Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
...I contend that it isn't completely subjective. If it were completely subjective, then why does Merzbow sell far more records, like nearly 10 times as much, as anyone else in noise? Does that not suggest that there is such a thing as a criteria for 'good' and 'bad' within noise? I realise that you probably don't want to follow this thought, but it is exactly why I am interested in noise - there HAS to be some reason why some people are perceived of as better, otherwise the success or otherwise of some artists would be entirely down to the advertising and commerce behind it. That Merzbow is more successful than anyone else, that Merzbow is generally thought of as 'better' MUST (to my mind) invoke the notion of quality, and in turn, this notion of quality must have criteria...
|
i was going to steer clear from this discussion from this thread but this really caught my eye.
by your logic, britney spears is a far better musician than sonic youth if your criteria is record selling.
why is merzbow the best selling noise artist? he has been doing it for twice as long as pretty much anyone active in the scene, tours like crazy, has a very defined and engaged self image, has been marketed to arty types, metalheads, goth/industrial fans, indie kids and punks the world over.
you can't compare someone who has been doing this since like the mid-70's with bands that started in the mid-90's or the 00's even.
is there a criteria to know if some noise music is better than other noise music? yes, it's whether it sounds good to people or not.