>>James Rogers <jamesr@best.com> wrote:
>Selling well doesn't qualify music as "quality". I cringe when I think
>about some of the music that has sold well over the years.
as do i... but i've learned to live with it ;-)
> I was defining
>"quality" in a technical sense. I would submit that on a technical level
>(musically), that Ace of Base is a very average band in its genre with few
>outstanding features. I recognize that some of the music *I* like is
>technically mediocre, and am fine with that. But I won't ever claim that it
>is "quality" or "great" music simply because I like it.
I think there are more approaches than just the 'musically technical' for
how to define 'quality' music, innovation, experimentalism or just stuff
that works, on a musical structure level, on an originality of sound level
etc.. Some of the music you like, i would define as quality music, even
though i wouldn't on a technical level. There's also a degree of relativity
in judging music 'Ace of Base' was not only sold to a specifically dance
music audience, to such an audience this music may have been very original,
experimental and innovative. Look at it this way: Nitzer ebb is considered
innovative by those who never heared of DAF... 'Quality' is a very relative
and personal term. As to ace of base not being of superior quality, musical
technically, i think most people will agree on that. But then again, i know
a lot of musical technically high 'quality' music that lacks that quality in
many other ways...
J de Lyser
surreal@glo.be