obscurity is not the same thing as quality

pleb

philistine

>>68794101
>>68794111
so if a perfect 10/10 album got released and it was listened to by 100,000 people it'd be worse than the exact same album if it was only listened to by 10 people? retards

Yes but the more obscure something is, the more interesting it becomes

>>68794207

what nonsense

>>68794169
If it got listened to by 100,000 people then it was never a 10/10 in the first place.

opinions are a meme

>>68794241
quality is a meme

File: 1477631795659.jpg (29KB, 499x500px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 499x500px

No one sincerely thinks that except for the children on /daily/

>>68794229
kek

but its damn close cause popular is shit

Really obscure = shit
Really popular = shit
The best is always in between

thx cpt obvious

>>68794282
but /daily/ has nothing but memes on its hivemind

>>68794415
Neither is inherently shit nor is the middleground inherently the best, nor is the quality due to the obscurity or lack thereof. It just so happens to be the case

File: realistic peppy.gif (1MB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 499x499px

yes, also: cringeworthy is not the same thing as bad.

>>68794067
>t. embryo

>>68794067
whom are you addressing? i didn't think anybody actually believed this

>>68794229
grow up

>>68794207
This is absolute nonsense. The beatles were the biggest band the world has ever seen, and their rise to fame is still a very interesting narrative and a great social phenomenon to be studied. This is true regardless of whether or not you think their music is good.

>>68794067
yeah no shit. did you get triggered because you didn't recognize an album?

File: a34dda0d14672c111c72de8225f2b995.jpg (85KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 736x552px

>>68794067
This.

/mu/ name a genre of music that gets objectively better after you dig past the most well know popular works associated with that genre.

Pro tip: you can't. You dilettantes will no doubt try though. Good luck with all that.

>>68795793
Ambient

>>68795465
The beatles are not interesting I already know about the beatles and so does everyone else.

>>68795793
i'd say rock gets better past the eagles greatest hits and back in black

>>68795793
Classic Rock
Disco
Punk rock

>>68795793
So your favourite pop musician is Justin Bieber, your favourite rock band AC/DC and electronic artist is Deadmau5?

It's memes all the way down.

>>68795888
>rocks most well know popular works end with eagles greatest hits and back in black
kek

>>68796038
>here comes the cherry picking

>>68794101
>>68794111
>>68794207
OP getting trolled like a stupid bitch
As if anyone on this board thinks obscurity=better and you're a stupid child if you ever believed that
If your tastes are mostly comprised of surface level music then you deserve ridicule. You're SUPPOSED to like /mu/core, which is why you look like a retard for having it all over your charts

>>68796153
>cherry picking
you mean something like claiming rocks most well know popular works end with eagles greatest hits and back in black?

File: 1474873936486.jpg (94KB, 397x295px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 397x295px

>>68794229

>>68796183
oh great, now we have to define "popular" and "obscure" because this faggot right here
im out

>>68796038
Def Leppard - Hysteria
Bon Jovi - Slippery When Wet
Steve Miller Band - Greatest Hits
Bruce Springsteen live 75-78
Simon And Garfunkel - Greatest Hits
Meat Loaf - Bat Out Of Hell
The Beatles - 1962-1966
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
Journey - Greatest Hits
Bruce Springsteen - Born In The USA
Metallica - Black Album
Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti
Elton John - Greatest Hits
Eagles - Hotel California
The Beatles - 1967-1970
Boston - Boston
Guns N' Roses - Appetite For Destruction
The Beatles - White Album
Fleetwood Mac - Rumours
Pink Floyd - The Wall
Led Zeppelin - IV
Billy Joel - Greatest Hits

these, and the two albums i've mentioned before are the 25 best selling albums in the US. You seriously think it's not worth looking past these or do i have to post the next 100?

this

>>68796229
>im out
>because I can't defend my claim
lol, of course you're out
>>68796394
>best selling albums
where did I mention best selling albums?

>>68796491
>the most well know popular works associated with that genre

how do you measure popularity if not in sales?

File: iceberg.jpg (232KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1600x1200px

>>68794067
Nobody thinks this and the people in this thread suggesting otherwise are trolling or are idiots, but since there is much more obscure music than there is popular music, naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music. There's no way all of the good obscure music can be popular because more music has probably been create just this past month than you can listen to in your entire lifetime.

>>68796536
that's a good question. how would you measure popularity if not in sales? but that's not what was asked:
>the most well know popular works associated with that genre

>>68796566
>naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music
[citation needed]

>>68796591
So much music is made that there's no way even 1% of it is popular. You're telling me that less than 1% of all music made is good?

>>68794067
this is very true. Thank you.

yeah the constant soundclous threads with shitty guitarists and memey producers with less than 200 listens proves that

>>68794067
I know this is bait, but I'll bite. The notion of who sold what and in which quantity as a measurement of quality is absurd.

>>68796669
no. you made a claim and I'm telling you to cite your source. keep in mind a failure to cite your source will be an admission you just pulled some random bullshit out you ass. so ether/or, idc

>>68796723
>The notion of who sold what and in which quantity as a measurement of quality is absurd.
not even close to what the op said but whatever

>>68794467
KLASKY CSUPO

>>68796728
You're completely misunderstanding my point. Music is subjective. If there is a lot of popular music you like, there is probably a lot more obscure music that you ///would/// like if you were to hear it. You can't objectively classify music based on "good" and "bad".
I'm not using a source, I'm using basic fucking common sense.

>>68796762
Who cares, it's a shitpost after all.

>>68795793
Metalcore

>>68796894
>I'm not using a source
lol, no of course you're not
>keep in mind a failure to cite your source will be an admission you just pulled some random bullshit out you ass

>>68796909
>tried to misrepresent op statement
>got called out on it
>Who cares, it's a shitpost after all.
so you're admitting you tried to misrepresent the substance of a "shipost"? sounds more like you're backpedaling after you couldn't a form a coherent argument against op's statement

objective quality doesn't exist in music. if you value obscurity then obscurity = quality

>>68796998
Are you really taking a post with a SpongeBob meme seriously?

>>68797101
>tried to misrepresent op statement
>now he's trying to divert attention away fro that fact
not a seriously as you are, apparently

File: 1334617944309.gif (2MB, 200x293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x293px

>>68796915

I have to assume you mean everything on the surface is shit and so is everything below it too

>>68796917
>intentionally missing the point to feel like you're right
Not my problem you're an idiot. There can't be a source. You want a source explaining this objectively, which is impossible.

>>68797588
>makes a claim
>then admits there's no source to back it up
>then resorts to angry ad hominem attack
so you're admitting you just pulled some random bullshit out you ass just like I said. cool

>>68797690
A claim about something subjective doesn't need evidence to back it up. That would be like me saying "[album] is good" and then you saying "where's your source faggot"

>>68797748
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
which is what just happened to your claim. the best part is you obviously can't handle it

>>68797227
>He doesn't know about mathcore

>>68797833
pretty sure he does

>>68797807
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
I can tell you without evidence that 2+2=4.
You can't tell me without evidence that 2+2 isn't equal to 4, because objectively it is.
Therefore that entire statement is bullshit.

>>68794229
HOW R U NIGS SO DUM

10/10=1
The only music that's 10/10 is music you made yourself and never shared

>>68795793
metal

>>68795793
Drone, the less popular, the more creative
Stars of the Lid is garbo

>>68797854
>tried to present his subjective opinion as objective fact
>got btfo
>now he's stuck in the downward spiral of maximum damage control
>and can't pull out
poetry

>>68797930
There was not a single point in this entire thread where I stated anything as objective fact.

>>68797930
Dude you are either retarded or bored, just stop posting.

A small portion of music is popular. It is fair to say there is much more "obscure" music than popular.

That being said if you determine whether you do or dont like music as a matter of probability [for the sake of argument, everyone has their own autistic internal rym curve] you will, as a matter of fact like more obscure music than popular. Things are popular for a reason, people share that stuff, it's catchy,,, whatever.

>>68795793
Shoegaze.
Right from the get go really because Loveless is most definitely the most well known and influential shoegaze album to ever come out but it's so fucking shit. I hate it.

>>68798083
>>68797994
>>naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music
>the claim I made is not an objective fact
cool, at least now you admit you were full of shit

thank for playing. next

>>68798174
>at least now you admit you were full of shit
I never even intended it to be objective fact. You're just trying to feel superior and you're coming off as an idiot in the process.

>>68798240
>I never even intended my claim to be legitimate
yep we've already been over this, no need to elaborate any further

next

>>68798304
>I never even intended my claim to be legitimate
That's not what I said. Stop putting words in my mouth. Subjective doesn't mean illegitimate.

>>68798384
>Subjective doesn't mean illegitimate
[citation needed]

File: 1477236500201.png (733KB, 637x628px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 637x628px

>>68797690
>>68798174
I think you misunderstood the language of the first post. The dude's arguing:

>1. Very little music becomes popular (he randomly assigned 1%, but it's probably not too far off, even if it's probably too low)
>2. A certain percentage of all music, popular or otherwise—I have no idea how much, but idk, I like probably a third of the music I hear—would be "good" to the listener
>3. If 1% of music is popular, 99% is unpopular
>4. Therefore, given an even remotely evenly-distributed sampling of all music in listening (which it won't be, popular music is heard far more often than unpopular) the listener will statistically enjoy a greater quantity of unpopular music

Therefore, he argues, there is more "good" unpopular music. Whether or not this is a sound argument is up for debate. Of course there are so many assumptions baked in to those arguments that running any kind of hard statistical analysis with decisive conclusions would be nigh impossible, but I think he makes some fairly logical general statements.

The biggest assumption here is that music is not just popular because it's "good", and that the listener actively consumes new music because they enjoy music.

if you're gonna call out how autistic this post is you're admitting you have no argument and never did

>>68798773
yeah, we've already been over this
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

next

>>68796566
>>68798773
I at least think this idea is worth considering further instead of wholly dismissing

I never thought about the whole music thing statistically. And while there are a thousand holes in the current argument, it's actually very interesting

>>68798866
>le atheist razor
You aren't even explaining what specifically you think needs evidencing. Step it up.

Saying "the whole thing" is incorrect

What we define as quality?
This is it had some "shitty" quality from an audio studio point of view and its a strong 9

When it's dark out (g-eazy) had some strong ass studio work making the whole album something of high quality and it is a shallow 5

>>68798174
You didnt even engage my point!

>>68799003
>>68798924
>makes claim
>naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music
>gets called out
>can't provide a shred of evidence
>I never even intended my claim to be legitimate
we've long since been done here, dummy

next

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-31 at 6.01.11 PM.png (14KB, 304x98px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 304x98px

>>68799034

>>68796176
>You're supposed to like /mu/-core
>That's why you look like a retard for having it all over your chart

So you're supposed to like /mu/-core but when you actually like /mu/-core you look like a retard?

File: 1476975096829.png (215KB, 516x432px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 516x432px

>>68799034
>naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music
lern 2 read. That's not his claim. His claim is that the percent of popular music that is good is equal to that of unpopular music. There is obviously far more unpopular music, therefore there is far more good unpopular music.

While this is an ambitious claim, you never address it.

(Also, this is ignoring listening habits. So, if someone was given a random select sampling of a set of all music, would they enjoy the popular music more often?)

>>68799048
lol, I guess you're done then?
>>68799203
>lern 2 read. That's not his claim.
lol, wrong again dummy >>68796566

next

>>68794467
jesus now that is a rare one

>>68799252
>Im only pretending to be retarded

>>68794250
Music is a meme

>>68799331
>ad hominem attack
not an argument

next

>music
>good

>>68799379
>repeatedly calls people he disagrees with "dummy"

>>68794467
Anon; I really, really, really like this Pepe.

>>68799379
This is your brain on "logic", "rationality" and atheism.
This anon is so obssessed with citations what he doesn't realise it that it's literally impossible to objectively say what music is good and what music is bad, therefore every conversation on this topic can never satisfy his autistic demand for citations and "evidence".
>>68794467
You shouldn't have shared such a rare pepe, you must be a rich man.

>>68799419
>>68799463
>still no argument
let me know when that changes

next

>>68799252
>lol, wrong again dummy
lern 2 read again, his claim is the assumption I just spelled out. While it was only inferred in the language of his post, I was trying to spell it out for you since you were having such a hard time arguing the right point. Now which part do you disagree with?

Regardless, you just tried to argue that my argument is not his, even though your post here >>68798866 treats it as the same. If you didn't read, why u bullshitting?

>lol, I guess you're done then?
>>

>>68799484
Read>>68798773
>>68798083

This time engage the claims, engage the argumeny. Dont just outright deny for no real reason.
There is evidence that there is more popular music than obscure fyi

>>68799463
>>68799546
>makes claim
>naturally there is more good obscure music than good popular music
>gets called out
>admits he can't provide a shred of evidence to support his claim
>proceeds to cry about is like a bitch post after post

next

>>68799484
>selectively responding to posts
>trying to discredit attacks with something unrelated instead of responding to the attacks
why try harder. They're right you know

>>68799572
see >>68799560

next

>>68799591
>>68799560
>>68799484
>>68799379
>>68799252
>>68799034
>>68798866
>>68798304
>>68798174
>next
>being this desperate to have the last word in the argument

>>68799591
Why? It has nothing to do with me

>>68799591
Which claim?
Be more specific. I really dont think you are capable.

>>68799660
>>68799680
>>68799694
not an argument

next

>>68799708
this is so bad that I'm convinced you're not the original person and just some other dude fucking with us

File: 80dfb429-0925-4ab4-8456-72a5de0edd9d.jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>>68799660

>>68799734
see >>68799560

next

>>68799804
lol

>>68799821
>lol
still not an argument

next

/next

>>68799829
You have yet to make an argument against my original claim. All you've done is imply it has no weight yet you haven't countered it.

>>68799868
>what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

next

>>68799917
your original claim was that no genre gets better by listening to more obscure artists, how about you give some evidence.

>>68795844
This.
Also some genres don't even reach mainstream popularity, that's not to say they're bad.

>>68799967
not my claim dummy. reading is hard though

>>68799917
>I'm to lazy to give evidence so I'm going to just use this copout

>>68800070
sure, whatever you need to tell yourself

next

>>68800174
not an argument
next

>>68800200
uh huh

next

>>68798130
kill yourself mate

>>68799917
>>68800008
see >>68799517

>>68800377
>lol, I guess you're done then?
lol. ok, I'll take that as a yes then

next

>>68797900
>implying
KEK
KEK KEK KEK KEK

>>68800070

1. There exists significantly more obscure music than popular music
2. People enjoy music regardless of popularity
3. 1 and 2 imply that there exists more obscure music that people enjoy.

Tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with this.

File: 1475846026371.png (134KB, 372x334px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 372x334px

>>68800406
>ignoring the post
I guess you're done then?

>>68800495
>1 and 2 imply that there exists more obscure music that people enjoy
[citation needed]
>>68800771
you already admitted you were done, no need to elaborate

next

>>68800851
Wait that's literally the only part of that which doesn't need a citation. It's number 2 that needs a citation.

>>68800851
I didn't. lern 2 read

>>68800950
so you still can't provide a single legitimate source for the claim you made. we've already been through this

next

>>68797900
lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

>>68801049
[citation needed]

>>68801191
we've already established you were done, no need to elaborate any further

next

>>68801228
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>68801191
>>68801258

the 1st amendment, I guess?

File: CRL9IoBUwAA0bNy.png (199KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 600x600px

>>68801331
this is good enough for me

>>68801049
you haven't identified a single claim that I've made

>>68795793
super eurobeat

>>68801475
lol, enjoy your last (you)

I won, you lost

>>68801566
what a fag

File: 1477721672740.png (598KB, 437x736px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 437x736px

>>68801566
literally "i was only pretending to be retarded the entire time"

>>68794467
>newfags think this is a rare pepe

File: ipOmOhf.gif (3MB, 280x208px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 280x208px

>>68797863
Does that mean I'm the greatest musician of all time?