Takis and I got into a heated discussion last night over music. Not that one band was better than another or your typical argument over who's a better guitar player. We were actually discussing whether or not one persons opinion on music can be better than another's.

Basically what I was saying is that the type of music that you listen to says something about your personality and what type of person you are in general. While Takis generally agreed with that point (even though it is mild stereotyping), he felt that since what constitutes "good" music is entirely opinion, no one persons opinion on what is quality music is more right or wrong than any other persons. I disagreed.

I argued that while all opinions on art are valid in their own right, some people can actually have opinions that are generally accepted as "bad" opinions or "good" opinions. For instance, the 15 year old high school cheerleader that listens to the same 40 songs (Destiny's Child, N'Sync, Blink 182, etc) for an entire year on the same radio station has not only limited exposure to other types of music, but also she doesn't play an instrument and does not study music in any form so she lacks any sort of musical knowledge. On the flip side, you have a middle aged man who was formerly a student of music theory, plays several different instruments, owns over 1000 albums ranging from classical to rap music, and is now a music critic who devoted his entire life to his beloved art form. Now while both their opinions are valid, I tend to suspect the music critic has a "better" opinion of what "good" quality music is.

I have a ton of CD's, over 600 in fact, and while I listen to all of them and enjoy them all quite a bit, I will readily admit there are artists in my collection that do not make "good" music. Bryan Adams for example. I like to listen to some of his stuff, but I don't think that it's great music. Van Halen is another example. All the members of the band are great instrumentalists, especially Eddie, but I know that Van Halen is just fun rock and roll. I don't really consider their song writing to be all that great. On the other hand, I know that the Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan have some great music, some of the best shit ever written. But I don't listen to them all that much. In fact, if I made a list of my favorite bands and then made a list of who I thought were the best bands in rock n roll, they would look quite different. For instance, I listen to Dishwalla a hell of a lot more than I listen to Radiohead, but I know that Radiohead writes much better music than Dishwalla does.

To sum up.... I think it is possible for some opinions to be better than others and that some opinions are just plain BAD. Look at morality for example. Some people actually think that we should just nuke the hell out of the middle east and end all this shit once and for all. Most definitely a "bad" opinion. Some people think that it is actually OK to murder innocent people (look at what just happened in Iraq), but that too is just a plain "bad" opinion.

So I'd like to know what you all think. Are all opinions equally valid? Is it possible for opinions to just plain suck? Can people with no knowledge of and limited exposure to music still have good opinions on the matter? Is it possible (as I have shown) that someone can enjoy something and still admit that it isn't necessarily good? (A good example of that would be Taco Bell. Tasty as anything, but we all know it's not good Mexican food.) Or am I just totally of my rocker on this one. By the way, this is in no way an attack on Takis viewpoint. And Takis, if I misrepresented your argument, please clarify in the comment section. Looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks.

- these thoughts flowed through Jeff's fingers @ 4:07 PM