[val-holla-ing]

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'm not going to spit invective just yet, but this is the simplest thing in the world for me, and I can rarely see why people constantly appeal to this notion of absolute subjectivity, which is counter-productive and counter-intuitive.

So apologies if this seems pretentious, but this genuinely is a very, very simple thing for me, and I get frustrated that other people don't see it that way.

[note to self - really, you don't care... repeat and relax]

hm. oddly enough, i rarely think of anyone in terms of "better" or "worse". i can say that i prefer one artist over another, but i can't bring myself to be the judge of one's work. merzbow selling many more records than others in the sound world is simpy an indication of his longevity and growth as an artist. of course he has sold more records than *insert obscure artist here*. having over 500 releases, it would be hard for him to not have outsold almost anyone in this category.