>He says music is subjective >Yet he believes an album

it can be
from my point of view, that is

well if many bands start to sound like a certain band did in an album it makes such album influential, therefore essential to that genre

"essential" is not a matter of what you think of said album, but a matter of its role in the development of a genre/style.

Thread null and void; move on

>>69558130
>>69558131
>>69558159
is that not viewing music through an objective lens though?

You can't choose what you deem objective/subjective. It's one or the other lads.

>>69558159
thank u

>>69558193
Whether it's "good" or not is an opinion; it's subjective.
Facts about the music, such as that many people enjoyed it and thus it started a trend, is objective.

>>69558193
Something can have lots of objective qualities that are easily observable to anyone but that doesn't change the fact that whether or not you like any given release or artist is entirely subjective

>music forum
>People talking about an art as if it's a sport, team vs teams

You are all misguided

>>69558217(me)
It is objective fact that Michael Jackson's Thriller is the highest-selling album of all time. It is up to each individual listener's subjective opinion, though, to determine whether or not they enjoy it.

An album can be essential to a genre through influence but still be bad (see TVU&N)

>>69558113
That's easy, Anon.
The perceived quality of music is subjective, but we can make a list of essentials based off non-subjective qualities, like influence and cultural significance. For example I might think Sgt. Pepper's is shit, but I'd still say it's essential because the influence and significance makes it a cultural waypoint. And I might think a small record that only a few hounded people have heard is the best one ever produced, but I still wouldn't think it's essential.
In other words, something being essential is independent of my notion of its quality.

>>69558113
popularity is not subjective, and that's all there is to being essential