Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

Having said that, Justin Bieber sucks dick.

Album Rating: 4.5

Maybe artistic value doesn't exist.



Maybe everything we have ever thought about art is all subjective opinion and possible conformity.



This is why people will be able to prefer Andy Warhol's pop art Marylyn Monroe to Leonardo's Da Vinci's Last Supper.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

"Maybe artistic value doesn't exist."



Whoa there. I agree with the subjectivity thing, but I wouldn't go that far.

Album Rating: 5.0

Bieber's aight in the grand scheme of things. I'd MUCH rather listen to him than Yoko Ono.



But music, in general, is distinguished from noise in its use of rhythm and melody. We are able to identify what makes a piece of music catchy, memorable and inspirational. Pop music in general is the lowest common denominator because it takes the most obvious and shallow aspects of what the average person listens for in music and amplifies it. Pop music is, to me, music for people who don't listen to music. It's junk food for the ears.



However, good art is, like a fine wine. It is only by really focusing on it closely that it reveals its true colours and moods; brilliant when they need to be, and subtle when it is required. A connoisseur can tell good art from not-as-good art. Therefore, it cannot be ENTIRELY subjective.

Album Rating: 4.0

however, some stuff clearly had more work put into it and can be appreciated/loved by a greater amount of people (and more deeply) than others. people's collective reception of art - like an album's average rating for example - is itself an objective fact. artistic value certainly does exist

Sitar, I like the cut of your jib, but I don't know. True measurement is still tricky.

I don't like calling rating averages objective fact though.

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

I think there is such a thing as artistic value. However, different people will measure it different ways. I'm not a huge fan of Nirvana, but I can't deny they played a part in music history. Same goes for Dream Theater.



Not a huge Guns N' Roses fan either, but their role in music history was relevant as well. So I think one thing is what place music has in history, another is influence, and still another is how individuals feel about it.

Album Rating: 5.0

And sure enough, box wine will get you drunk just as easily as fine wine, just as junk food will fill your stomach just as easily as fine cuisine. There are also cultural cognitive filters which play into the way we perceive art and food.



But, to a person who is to some extent largely familiar with both the junk and the fine, the difference in quality will be apparent. So for instance, if I grew up listening to both classical music and radio disney in relatively equal amounts I should have some kind of qualified perception about which is better. Not just in the 'I like one more than the other' way, but also in the 'this is better than the other for myriad reasons' way.

Album Rating: 4.5

"We are able to identify what makes a piece of music catchy, memorable and inspirational."



Yes, but some people find things catchy that others do not, same goes for memorability and inspiration.



"Pop music is, to me, music for people who don't listen to music. It's junk food for the ears."



Well, I agree there.



"However, good art is, like a fine wine. It is only by really focusing on it closely that it reveals its true colours and moods; brilliant when they need to be, and subtle when it is required."



Yes, but sometimes people do not like wine at all. (I personally hate it.) Death metal for instance is something I can't stand, but to others it is the fine wine.



Let's take a band I love for instance: Ween. and compare them to black licorice.



Black licorice is one of the most hated candies out there, but I love it and to many this can apply to favorite music artists etc. I prefer the black licorice to fine wine and that doesn't mean I'm wrong.



All connoisseurs do not have the same opinion, and therefore there cannot be objectivity in art.



^a lot of these are fragmented opinions, hope you can put them together well enough to get my point.

Album Rating: 4.0

"I don't like calling rating averages objective fact though."



not saying that the album is objectively as good as it's rated, but that the average rating itself is objective. Dirt isn't objectively a 4.4, it objectively has a rating of 4.4 - people's reception to it is generally favorable, so it has a fairly substantial value to a good amount of people

Album Rating: 5.0

BTW, as someone who grew up with both Nirvana and Guns n Roses and outside of the culture that surrounded them both I can tell you with a great deal of clarity that Guns n Roses is indeed mostly better than Nirvana. Both had good lyrics, both had good melodies, but Guns n Roses had better musicianship. Remove the filters and you realise that few things in the world sound as good as November Rain.

Album Rating: 4.0

or Learning to Live

Album Rating: 4.0

damn I missed the great debate on page 20

Album Rating: 4.5

@SitarHero: In your opinion. Personally, I never cared for Guns n' Roses and have loved Nirvana for years. Especially since I don't like Axl Rose's voice.



Does better musicianship really mean they're better? I'd rather jam a White Stripes album than a technical death metal album any day.



Thinking better musicianship means better music is still subjective.

Album Rating: 4.0

Sure things are subjective however...



It is an OBJECTIVE fact that more people like Dirt to Jar of Flies.

Album Rating: 4.5

So? Who cares about what the majority thinks?



The masses are asses.

Album Rating: 5.0

or Learning to Live [2]



"Black licorice is one of the most hated candies out there, but I love it and to many this can apply to favorite music artists etc. I prefer the black licorice to fine wine and that doesn't mean I'm wrong."



That's a good point, but as a connoisseur of black licorice can you choose which brands of black licorice are better than others and why? For instance, some people prefer coke, and some prefer pepsi, but more often than not they can identify why it is they do (sweeter, bitter-er, whatever).



Which segues nicely back into the original debate about Alice in Chains albums;



1. Can you identify why you like particular songs/albums more than others?



2. Is it because they are 'better' at doing certain things which you specifically like, or because they are just better per se?

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

"Thinking better musicianship means better music is still subjective."



I actually agree with this. Also, musicianship (odd that I'm using this logic) isn't everything music is about. Often, what really mattered was how music spoke to a given sector. For instance, bands like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin are remembered not as much for their musicianship as they are for the way they connected with the listeners of their day. A lot of guitarists can play fast notes and shit, but that doesn't necessarily make me worship them. So, at the end of the day, yes, there is artistic labor, and there is a social impact, but that has little or nothing to do with how we as individual listeners value music.

Album Rating: 5.0

guys, everyone knows Dirt is AiC's best. No point in arguing that