SecondLine
Well-known member
for instance, i can probably judge a "good"/successful skrillex record from a "bad"/unsuccessful one, but i can still personally dislike skrillex's music. which i do.
but then by 'successful' do you mean (and I'm being pedantic here really, sorry):
1) successful in terms of sales or popularity (I'm sure everyone here would argue that this shouldn't be the sole determinant of success)
2) successful in terms of meeting the expectations of a particular, defined crowd - in which case, you might argue that pleasing that particular crowd is by definition aesthetically/creatively/intellectually bankrupt for some reason (like how a new Screwdriver song might go down well with neo-nazis)
3) successful in terms of skilfully playing to a certain stylistic 'formula' - in which case you might argue (in the reynolds/fisher vein) that that is by definition a bad thing as it implies a lack of innovation - perhaps for you it's the breaking down (or at least subtle subversion) of formula which is central to making something worthwhile.
4) successful in terms of its effects on a body/crowd (e.g. something having 'dancefloor effectiveness' implies that it's good at inducing certain effects) - which then leads onto a whole load of knotty arguments about to what extent our responses are culturally learned as opposed to biological, and where that learning might come from.
Which of these or whatever else you mean by 'success' is obviously linked to your underlying conception of what music is, what it's for, etc. - and that's inextricable from your 'taste' really - the two aren't identical but they certainly interrelate.
phew ok, done now