As most of my friends

 As most of my friends are probably tired of hearing, I'm a big fan of the 33 1/3 series of books about albums. Hype has been building on Carl Wilson's upcoming book on Celine Dion's Let's Talk About Love, the album that gave us the theme to Titanic. While most of the series focuses on what the authors consider to be classic albums, Wilson is taking a different approach, using an album that critics loathe but that has sold millions of copies to examine the idea of taste itself. It's a brilliant concept for a book, the immersing himself in music he hates in order to try to understand its appeal. What makes good taste? By what criteria do we measure the worth of music and art? In the second chapter(1), Wilson posits that maybe he's heading down a "relativistic rabbit hole". If Dion's music can be redeemed in his critical eye, does that then mean that there is no good or bad music, no good or bad art? Does Thomas Kinkade deserve the same artistic respect as, say, Monet?

I personally believe that there is such a thing as good or bad taste. Syd has argued with me somewhat on this topic, and he asks a good question: How do I define what is good and what is not? I can't honestly say I have an answer for that. It's just intuitive. It's not just a matter what I like or dislike. There are bands I don't necessarily enjoy but that I still respect because they are very good at what they do, or for being innovators, or pushing boundaries, or just because they are authentic. Those aren't the only criteria for defining good music , just examples. Bad music lacks, among other things, character, charisma, soul, edge, passion. The presence of any of those things does not automatically save music from being bad, but it might be reason enough to give it a deeper listen, just to be sure.

I think enjoyment of music can be independent of whether or not the music is good. Often what you like and what is good are one-and-the-same, and often they are not. I can honestly say that there are some artists I enjoy (2) that would not qualify as being in good taste. Others might call these guilty pleasures, but I find no reason for guilt. I like what I like and haters can go fuck themselves. Anyone who likes any music should feel the same way, though I would hope that they at least recognize the distinction between their likes and what is good. It's a blurry line sometimes, but I feel the line does exist. 

Does that mean that examinations of what is good or bad are, in the end, irrelevant? No. In fact, it means quite the opposite. It's important to look at the difference between what we like and what is good to preserve the difference between the two, to keep our culture from becoming completely disposable. That singing bass sure was a big hit... for a few minutes, and now the tacky pieces of shit are filling up landfills and flea markets all around the country. If we start to confuse taste with simple enjoyment, instead of preserving the good, we'll toss it aside when something new and shiny comes along. We'll start producing an entirely disposable culture. Quality and enjoyment are separate, though they can and often do apply to the same works. Not everything that is popular is automatically bad, just as not everything obscure automatically gains worth. Does that make it more difficult to determine good art from bad? Yeah, but nobody ever said it was an easy distinction to make.

footnotes
(1) The publishers are doing some advertising. If you send an email to letstalkaboutceline@yahoo.com, they'll send you a PDF of the first two chapters. I printed those out and read them this afternoon, and I cannot wait until the book is published. 

(2) Justin Timberlake, for example. Sure, he is very talented. He can sing and dance and his songs are catchy and fun, but in twenty years will anyone give a second thought to who brought sexy back? Like the Tony Basils before him, he's writing disposable music that's fun until its expiration date, but that ultimately has nothing of substance to offer.