Is it wrong to say "better" when comparing musical personal preference?

[Sammy-San]

My brother said you can't compare totally different artists and say they are better than one another-for example, if I say David Bowie is better than GZA (not the example he used)-but you can say you personally prefer artist x to artist y. Do you agree? From a technical standpoint, there is no comparison.

By that logic though, saying that the Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones, or Johnny Cash is a better country singer than Garth Brooks is incorrect, because it's preference and there is no technical way to back it up, and even if there was, most people would make that statement for personal preference and not out of any technical basis to back it up.

 

[faroukfarouk]

My brother said you can't compare totally different artists and say they are better than one another-for example, if I say David Bowie is better than GZA (not the example he used)-but you can say you personally prefer artist x to artist y. Do you agree? From a technical standpoint, there is no comparison.

By that logic though, saying that the Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones, or Johnny Cash is a better country singer than Garth Brooks is incorrect, because it's preference and there is no technical way to back it up, and even if there was, most people would make that statement for personal preference and not out of any technical basis to back it up.

Well, I guess things like technical precision can always be qualified.

Good, better, best, can mean a variety of shades of meaning.

Sometimes it can refer to technical precision.

Sometimes to personal preference.

Blessings.

 

[Bananagator]

I mean, I don't know if it's "wrong."
My understanding is that generally when someone says something is better than something else, it's clear that they're stating their opinion.
You know when you write an argumentative essay you're not supposed to say "In my opinion" or "I think" anywhere in the paper? You state your opinion as fact because the reader knows that, since you're the author, you're sharing your views on the matter.
So if I'm going to say I like Daft Punk more than Kanye West, a common way of expressing that would be "Daft Punk is totally better than Kanye." even if the two are completely unrelated. Actually, those two kind of are related because Harder Better Faster Stronger....
But that's beside the point.

Plus, unfortunately a lot of people like to state their own opinion as fact. In which case you would be correct in saying it's wrong. Hahaha.

 

[WolfGate]

It is a huge gray area, for sure, but I think there is a difference between "better" and "preference". However, people generally do use "better" to mean they prefer it more. Perhaps because music was such a huge part of my life when I was younger, and that meant I dealt a lot with music and artists that were not my preference, I developed a bit of perspective that people who are pure music fans would not have.

To be specific, I never had a musical preference for Michael Jackson. But he was clearly great at what he did, broke new ground in videos and musically, crossed ethnic lines and deserves to be known as a great artist. Doesn't mean I prefer his style of music.

Today, Taylor Swift polarizes people musically, but she is without doubt a creative genius and one of the best concert artists out there today. She is great at what she does, and someone can be acknowledged while also saying they don't prefer her type of music.

On the opposite side, I really like Skillet. My son and I have seen many of their concerts. But if I had to write a list of the "best" artists out there, they would not be top of the list. Still, when speaking generally (to take goingbannanas point) I would say "Skillet is totally better than Michael Jackson" which I think would be understood as my preference and not a statement on their artistic ability and influence.

 

[Dave-W]

I think you need to narrow it down more.

You can say that Eric Clapton is a better (or worse) guitar player than Jimi Hendrix; or than Phil Keaggy. That would be a fair assessment.

 

[Sammy-San]

I think you need to narrow it down more.

You can say that Eric Clapton is a better (or worse) guitar player than Jimi Hendrix; or than Phil Keaggy. That would be a fair assessment.

What are the limits, though? You can't say something like "Mozart is better than Chuck Berry". But it's hard to draw the line anywhere.

 

[Dave-W]

What are the limits, though? You can't say something like "Mozart is better than Chuck Berry". But it's hard to draw the line anywhere.

Not when you draw the subject that widely.

Mozart was the better pianist.
Berry was the better guitarist.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not when you draw the subject that widely.

Mozart was the better pianist.
Berry was the better guitarist.

Do you think Chuck Berry was overrated among many people? People say, "he's would've been what Elvis is today but didnt get credit because of racism", but I honestly find nothing exciting about his singing abilities.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I mean, I don't know if it's "wrong."
My understanding is that generally when someone says something is better than something else, it's clear that they're stating their opinion.
You know when you write an argumentative essay you're not supposed to say "In my opinion" or "I think" anywhere in the paper? You state your opinion as fact because the reader knows that, since you're the author, you're sharing your views on the matter.
So if I'm going to say I like Daft Punk more than Kanye West, a common way of expressing that would be "Daft Punk is totally better than Kanye." even if the two are completely unrelated. Actually, those two kind of are related because Harder Better Faster Stronger....
But that's beside the point.

Plus, unfortunately a lot of people like to state their own opinion as fact. In which case you would be correct in saying it's wrong. Hahaha.

I would say that hard rock with Christian lyrics to me is "better" than hard rock to rude words.

But maybe also the quality of the hard rock with rude words might be "better" than the hard rock with Christian words.

2c.

 

[Sammy-San]

I would say that hard rock with Christian lyrics to me is "better" than hard rock to rude words.

But maybe also the quality of the hard rock with rude words might be "better" than the hard rock with Christian words.

2c.

So better is more about technicality than personal preference?

 

[faroukfarouk]

So better is more about technicality than personal preference?

I guess what I'm saying is that 'better' means whatever it means according to context.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not when you draw the subject that widely.

Mozart was the better pianist.
Berry was the better guitarist.

But wouldn't it be nonsensical to even make that comparison? That's like saying Stalin's economic system is worse than a chef's cooking abilities.

 

[Dave-W]

Do you think Chuck Berry was overrated among many people?

Perhaps. He was an innovator and that was his forte.

People say, "he's would've been what Elvis is today but didn't get credit because of racism",

People say all kinds of things. Racism is a very real issue. When the folk at Sun Records recruited Elvis, they were looking for a white guy that could sing the music of black people.

I honestly find nothing exciting about his singing abilities.

No - but truth be told most pop singers do not have all that great singing abilities. But often they have iconic voices. Jimi Hendrix had a poor singing voice but it is immediately recognizable. And don't get me started on Jim Dandy from Black Oak Arkansas. Rolling Stone said he was the only guy they knew of that could sing in every key at the same time.

 

[Dave-W]

But wouldn't it be nonsensical to even make that comparison? That's like saying Stalin's economic system is worse than a chef's cooking abilities

Indeed. That was my point.

 

[Sammy-San]

Perhaps. He was an innovator and that was his forte.

People say all kinds of things. Racism is a very real issue. When the folk at Sun Records recruited Elvis, they were looking for a white guy that could sing the music of black people.

No - but truth be told most pop singers do not have all that great singing abilities. But often they have iconic voices. Jimi Hendrix had a poor singing voice but it is immediately recognizable. And don't get me started on Jim Dandy from Black Oak Arkansas. Rolling Stone said he was the only guy they knew of that could sing in every key at the same time.

What pop singers would you say have great singing abilities? The only one I can think of is Elvis Presley, and I only like his music from the 70s and late 60s.

 

[Dave-W]

What pop singers would you say have great singing abilities?

I include "had" as well.

Freddie Mercury
Paula Abdul
Greg Lake
early Franky Valley
Bette Midler
Karen Carpenter

 

[Sammy-San]

Perhaps. He was an innovator and that was his forte.

People say all kinds of things. Racism is a very real issue. When the folk at Sun Records recruited Elvis, they were looking for a white guy that could sing the music of black people.

No - but truth be told most pop singers do not have all that great singing abilities. But often they have iconic voices. Jimi Hendrix had a poor singing voice but it is immediately recognizable. And don't get me started on Jim Dandy from Black Oak Arkansas. Rolling Stone said he was the only guy they knew of that could sing in every key at the same time.

Wasn't Chuck Berry under Sun Records too?

 

[Sammy-San]

Well, I guess things like technical precision can always be qualified.

Good, better, best, can mean a variety of shades of meaning.

Sometimes it can refer to technical precision.

Sometimes to personal preference.

Blessings.

Even then, isn't it incorrect to compare totally different singers or artists? For example, I can say I like Elvis better than Michael Jackson (and I do), because both are famous pop singers (despite totally different styles of pop). But I can't really say, " Frank Sinatra is better than Kurt Cobain", since they have almost nothing in common the comparison would almost be a joke.

 

[Dave-W]

Wasn't Chuck Berry under Sun Records too?

No. He was with Chess Records in the 50s and then Mercury Records in the 60s.

 

[Sammy-San]

Perhaps. He was an innovator and that was his forte.

People say all kinds of things. Racism is a very real issue. When the folk at Sun Records recruited Elvis, they were looking for a white guy that could sing the music of black people.

No - but truth be told most pop singers do not have all that great singing abilities. But often they have iconic voices. Jimi Hendrix had a poor singing voice but it is immediately recognizable. And don't get me started on Jim Dandy from Black Oak Arkansas. Rolling Stone said he was the only guy they knew of that could sing in every key at the same time.

Who do you prefer out of the two singers?