the best. I just don't understand how something can sound better to your ear but you'd consider it worst because XYZ that didn't have any relation to your actual enjoyment of the music. If you want to declare 'best' as in who sold the most records/had cultural impact/influenced the culture then sure, the bands you mentioned are certainly it, and I wouldn't have argued with that in 2007 or in 2017 or in 2020. I just don't think of the word 'best' in those terms when it comes to music because it completely goes against my instinct as a listener. I understand Kihei's distinction of 'great' and within those parameters, I don't think anyone would argue it - we're dealing in verifiable terms. But if I compare the sensation that I, as a distinct individual with my own sensibilities and experiences, it would seem dishonest to me to repress how I feel when I listen to a VU song like I'm Set Free (tenderness, curiosity, goosebumps, sunken stomach, watery eyes, wholeness) and compare it to most of the Beatles song, which I enjoy but do not give me the same sentiment, and say that I consider them better or greater. I just don't work on those terms. So if Gorillaz gives you similar sentiments that I described and which you don't with Beatles, Stones or LZ, then why would I have any problem with you claiming to be the best band? It's your opinion. Why would I come in and assume an ulterior motive (such as desiring to be a contrarian) and denigrate what you genuinely feel? That's why it the hockey players argument doesn't work. The end goal and the road to that goal are so different as to be part of different universes. I don't need a message board to go out and debate whether The Beatles are the greatest band ever in terms of success. I can go read a million Internet pages to know that to be true. Message boards are more interesting to communicate with a singular, distinct voice that isn't part of some industry poll. I don't know why anyone would berate that.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Yes. I think so. It's why I said it baffled me that you could say the VU were your favorite band but weren't the best. I just don't understand how something can sound better to your ear but you'd consider it worst because XYZ that didn't have any relation to your actual enjoyment of the music. If you want to declare 'best' as in who sold the most records/had cultural impact/influenced the culture then sure, the bands you mentioned are certainly it, and I wouldn't have argued with that in 2007 or in 2017 or in 2020. I just don't think of the word 'best' in those terms when it comes to music because it completely goes against my instinct as a listener. I understand Kihei's distinction of 'great' and within those parameters, I don't think anyone would argue it - we're dealing in verifiable terms. But if I compare the sensation that I, as a distinct individual with my own sensibilities and experiences, it would seem dishonest to me to repress how I feel when I listen to a VU song like I'm Set Free (tenderness, curiosity, goosebumps, sunken stomach, watery eyes, wholeness) and compare it to most of the Beatles song, which I enjoy but do not give me the same sentiment, and say that I consider them better or greater. I just don't work on those terms. So if Gorillaz gives you similar sentiments that I described and which you don't with Beatles, Stones or LZ, then why would I have any problem with you claiming to be the best band? It's your opinion. Why would I come in and assume an ulterior motive (such as desiring to be a contrarian) and denigrate what you genuinely feel? That's why it the hockey players argument doesn't work. The end goal and the road to that goal are so different as to be part of different universes. I don't need a message board to go out and debate whether The Beatles are the greatest band ever in terms of success. I can go read a million Internet pages to know that to be true. Message boards are more interesting to communicate with a singular, distinct voice that isn't part of some industry poll. I don't know why anyone would berate that.

I love Gorillaz so much. What Damon Albarn has done with music this century has been phenomenal. He's made great songs covering all sorts of genres and made me feel all sorts of things while listening. His work is a treasure to me.

The Beatles are the best band because they've made more people in their history feel that same way about them as I do about Gorillaz. They did it in the 60's and they're still doing it 60 years later. I generally agree with your sentiment, but the ONLY pop-culture exception to the rule is that The Beatles are the greatest rock band in history. I don't think there's a definitive 2nd best band, there's no best rapper, no best movie, no best actor, no best show. The Beatles however, they were so big and awesome and succesful that they've IMHO objectively placed themselves above everyone else.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ I think they probably make the most well rounded and agreeable case, on balance, sure-- but that's still a far cry from ACTUALLY being definitive or authoritative to any degree that justifies forcing that perception onto others or ridiculing/scoffing at any notion that defies it.

I felt that way for a period of time and I'm still obsessed with The Beatles, but as I exposed myself to more stuff, I started feeling that there were reasonable shortcomings and faults in their music that left me less fully appreciative of them than a few select artists. I can't deny that genuine opinion just because an overwhelming majority of people (including my past self) don't feel the same way.

Yes. I think so. It's why I said it baffled me that you could say the VU were your favorite band but weren't the best. I just don't understand how something can sound better to your ear but you'd consider it worst because XYZ that didn't have any relation to your actual enjoyment of the music. If you want to declare 'best' as in who sold the most records/had cultural impact/influenced the culture then sure, the bands you mentioned are certainly it, and I wouldn't have argued with that in 2007 or in 2017 or in 2020. I just don't think of the word 'best' in those terms when it comes to music because it completely goes against my instinct as a listener. I understand Kihei's distinction of 'great' and within those parameters, I don't think anyone would argue it - we're dealing in verifiable terms. But if I compare the sensation that I, as a distinct individual with my own sensibilities and experiences, it would seem dishonest to me to repress how I feel when I listen to a VU song like I'm Set Free (tenderness, curiosity, goosebumps, sunken stomach, watery eyes, wholeness) and compare it to most of the Beatles song, which I enjoy but do not give me the same sentiment, and say that I consider them better or greater. I just don't work on those terms. So if Gorillaz gives you similar sentiments that I described and which you don't with Beatles, Stones or LZ, then why would I have any problem with you claiming to be the best band? It's your opinion. Why would I come in and assume an ulterior motive (such as desiring to be a contrarian) and denigrate what you genuinely feel? That's why it the hockey players argument doesn't work. The end goal and the road to that goal are so different as to be part of different universes. I don't need a message board to go out and debate whether The Beatles are the greatest band ever in terms of success. I can go read a million Internet pages to know that to be true. Message boards are more interesting to communicate with a singular, distinct voice that isn't part of some industry poll. I don't know why anyone would berate that.

Yep. All of this.

 

[NyQuil]

What's funny is that I don't even really like the Beatles.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Are they a top 3 band of all time? I would say yes. Can't think of many bands who could rival a string of albums like Unknown Pleasures, Closer, Power Corruption Lies, Low Life, and Technique + all of the classic singles on Substance (both bands) + Ceremony (a top five pop song of all time imo)

this has to be one of the stupidest questions I have ever read

they are not top 40 all time

 

[kihei]

Yes. I think so. It's why I said it baffled me that you could say the VU were your favorite band but weren't the best.

Ah, this is the stumbling block for me, one Shareefruck and I have chased around the barnyard on more than one occasion. This seems the ultimate solipsistic nonsense. Why in the world is anyone's personal favourite by definition the best there is? The solipsistic approach places the observer at the centre of the universe--it's critical approach that gives the critic all the power which is why I think it is popular with some people (not accussing Shareefruck here because the dude does think things through and does this sort of thing very well).

My favouite classical composer is Gabriel Faure; I love his beautiful, elegant music like no other classical composer's. But I would be an idiot to suggest that his music was superior to Bach who I also love just less passionately than Faure. To claim that seems to me like a monster ego talking, nothing more--something is great or the best because I like it. That's an arrogant approach. Solipsism creates the kind of critical apparatus that can conflate best and great and favourite as though they are all the same thing, when by definition they are clearly not, and then claim, quoting Shareefruck here, the confusion comes because these terms are "mislabeled" by others. Three separate categories, but they can be ignored because they are inconvenient from this particular solipsistic perspective. Every body has favourites, but, sweet jesus, don't tell me all of them are the best/greatest music in the world. For these guys in the "it must be the best because I like it" school, all I gotta say is get over yourselves.