how do you evaluate "quality" in music?
>>66118749
If it sounds good
If it's done well
If it's produced well
If it accomplishes it's goal (concept albums)
How it stands against other albums in the genre
meme potential
do I enjoy it?
then it's good
there's no such thing as objective quality
>>66118768
absolutely plebeian.
I let /mu/ decide for me
I don't
If it sounds absolutely unlistenable then I say I enjoy it to insult other people's taste in music
>>66118770
/thread
>you would love me
ratings
if no one I know knows it and the fanbase is cool/non-existent and they only released three demo cassettes which were never actually distributed but found in an abandoned lot and it's just seven hours of a man screaming quietly into a mic through a shoe with a hole in it while his friend improvises on a broken banjo and recites the credo endlessly then I acknowledge that I know of them but always say I "used to be" into them rather than am currently into them
>>66118815
This
If I would want to listen to it again then it has quality to some extent.
>>66118749
if I like it its good
its that simple
Its the best ever if I start philosophizing on the meaning of the work
