I think this thread is a question of "aesthetics". To evaluate whether music is good or bad, we might have to ask what is it supposed to do and whether it meets that goal. I agree that we are today faced with the Cult of the Personality and this obscures the content of the music but this has always been the case in popular music. I believe that the answer to this question can only be a subjective one. It depends upon what you are listening for, both in terms of the music itself and the reasons why. I confess a liking for some music in every genre. I listen to everything I can. I am less attracted to heavy metal or grunge or violent rap but even in those areas, there is something there to recommend it. The thing is to mine the nugget which may be buried in the rock. (No pun intended). OK, what music do you consider to be good or bad? Micheal Jackson can sing and he can dance. Is that bad? Barry Manilow has a soft, easy quality that puts some to sleep but others find romantic. Is this bad? Jimmy Hendrix turned up the gain so that people's ears would bleed (I think that's bad) but he played a helluva guitar and was an exciting performer. Is that bad? Are the Spice Girls totally untalented? (I don't think so.) Are they bad? I guess I want people to be more specific and then we have something to talk about. How about Disco? (I personally loved K.C. and the Sunshine Band because they were fun.) You can dance to Disco. Is that bad? Now what's good? I think there's something good to be said of the preceding examples if you look for it. My 2 cents.

Frank Hamilton