Obscurity is not the same thing as quality

obscurity is not the same thing as quality

pleb

philistine

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

what nonsense

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

opinions are a meme

quality is a meme

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

kek

but its damn close cause popular is shit

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

thx cpt obvious

but /daily/ has nothing but memes on its hivemind

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

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

>t. embryo

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

grow up

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.

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

This.

Sup Forums 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.

Ambient

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

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

Classic Rock
Disco
Punk rock

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.

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

>here comes the cherry picking

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 Sup Forumscore, which is why you look like a retard for having it all over your charts

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

...

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

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

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

>the most well know popular works associated with that genre

how do you measure popularity if not in sales?

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.

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

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

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?

this is very true. Thank you.

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

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.

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

>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

KLASKY CSUPO

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.

Who cares, it's a shitpost after all.

Metalcore

>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

>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

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

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

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

>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.

>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

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"

>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

>He doesn't know about mathcore

pretty sure he does

>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.

HOW R U NIGS SO DUM

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

metal

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

>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

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

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.

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.

>>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

>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.

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

next

>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.

>Subjective doesn't mean illegitimate
[citation needed]

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

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

next

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

>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

You didnt even engage my point!

>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

...

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

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

>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?)

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

jesus now that is a rare one

>Im only pretending to be retarded

Music is a meme

>ad hominem attack
not an argument

next

>music
>good

>repeatedly calls people he disagrees with "dummy"

user; I really, really, really like this Pepe.

This is your brain on "logic", "rationality" and atheism.
This user 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".
You shouldn't have shared such a rare pepe, you must be a rich man.

>still no argument
let me know when that changes

next

>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 treats it as the same. If you didn't read, why u bullshitting?

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

ReadThis 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

>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

>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

see next

>next
>being this desperate to have the last word in the argument