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 might've half way agreed with you had you not said this. i think there is good music and there is bad music. just because people like it does not mean it's good it just means it's catchy, most people aren't like us. they don't listen to music as though it were art. We (or at least I) look for beauty in music, not how easily it can hold my attention (though that helps a little). Paul Blart: Mall Cop was a #1 box office movie, does that mean it's a great movie? no. it's based on the same stupid jokes that have been recycled in mindless comedies over and over under different guises. similarly nickelback recycles the same music others have done before them and just slaps their shameful mutimillion selling name on it.

it's scientific, see?:
http://donstuff.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/alternate-music.jpg

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.

Hey! I started that thread!

But seriously, I still stand by my position that there is no objective good or bad in music. Though there are a lot of quality's that draw people who appreciate music more highly than others together. Is it any question 99.9% of music critics and AM posters like The Beatles and hate Nickelback (I know I do). It's no coincidence that they agree on this. It's all about a greater musical appreciation. And you can call me an elitist or whatever but just keep in mind that there has to be something tying our mutual tastes together.

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.