Becoming increasingly interested in the idea that there IS such thing as good and bad music and that I simply don't have consistently good taste. This all relates to an issue that I've been trying to get people talking about for quite a while but nobody wants to take me up on it. I think it hits a bit too close to home. Personal taste/fandom is considered childish - we're supposed to discuss music in a detached fashion; as if it's all for the good of society. Music for me has always been an intensely personal/private thing, even when it's in a public/communal context (rock show/dance club/jam session). Music is selfish bastard that wants you all to itself. So why discuss it in this faux scientific/pretend objective fashion and then claim that it's all subjective anyway - which is what everyone seems to do. Why won't anyone talk about WHAT THEY REALLY BUY/LISTEN TO AND WHY THEY DO IT?????
Anyway, it seems to me that a pretty clear record-buying consensus develops about most things - EG (and esp.) what albums by an artist are good and which ones are bad. This, it seems to me, to be a very close way to an objective way of RATING music. I feel qualified to say this as someone who often disagrees with the consensus (as do most of - me probably more than most, though). I do respect the consensus but I tend to find it a little dry. Perhaps this is what Ian Forsyth is getting at when he talks about the joys of bad music. Maybe I'm talking about the joys of bad (or, more accurately WRONG) musical taste. Or maybe I'm just talking out the Gary Glitter.