I read a 1988 article in which Morrissey was asked his opinion of rap and hip hop. He replied "I really do think it's a great musical stench. I find it very offensive, artless and styleless. To me it's very reminiscent of thuggery, pop thuggery. I don't want to hear it at all." This, I believe would have been even before gangsta rap.

I also read an article in which Jack White, I believe, said he didn't like rap. In both cases, the interviewers seemed to get defensive. Well, I really don't like rap either. I have no desire to listen to the highly acclaimed rap albums like Nas' "Illmatic." At the same time, I have no desire to listen to a Toby Keith album, either. Neither genre makes me feel happy. Yet, it seems like as a music geek you're supposed to appreciate rap and hip hop. Anybody else out there that doesn't listen to any rap or hip hop?

For as much as I respect and admire Morrissey and Jack White (and I frickin' love the White Stripes), I think it's quite shortsighted to make blanket statements such as those. To disregard an entire genre of music... pretty simple-minded if you ask me. I believe there's merit to be found in any genre.

In Jack White's case, maybe he doesn't like rap, but maybe he respects it. You can respect something without liking it. And vice versa: you can like something but not respect it. So when Jack White says, allegedly, "I don't like rap", maybe it's taken out of context. Or maybe he means "I don't like it, AND I don't respect it". If so, that would surprise me. He doesn't seem like the type.

Personally, I'm mostly rock and indie oriented, but that doesn't mean that only rock songs can strike me emotionally. To true music fans, there's no such thing as genre when it comes to good songs. There's gems everywhere, even in the least likely places. You just gotta look for them.

I have nothing but the deepest respect for Morrissey and Jack White as well, but they're both self-styled fogeys and fuddy-duddies with a deep distrust of all things contemporary (in Jack's case, to an extreme, stylized degree - ever read the liner notes on Stripes albums?), so a blanket condemnation of rap wouldn't surprise me a bit coming from either one. No need to rationalize, Liam - if Jack says he doesn't like rap, you can be pretty sure he doesn't like it (or, at least, "Jack White" the public persona doesn't).

As for myself, I'm obviously open to all genres - I may be an obsessive collector, but I wouldn't be if I wasn't interested in actually -listening- to everything. I like a great deal of rap and hip-hop - the from-the-ground-up musical constructions are frequently fascinating and the best lyricists can be breathtakingly creative. Now, electronic dance music - THAT's a genre I don't think I'll ever "get."

I love The Smiths and The White Stripes much more than any rap group, but I still really like rap. For me it's just about finding the right kind of rap. Most of the stuff I hear on the radio today I completely dislike. I'm more of a fan of "A Tribe Called Quest" and "De La Soul" than I am of "T-Pain" (who I abhor) and "Soulja Boy" (who could be even worse). ChrisF, it's too bad you don't want to give Illmatic a listen, because I was frankly blown away by it. But if you're just not into rap I can kinda understand.

Nick, I'm not averse to listening to Illmatic, it's just that I have no desire to. In other words, it's not an album that's on my wishlist. I actually like De La Soul. I'm not prejudice against rap, it's just that I find that in practice I tend to not enjoy it.

Wait, you don't want to listen to Illmatic? I don't like saying that people have wrong opinions, but...

Rap was my first exposure to music in general. In 1993, for my 6th birthday, I got a Kris Kross cassette and a walkman, and my love for music bloomed from there. I've certainly grown out of Kris Kross, but I still consider hip hop to be my first love. Especially 90s hip hop.

I'll check it out. I'm not averse to listening to it. I wonder, though, does Nas know who Gram Parsons is?

Who gives a f---?

I greatly prefer almost every form of rock to rap, however there are several rap artists I like; ditto with albums and songs. For example, I don't see how someone can say Biggie Smalls songs are musically poor.

Country on the other hand, I have no affinity for what so ever.

I guess that was my original point SR. It's perfectly acceptable to say you hate country, but it's taboo to say rap/hip hop has no merit. As Harold Wexler's post indicates, though, this kind of discussion quickly devolves, so I'm finished. This message board is very civil, and I would hate to be partially responsible for it becoming uncivilized.

Perhaps we should discuss why so many people greaty dislike country. There are a few good country artists, but for the most part it's a genre that I completely disassociate myself from.

matters of civility aside, harold's "question" was a rather good one

One I don't plan to answer.

Sorry for the imprudence of my last post - I certainly don't want to lower the tone of the discussions here, either, and I'm usually one of the first ones to jump in as a voice of moderation (or bail out altogether, as the case may be) when a thread seems to be going in that direction. It was simply a knee-jerk response to what I thought was, to risk speaking bluntly again, a pretty nonsensical rhetorical non sequitur.

To rephrase in a non-vulgar way: the question of whether Nas is or is not aware of the music and legacy of Gram Parsons seems to me to be immaterial in the extreme to a consideration of the relative merit or lack thereof of Nas's own music. Or Parsons's, for that matter.

You know, Elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant [squat] to Chuck D. Doesn't make Elvis any less of an artist. Nor Chuck.

What genre is Toby Keith supposed to represent? Don't say "country," because he doesn't. That's like saying Justin Timberlake represents rock.

I really like old country, i.e., just about anything before 1980, but I can't figure out why. It's hard to put into words.

When people say they hate country, I never know whether I agree with them (assuming they are talking about contemporary CMT crap) or whether I disagree with them (assuming they are trashing Hank and Lefty).

Oh, and I would think it pretty weird if a rap artist liked or even knew about Gram Parsons, but maybe you could get some good samples out of a song like Wheels.

I don't get how people who claim to hate country are so into Johnny Cash. What do you think he was? Same thing goes for Elvis.

I agree on Johnny Cash. I can't understand how people can hate country and like Johnny Cash. I like bits and pieces of country and bits and pieces of Johnny Cash. But, I think it's impossible to like most of Johnny Cash and not like country at all.

I don't think it's so taboo not to like rap. Not liking most mainstream rap is pretty common to me. I think it especially applies if you listen to mostly new alternative bands, or classic rock, or some other style of music that goes against the grain of hip-hop. If your favorite band is, say, Arcade Fire and you detest, say, Snoop Dogg, I think that's understandable and kind of expected.

What I don't get is why people always cite the same artists as "proof" that they like hip-hop. You know, De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, Outkast, The Roots, etc. Why can't you "get" Eminem or Jay-Z then? Are they too "gangster" or "controversial"?

And as to the Johnny Cash question, no idea. I'm one of those people too, and I don't know why he's different. My guess is because Johnny sings about stuff like going to jail and drinking, kind of like some old bluesman. And his voice - he doesn't sound like Hank Williams - he sounds like he's been on a long, exhausting journey and wants to make sure you don't go there too. He just seems different from typical country stars.

There are A LOT of other old country singers who sing about going to jail and drinking. That's the stuff I like. But it isn't very well known.

One big difference with Johnny Cash is the lack of pedal steel guitar. I love the pedal steel but to many it is a deal-breaker.

Funny that Johnny Cash is often the only appreciated country musician in rock circles (along with Parsons), especially (and with absolutely no offense) to younger generations.

As Paul said, Johnny mostly used rock instrumentation, at least on most of his major AM hits. he started his carrer at Sun at the same time as Elvis or Jerry Lee. He recorded in the 90s with a rap/rock producer. Like the Bakersfield school, he sounded very rock. No "odd" instruments like pedal steel, banjo or harmonica.
So he was the only one to crossover. But he was far for being the only "outlaw" in country music.

Now I would like to ask to those who said they didn't like country : how would you define/describe country ? Which artists would you pick as typical C& W arists ?

Try Merle Haggard, John Prine,

Like Paul, I love country from 1924 to 1980 (with some contemporary exceptions like Steve Earle and alternative/Americana)

Nicolas' reference to the typical country instruments reminds me of one of my favorite anecdotes: At one of Wilco's early shows, a particularly rabid pocket of Uncle Tupelo fans who didn't care for Tweedy's new musical direction kept yelling, "Where's the banjo?" Tweedy, exasperated, finally shouted back, "The banjo's up your ass!"

what the hell is rap? it all sounds like music to me...

I actually do like some rap, but it only accounts for like 2% of my music collection. I certainly understand why somebody else wouldn't like it.

For me to like rap though, it probably has to have some actual instrumental backup. It can't be just looped samples, except in the rare case when the vocalist is just that good.

And I certainly don't feel like listening to some gangsta brag about how many people he's shot.

so far i have two rap albums, "The Chronic" which i guess is pretty good and "Illmatic" which i think is fantastic. Because of Illmatic I think I'll actually continue delving into rap, though i'll be more careful about my purchases than with rock.

as for country goes, i like Cash but that's about it besides when the Stones play country.

i think the reason most of us here might dislike country (this may be completely inaccurate considering the lack of knowledge i have of country) is the fact that most country seems to aim at the lowest common denominator and most of the people here like at least some kind of challenge in their music, either lyrically or musically.
but please, someone put me in my place if i'm wrong.

Yes, Michael, I would agree with you about Country appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Also, the reason I don't like Country could be because of the culture gap. I don't like country, just like I wouldn't expect someone living in Oklahoma to like Lou Reed.

Here are my three core principles about genre:

1. No genre of music should be dismissed out of hand.
2. The biggest obstacle to enjoying anything is not knowing enough about it (I speak from personal experience).
3. 97% of any genre--rap, country, indie rock, speed metal--is crap, but that does mean that 3% of it is worth your time (these percentages can be adjusted to taste, but they’re never 100% / 0%, not even for tweener pop). It takes some effort to discover the good stuff. Although, thanks to Henrik, it’s easier for us!

****

With respect, I disagree with the “lowest common denominator” argument—or at least, I think it applies equally well to any kind of pop music.

The main reason people don’t like country is exactly the same as the reason people don’t like NASCAR--distaste for the class which tends to like it. It’s very much like hating the Beastie Boys because frat boys like them. It’s irrelevant.

Believe me: I grew up a punk fan in Texas, and I HATED the country music (and AOR) that so many of my peers listened to. I needed to be able to congratulate myself on my discriminating taste compared to all those conformist idiots who couldn’t appreciate music that wasn’t just mindless pap, blah blah blah...

It wasn’t until I lived in New York and I was older and less strident that I was able to get some distance and see that some country (and AOR) was brilliant. Of course, now, pre-1980 country is mostly listened to by connoisseurs like Paul and nicolas and me, rather than by the stereotypical Lou Reed-hating Oklahoman. And I’m sure I could enjoy NASCAR if I took the time to understand it.

As for rap, well, I refer you back to my core principles, above. Incidentally, Moz and Jack White are both notorious for being intentionally provocative. I can’t put much stock in their opinions on this.

But isn't there a reason that frat boys like the Beastie Boys? Maybe the very reasons that cause them to like the Beasties are the very reasons that would turn someone off. Maybe it isn't the fact that fat boys like them, but the reasons that frat boys like them. I would also argue that there are certain genres that are rarely lowest common denominator--indie would be one. Maybe it's not always good, but it certainly isn't pandering.

Michael - You are wrong about country music.

SR - You are wrong about country music and Oklahomans.

"Lowest common denominator?" That's just being snobby. Music for me is about what feeling the artist is trying to convey, and how well they realize it so I feel the same way listening to it, regardless of genre. The intellectual level on which that feeling is expressed is mostly irrelevant, as long as I can get it. I can appreciate the genius of someone like Bob Dylan, but the fact that the Sex Pistols were generally nihilist idiots doesn't hamper my enjoyment.

So, when I hear country music, for example, for the most part they're singing about being rednecks and aspects of that life. Which is fine, I can imagine what that's like, but the sticker for me is that they all sound the same. It's hard to convey any form of emotion when you sound just like the average guy. The same problem occurs with most manufactured pop, crunk, etc., if it sounds like everything else, there's nothing to make it stand out. I think this is why anybody decides to dislike a genre all-out - "it all sounds the same." Which is precisely why you have to keep looking harder until you find something that doesn't.

Not me.

Most people commenting on this website know nothing about country music. Write about what you understand. Country music is not mostly about "being rednecks." That's just an asinine comment.

I like a fair bit of rap and hip hop. It's country and folk that I can't seem to appreciate.

To Alex D and all the country-bashers

So country music is for rednecks
Rap is for Blacks
Indie is for white students and white collar guys

Great ! Keep thinking like that, gentlemenen !

Seems like a perfect musical apartheid to me

can't you just appreciate something different, something you were not programmed to like ?

I'm a white student with a white-collar future, and I love indie rock! And classic rock too!

Anyway, I'd like to apologize for coming off as a bit of a music snob. I know that not everyone who likes contempory country is a redneck, and I will admitt that I'm ignorant to much of the genre's better work... I just dont have much of a desire to explore it. Maybe when I'm older my tastes will change, as I'm only 17.

None the less, there is a reason why country appeals to blue-collar works in middle america, just like there's a reason why 2Pac and Biggie appeal to blacks in the projects: they can relate to it. Just like I can relate to Bruce Springsteen or Arcade Fire. It's much easier for one to identify with the musical themes that relate most closely to them.

Everything SR just said, I agree. I don't "get" most country, at least not in the ways I've been exposed to it. I'll dig deeper. But it is definitely not because of any active race or class discrimination, which is different from lack of identification.

I think I'll listen to some Uncle Dave Macon now, one country guy I do like, and let this thread run its course.

Bad thread. Maybe I shouldnta started it.

I didn't mean any offense to anybody, but just to point out the absurdity of genre discrimination
I love country, rap, rock and I'm always shocked when I hear rejection of an entire genre, especially country, a music that I love for its humor and gravity (to borrow a few words from Bruce Springsteen).
I've always felt sorry because AM polls put too much emphasis on indie and white rock, and dismiss rap and country.
And Alex, Uncle Dave Macon is great, that's right
PLease try to listen to John Prine, The Flatlanders, and Jimmie Rodgers.
If I have hurt anybody, I apologize. But I think that if you love music, you love everything that's good in every genre. Of course, you can ahave affinities with specific styles, but I guess good music is good music.
If anybody here wants to hear and to discover roots and country music please pay a visit to my blog, River's invitation ot to Paul's, Setting The woods On Fire

And one more thing about the themes
In fact, country music relies on themes that are universal, but maybe to older people.
Divorce, love, nostalgy, money problems, lost dreams and reality, booze, family etc..

My distaste for country has more to do with my weird aversion for acoustic guitars and my inability to tolerate twang. I'm not going to say that the genre is a total waste, but I just don't like it, whether it's contemporary country or classics like Johnny Cash, Hank Williams and Willie Nelson. I'm sure I'm missing out on some musical enrichment as a result (as is also the case with folk), but there's so much music that I haven't heard that I'm sure would move me more.

This is a topic I've thought about a lot recently. Never thought I might have the chance to voice my opinion.

I think we can all agree that we each have certain styles of music that we like and certain styles that we dislike. (Perhaps the words "like" and "dislike" are not the most accurate words to use in this situation, but for the sake of argument, let's use them.) For me, I'm a big fan of bop/modal jazz, indie rock, and soft rock. I am not a fan of metal, CCM, avant-garde jazz, and contemporary country.

For a long time, I was of the belief that if you didn't like "my" kind of music, or if you liked the music that I didn't like, then there was something wrong with you. After all, I'm a smart guy and I know what "good" music is. But something occurred to me. Just because *I* don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't have merit in some way, shape or form.

Example: I've never been a huge fan of Elvis Presley, but he has millions of fans. Am I really going to say that millions of people are somehow wrong and I am right? No. Ditto for any of the other musical styles that I listed above. Just because I don't appreciate Metallica the way a Metallica fan does doesn't mean that I am right and the Metallica fan is wrong, or vice versa. It simply means that we appreciate different things.

As reluctant as I am to admit it, this same rule must also apply to other, less-acclaimed artists. Just because I happen to think Nickelback makes terrible music doesn't necessarily mean that they do. Nickelback has millions of fans, and I'm not going to be the guy to say that these people are wrong. I will say that I respectfully disagree with them.

I am firmly of the belief that there is no such thing as "good" music or "bad" music. This may not be an easy concept to accept, but bear with me. The Beatles did not make "good" music. They didn't make "bad" music. They made music that a lot of people enjoyed. Various experts decided that their music was "good," but that is nothing more than an opinion. It just so happens that this is an opinion held by many different people.

That's what this all boils down to: opinions. Really, that's what this site is all about. Is "Pet Sounds" the greatest album of all time? Many people are of that opinion. If I disagree with them, that doesn't make me wrong, it just means that I disagree with their opinions.

So to get back to the topic... Morrissey believed rap music to be "a great musical stench." Does that mean that it is? Of course not! That's just his opinion! Rap/hip-hop appeals to millions of people, but it also detracts millions of people. Neither group is right, they just have the opinion that it is either a "good" or "bad" type of music.

In regard to ChrisF's comment that he has no desire to listen to Illmatic... I would never have predicted that I could end up liking a band like the Pogues, and yet I decided to take a chance, and I was surprised at how much I did like them. Obviously none of us can force you to listen to the album, but you have to allow for the possibility that you might like it. Of course, you might listen to it and find that it doesn't do anything for you.

I guess I'm just of the "I'll try anything once" camp...

Like any genre, rap has its bright stars and its not-so-bright ones. Acts like Puff Daddy/P. Diddy, Will SMith, etc.- did nothing to advance the genre. But then we have acts like Run-DMC, Public Enemy, Eminem and others who have done great things in the genre.

The essence of rap is sampling, so that could be a reason some think lower of it. I don't know if it's a taboo to say one doesn't like rap, though. I do agree that it seems more acceptable to slag country over rap, though.

Re Nickelback- yes, you can say the band makes terrible music. :) Well, I wouldn't say that- it makes music for the masses, with little creativity going into it- and that's reflected by the band's lack of acclaim. Any act who crafts/makes music with the intent of it being hugely popular or whatever, is trading off some artisic integrity.

I agree with Michael. Music has an IQ. It isn't just Belle and Sebastian's lyrics that are literate, it's also their melodies. I can't articulate exactly why or how that's true, but I know it is. Nickelback is music with a low IQ. If you could measure, I'd be willing to bet that your your average Nickelback fan has a lower IQ than the average AM forum poster. Certainly, though, alot of dumb music brings pleasure to alot of people. And that's fine. That's the purpose it serves, and it's a very worthwhile purpose. But it's silly to pretend it's not dumb music.

This forum has completely changed its prevailing position from a few months ago when everyone was arguing that there can be no difference between "favorite" (subjective) music and "best" (objective) music.

Nick - If you are saying that there has to be something tying our tastes together, then aren't you saying that this thing is something objective about the Beatles music? And if so, could you not then conclude that the Beatles music is objectively "better" (or objectively more attractive to serious music fans) than Nickelback's music, because the Beatles music has that special objective something that brings us all here, which Nickelback's music apparently lacks.

(Alternatively, we are all drawn here out of pure statistical chance and there is another web forum out there consisting of an equally large and enthusiastic group of Nickelback fans who just don't get why people are so excited about the Beatles.)

What about those of us who hate Nickelback and The Beatles?

I think maybe my main point was misunderstood. Maybe I just didn't make my point very well (quite likely).

What I was trying to say is that the idea of music being "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion, not fact. "Good" or "bad" is a subjective term. I might think Band A is "good," but you might think Band A is "bad." Neither one of us is right and neither one of us is wrong. It is simply a matter of opinion.

Let's try a little experiment. Take the following sentence: "I am a fan of _____________." Put in the name of an acclaimed or well-respected band/artist. If you were to say that sentence now, it would be okay. No one would think ill of you. No one would question you if you said, "I am a fan of Bruce Springsteen," or "I am a fan of Radiohead."

Now put in the name of a moderately-acclaimed band/artist, but keep it truthful to yourself. For me, I'd say "I am a fan of the Dave Matthews Band." It still is okay. People don't think less of me because it is my opinion. You might not like DMB, but I'm sure you respect the fact that I have a different opinion.

Now put in the name of a band/artist that gets very little critical acclaim. I'm sure that EVERYONE reading this has a guilty pleasure of some sort. Maybe it's just one song by a less-respected artist. Suddenly the sentence becomes unbearable. "What? You actually like them? Are you insane?"

So where is the line? At what point do you say that it is no longer acceptable to like a certain band? Just because YOU might think that a band does not have merit does not mean that they don't. Just because an artist doesn't have acclaim doesn't mean that they aren't important in some way.

I remember when Creed was hugely popular. I personally couldn't understand it; I thought they were terrible (and still do). I would change the channel when a Creed music video came on. I would change the radio station when a Creed song came on. I immediately had a certain amount of disdain for anyone who liked Creed.

Now here's my dirty little secret. I feel the same way about U2 as I do about Creed. I cannot stand U2. If you're a U2 fan, I start to question your taste.

I imagine when I stated my feelings for Creed, most of you probably nodded your heads in agreement. "Yeah, Matt's right on that one! Creed sucks!" But when I admitted to disliking U2, how many of you were immediately turned off to me? "What? Is he comparing U2 to Creed?"

What really is the difference between me not liking Creed and me not liking U2? As far as I can tell, the only difference is the level of acclaim the two bands have achieved. (I'm not talking about differences in musical output.) Again, where is the line? At what point does it no longer become "okay" to start disliking a band? If a band is "acclaimed," does that mean I'm supposed to like them? Or at least give them the benefit of the doubt?

This whole thing reminds me of an argument I had with someone at work. I stated that I did not like Dane Cook, and my co-worker looked at me as though I had just killed her mother. She asked, "How can you not like Dane Cook? He's hilarious!" I responded, "I don't think he's funny." She said, "But he's famous for being funny!" I didn't want to offend her, so I tried to be as tactful as I could, and said, "No, he's famous because a lot of people think that he is funny. I don't."

I don't think I'd be rocking the boat too much if I said that humor is entirely subjective. What might be funny to one person might not be funny to someone else. Let's be honest: the same thing applies to music. What one person thinks is quality music might be garbage to the next person.

I have a dear, dear friend who loves John Mayer. In fact, she loves a lot of bands that I don't respect: Yellowcard, Shakira, etc. I wouldn't dare tell her how I feel about these artists or bands because I care about her too much, but also because it wouldn't make a lick of difference. I'm not going to be able to change her opinion of these artists.

Oh sure, I could try to introduce her to more "credible" artists, and I have tried to do exactly that. But she is perfectly happy listening to her preferred artists. She is not a stupid person; she is a college graduate currently working on her Ph.D in audiology.

I think Nick might have caught what I was trying in my first post to say, and I agree with him that there is no objective "good" or "bad" music. I say that because there is no objective way to measure music and therefore rate it "good" or "bad." In a foot-race, you can objectively measure who is a "good" runner; the "good" runner is the one who came in first. In weightlifting, you can objectively measure who is a "good" lifter; the "good" lifter is the one who can lift the most weight.

No such measurement exists in music. All these polls, surveys, and lists that Henrik has compiled for his site? Those are not objective measurements. Each one is nothing more than someone's (or a group of people's) opinions. Opinions are completely subjective.

Take another look at Henrik's site. It's not called "The Greatest Music," it's called "Acclaimed Music." He doesn't bill it as "the best albums and songs of all time," he bills it as "the most recommended albums and songs of all time." It took me a long time to come to the conclusion that the albums and songs listed here are NOT the best songs of all time, they are simply the ones that people have recommended more than others.

Take any song (or album) on the list. Would you agree that that song's (or album's) place at whatever position is accurate? Are there REALLY only 123 albums that are better than Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot? Is Millie Small's "My Boy Lollipop" REALLY the 1260th best song of all time?

The answer to both of those questions is a resounding NO. The fact of the matter is that Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is NOT the 124th greatest album of all time; it is the 124th most-acclaimed album of all time. "My Boy Lollipop" is not the 1260th best song of all time, but it is the 1260th most-recommended song of all time.

I realize that I'm beginning to drone. I'll stop typing for now. Maybe I'll have more ideas in the morning. In the meantime, maybe someone can understand what I'm trying to say and pick up the torch for me...

Matt, we've had this very discussion recently, and I agree with you. There is no objective way to qualify art as "good" or "bad", in my book. I'll listen to Roxette 1000 times over The Beatles, and that makes me a kook in the eyes of many (maybe I am). I think the danger in believing in some objective musical hierarchy is that it leaves no room for differing taste, timeframe or context. The amount of debate that has raged on this site comparing artists, albums and songs is proof enough to me that while we all may have our own metrics for what is good, there is no definitive answer.

Even easier questions are difficult to answer, if not impossible. How do we measure influence? Complexity? Catchiness? Technical merit? I'm sure there are plenty of people who are more educated than I am about the subject who could offer up an answer, but I doubt there would be any valid consensus.

that if a track or album or artist is more acclaimed than another, we can say that it is a fact that that title or act is more respected/revered than another.

Saying it's better would be subjective. There's a reason stuff from non-majorly acclaimed acts have sold millions and millions over the years, after all- somebody must be enjoying them and think they're good.