The downward spiral of taste

DarkJager

It occurred to me last night while flicking through the music channels, that todays taste in music is possibly the worst of any era. For example, Mika. How this guy even got near a recording studio is beyond me. Its pure camped up, earaching **** at its lowest. Lyrics that don't make any sense, terrible backing tracks and songs that seem to be designed just to irritate anyone who listens to them.

Then you've got your "Indie" bands, who all sound exactly the ****ing same as each other, but it seems to be the cool thing to be into this now. Just look at Pete Doherty. He's a ****ing smack head who makes some of the worst music ever (in terms of both musical and lyrical content) yet people are obsessed with him????

Of course then, there are the likes of Cascada. Bland dance music with no soul whatsoever but it seems to sell by the bucketload.

I've never been a fan of music that gets played on the radio, but if I was to pick one single year in which the radio was actually listenable it would be 1993. Back then, songs had melodies that would stick in your head for years to come and music didn't seem as ridiculous as it does today.

The above post may sound bitter, but its just my reflection on what the music of today is like. Do you think we'll ever get a return to quality, or are people now just too stupid and too concerned with the current trend for it to ever change?

Karl Hungus

There's always phenominal music being released, it's just never in the charts. You just have to look a little deeper than what's pushed in people's faces by record companies.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I think you're getting old!

Personally I can't listen to today's crap either. Indie music is probably the worst offender in terms of lacking any sort of originality.

Of course there still are decent musicians out there, just most of what is on the pop scene is drivel. Quite recently I have discovered dance music and there really is some amazing stuff, if you sift through the likes of tiesto.

DarkJager

Of course, and its only away from the mainstream where you will find any good music nowadays. I think with the current state of "pop music", its fans are doomed to a life of crap taste. I mean, anybody who finds Mika listenable in anyway does not deserve to have a pair of ears..

Karl Hungus

What can you do? There are a lot of stupid people out there. I mean, people actually watch rubbish like Big Brother, so there has to be a musical equivelant of such an intellectual drainage ditch.

DarkJager

There's nothing you can do. Its just a shame to see whats being passed as music these days..

JJ

If you don't like it, don't listen to it. There's always good music being made and there's always ****e music being made. Sometimes you have to look harder for the good stuff.

Karl Hungus

I suppose not everyone realises what a genius Devin Townsend is. Or for that matter, has ever even heard of him.

DarkJager

Devin Townsend is indeed a genius

is_that_so

Part of the problem with music is how easy it is to get anything at all out. That and the fact that we have become complete slaves to the marketing of it. Sandy Thom is a very good example - extremely average but a huge success. Most music stations operate off playlists and also reflect the fact that the music buying public "appear to be" aged between 9 and 16.

Easy access also means lots more music and there is some pleasure in "discovering" new stuff. Dig around and you'll find stuff more to your liking.

Karl Hungus

DarkJager wrote:

Devin Townsend is indeed a genius

All is not lost if there's still Devy to be listened to.

There's still a few of his albums I've not got yet though, so that's something to look forward to.

BaZmO*

DarkJager wrote:

It occurred to me last night while flicking through the music channels, that todays taste in music is possibly the worst of any era. For example, Mika. How this guy even got near a recording studio is beyond me. Its pure camped up, earaching **** at its lowest. Lyrics that don't make any sense, terrible backing tracks and songs that seem to be designed just to irritate anyone who listens to them.

Then you've got your "Indie" bands, who all sound exactly the ****ing same as each other, but it seems to be the cool thing to be into this now. Just look at Pete Doherty. He's a ****ing smack head who makes some of the worst music ever (in terms of both musical and lyrical content) yet people are obsessed with him????

Of course then, there are the likes of Cascada. Bland dance music with no soul whatsoever but it seems to sell by the bucketload.

I've never been a fan of music that gets played on the radio, but if I was to pick one single year in which the radio was actually listenable it would be 1993. Back then, songs had melodies that would stick in your head for years to come and music didn't seem as ridiculous as it does today.

The above post may sound bitter, but its just my reflection on what the music of today is like. Do you think we'll ever get a return to quality, or are people now just too stupid and too concerned with the current trend for it to ever change?

Well done Darkjager, you've just described in a couple of paragraphs what I absolutely abhor about the state of music today. And that's pious snobs that are so worried about what other people are listening to rather than getting on with and enjoying their own thing.

I'm sorry but why the hell do you give a sh1t what other people listen to? There is more music about at the moment than their ever was.

I suppose there has always been people like you that seem to be more obsessed with other people are listening to rather than getting on with whatever floats your boat.

Sh1t music (whatever that is? Just cos you don't like it doesn't mean it's sh1t) has always been around but there has always been amazing music available too, sometimes you just need to search for it.

Sometimes my head spins with the thought of the amount of music out there that I'm trying to get through, there isn't enough hours in the day.

DarkJager

Bazmo: I'm not at all obsessed with what other people are listening to, and frankly I couldn't give a ****. The point of my post is not to pick holes in peoples tastes, but a personal opinion on the degradation of the quality of music being released. Make no mistake about it, it has hit rock bottom regardless of what you or anyone else considers to be good music.

Music (even commercial pop music) had a bit of soul and flair to it once. Todays cesspool of talent is all sold on shallow, lifeless songs. Music is a powerful artform and as such, has the potential to make you feel emotions. But on the flipside, it also has the potential to dumb the audience down, particularly the vapid, empty crap that is being played on radio stations every single day of the week.

padi89

BaZmO* wrote:

Well done Darkjager, you've just described in a couple of paragraphs what I absolutely abhor about the state of music today. And that's pious snobs that are so worried about what other people are listening to rather than getting on with and enjoying their own thing.

I'm sorry but why the hell do you give a sh1t what other people listen to? There is more music about at the moment than their ever was.

I suppose there has always been people like you that seem to be more obsessed with other people are listening to rather than getting on with whatever floats your boat.

Sh1t music (whatever that is? Just cos you don't like it doesn't mean it's sh1t) has always been around but there has always been amazing music available too, sometimes you just need to search for it.

Sometimes my head spins with the thought of the amount of music out there that I'm trying to get through, there isn't enough hours in the day.

Well said, couldn't agree more.

BaZmO*

DarkJager wrote:

Bazmo: I'm not at all obsessed with what other people are listening to, and frankly I couldn't give a ****. The point of my post is not to pick holes in peoples tastes, but a personal opinion on the degradation of the quality of music being released.

So you're not worried about what other people listen to, yet you're concerned about what's being played on the radio and what's being released? Is that not a contradiction?

DarkJager wrote:

Make no mistake about it, it has hit rock bottom regardless of what you or anyone else considers to be good music.

I'm sorry but that's just bullsh1t. There is so much good music around at the moment and as myself and other people have said, you just need to look harder for it.

Have you heard of a band called Dimmu Borgir? Probably the greatest band around at the moment making truly original, groundbreaking and aw inspiring music. Don't know how you can say music has hit rock bottom when you've got bands like that doing their stuff.

Music on the radio might have hit rock bottom at the moment (in your opinion) but seriously, who gets their "music to buy" lists from commercial radio?

Music (even commercial pop music) had a bit of soul and flair to it once. Todays cesspool of talent is all sold on shallow, lifeless songs

I think you're looking back at history with rose-tinted glasses.

Music is a powerful artform and as such, has the potential to make you feel emotions. But on the flipside, it also has the potential to dumb the audience down, particularly the vapid, empty crap that is being played on radio stations every single day of the week.

It's the most powerful artform in my opinion. That's why it's important to seek out and find music that inspires you and reach you on a level that the sh1te being played on the radio can't.

Vegeta

BaZmO* wrote:

Have you heard of a band called Dimmu Borgir? Probably the greatest band around at the moment making truly original, groundbreaking and aw inspiring music. Don't know how you can say music has hit rock bottom when you've got bands like that doing their stuff.

But how many times have you heard them on the radio. I have never heard of them for example.

So DarkJagger is correct, 90% of music these days is awful crap and its that 90% that gets the radio air time.

Of course there are good bands out there but they don't get radio or tv time at all.

DarkJager

Yes I've heard of Dimmu Borgir, and its defo some of the most interesting music I've heard in a while. Its excellent. I'm not going to go quote for quote with you Bazmo, I have my opinions and you have yours.

As for criticising others taste, I think the post has been misunderstood. I'll try to explain it better as it seems to be causing some confusion.

The music that is being released currently, has no depth to it. No lyrical depth and no musical depth. It seems all you have do nowadays is get a generic beat for whatever music style you're aiming for, add some lyrics (they don't need to make any sense at all) and you've got a song in the charts. It just seems that people are willing to settle for any old **** nowadays. Artists don't seem to be bothered with pushing the creative envelope anymore, they just go with the sound that their genre is currently putting out. Seems to be "if it sells, then don't change it". Nobody is willing to take risks with their music anymore.

As for the underground music scenes, they are constantly evolving and I totally agree that the best music is found there. These artists aren't worried about money, or number 1 chart positions and as such the music really has a soul to it. They're doing it for the love of the music.

gucci

there will always be crap music, always be cheesy music and always be crap music that was crap 5years ago but someone will put a beat to it and re-release it and it will still be dung.
but there is good music out there, sure its not easily accessed on the surface, but were in the digital age now with myspaces and legal downloading, i personally think its easier now than ever to source and find new and old "good" music to listen to.
there will always be a market for naff pop and dodgy indie while people continue to live celeb/tabloid obsessed consumer driven lifestyles, but its just that a lifestyle thing, it runs much deeper than music. once you develop a taste for a certain blend of music its runs like a continuous education of finding more and more you like, thats whats good about music......plus all you have to do is listen too it, bit easier to learn than history

BaZmO*

Vegeta wrote:

So DarkJagger is correct, 90% of music these days is awful crap and its that 90% that gets the radio air time.

Then why listen to the radio if you don't like what they're playing? I really can't get my head around that.

And how can you say that 90% of music that is released today is crap? Have you listened to 100% of music that has been released?

DarkJager wrote:

I'm not going to go quote for quote with you Bazmo, I have my opinions and you have yours.

I don't particularly want to go quote for quote with you either but hey, that's what happens when you post on a public forum.

DarkJager wrote:

The music that is being released currently, has no depth to it. No lyrical depth and no musical depth. It seems all you have do nowadays is get a generic beat for whatever music style you're aiming for, add some lyrics (they don't need to make any sense at all) and you've got a song in the charts. It just seems that people are willing to settle for any old **** nowadays. Artists don't seem to be bothered with pushing the creative envelope anymore, they just go with the sound that their genre is currently putting out. Seems to be "if it sells, then don't change it".

This music that you're listening to that has no soul, no depth, no originality, where are you listening to it?

Heinrich

Vegeta wrote:

But how many times have you heard them on the radio. I have never heard of them for example.

So DarkJagger is correct, 90% of music these days is awful crap and its that 90% that gets the radio air time.

Of course there are good bands out there but they don't get radio or tv time at all.

When you look at what television is churning out and "enjoying" massive audiences the the music scene today is understandable! Big brother, Celebrity Jigs, Celebrity You're a Star, Rose of Tralee, Eurovision Song Contest etc. are plain rubbish.

As Macartney once said when asked if he would consider writing a song for the Eurovision he came up with "Sorry, but I only write music!"

Look at the long list of absolute talent that was Woodstock...

Blisterman

Being honest, every generation has had a load of crappy forgettable, but yet popular music. The thing, is that the majority of it, has been forgotten, while the good stuff has survived.

That's why it seems music from the 60's and 70's was better.

Karl Hungus

While it doesn't bother me, I do know where Dark Jager's coming from. Pop music today has pretty much hit a new low, considering the Crazy Frog single made it to number one a while back.

But I also agree with Bazmo, because with Dimmu Borgir and Devin Townsend and absolutely thousands more great bands out there creating new music today, that's actually fantastic, I think there's no reason to complain about the state of music in general.

Rozie

You never had to look past the mainstream to find at least some good music, though. This is the first era(post summer 2001, since that's when stuff like Gorillaz and Origin of Symetry was released) since the 50s that has had almost no inventive popular music from new bands in the charts. Anything decent is from older bands, and even then they tend not to be as good as they once were.

Not to mention the "underground" isn't necessarily much better. It's like yesteryear's mainstream music - which means better, but not what you'd except to find outside of the mainstream.
I was recently surprised to find that goth rock hadn't died out and turned into repetitive electro like I thought it had, though.

If you're into Alt Rock, check out some bands like Autumn or Cinema Strange.

It seems Goth Rock and Alternative Rock is getting poised to make a bit of a comeback.

Rozie

Blisterman wrote:

Being honest, every generation has had a load of crappy forgettable, but yet popular music. The thing, is that the majority of it, has been forgotten, while the good stuff has survived.

That's why it seems music from the 60's and 70's was better.

I think it's very easy to fall into that trap, thinking that it only seems like music today is worse.

It's still possible to look, objectively, at the number of good new songs and artists and compare it to our current era, completely ignoring all the rubbish stuff. When you do that, the later part of the 60s and the 70s do certainly come out on top.

BaZmO*

Rozie wrote:

It's still possible to look, objectively

And how do you do this?

Rozie

BaZmO* wrote:

And how do you do this?

The very basis of this topic acknowledges a certain form of objectivity. If you don't agree with that, then maybe it's not the best topic for you.

Malice

Blisterman wrote:

Being honest, every generation has had a load of crappy forgettable, but yet popular music. The thing, is that the majority of it, has been forgotten, while the good stuff has survived.

That's why it seems music from the 60's and 70's was better.

This is very true! Someone made the point in another thread that we don't remember the hair metal from the 80s, we remember Metallica, Megadeth, Testament etc. The hair metal may have been top of the charts but the good music stood the test of time!
I find myself that the Internet has been fantastic for picking up music that I would never have been exposed to otherwise. Recently I ordered some CDs that contained (amongst others) bands from Germany, USA, Sweden, Switzerland and England. I'm also listening to two Polish bands at the moment. I've no idea what the lyrics are about but the music is great None of the bands in question have been anywhere near the music charts or music television but to varying degrees they all strike a chord with me (pardon the pun).
I rarely watch music television or listen to the radio simply because I dislike having the choice of what to listen to or watch. I have no idea what Mika, Cascada, Tiesto or Pete Doherty sound like. I have however been exposed to the genius of both Dimmu Borgir and Devon Townsend (cheers Karl!)

projectmayhem

Sean_K wrote:

Quite recently I have discovered dance music and there really is some amazing stuff, if you sift through the likes of tiesto.

i'm the same. listening to the likes of radio soulwax and so on makes me wonder how tiesto and the other drivel out there manages to be popular at all.

Karl Hungus wrote:

I suppose not everyone realises what a genius Devin Townsend is. Or for that matter, has ever even heard of him.

i know some big fans of metal and rock generally and they've never heard of him. i rectified that problem though. i don't even think it's his musical talent that's special, it's his hair.

BaZmO*

Rozie wrote:

The very basis of this topic acknowledges a certain form of objectivity. If you don't agree with that, then maybe it's not the best topic for you.

That's bullsh1t, music and all arts are subjective. Do you honestly think that you're gonna get a debate about music where the people involved are going to be objective?

The only way you can be totally objective to music is to base your judgments on facts and the only facts would be sales. But if you do do that, well then in the context of the original argument the music being released today, especially in the pop charts in far superior to anything alternative, which is nonsense.

At the end of the day what constitutes as good music, or bad music for that matter, is a totally personal thing. If you don't like an artist's work well then you don't hang one of his paintings in your hall, so therefore if you don't like what's being played on the radio put a CD on that you do like. Simple as.

JJ

Thumped.com had a great article on there a while back called something along the lines of "Why Popular Music is **** and **** Music is Popular". It was an article to end all articles but I can't seem to find it now.

Dudess

Sean_K wrote:

I think you're getting old!

Then I must have started getting old in 1991 because the last time there was decent music in the charts, in my opinion, was 1990 - when I was 12. I think I know what DarkJager means - chart/pop wasn't always sh*t. I was watching a thing on VH1 two years ago - every number one from 1980 to 2005. In the early eighties there was stuff of an unbelievably high calibre in the top ten/five - people such as Blondie, The Specials, Madness, Dexy's Midnight Runners, The Jam. Up to 1990 there was plenty of crap but there were regular gems in the charts too (not indie getting into the top ten - just good pop music). That stopped in the early 90s. I'd disagree with DarkJager on 1993 - it got bad earlier. It got really bad in 1996 when there was the likes of OMC (How Bizarre), Deep Blue Something (Breakfast At Tiffany's), Fool's Garden (Lemon Tree), Macarena etc. Bleak. And yeah, Mika is SH1TE!

mike65

Speaking as an Elder Lemon there was plenty of tosh in the charts back in the 70s and 80s but now it sounds quite good.

Except Stars on 45 of course, but thats Dutch so one might'nt expect any better.

I hav'nt been a close observer of 'pop music' for nearly 20 years so I can't say if the % of sh-i-te is greater or lesser than in 1987 but its a given that 90% of everything is rubbish.

Mike.

lordgoat

mike65 wrote:

Speaking as an Elder Lemon there was plenty of tosh in the charts back in the 70s and 80s but now it sounds quite good.

Except Stars on 45 of course, but thats Dutch so one might'nt expect any better.

I hav'nt been a close observer of 'pop music' for nearly 20 years so I can't say if the % of sh-i-te is greater or lesser than in 1987 but its a given that 90% of everything is rubbish.

Mike.

A second lemon here and i agree with the above. There is great music being made today like there always has been and the reverse of this is also true. There's always going to be **** music. And people will always listen to it.

Karl Hungus

projectmayhem wrote:

i know some big fans of metal and rock generally and they've never heard of him. i rectified that problem though. i don't even think it's his musical talent that's special, it's his hair.

Maybe his hair is the source of his talent?

Honestly though, I don't think there's many people out there as talented as he is, and he's got his fingers in so many pies.

Have you heard any of his Electronic ambient stuff? Because I haven't gotten around to getting any of that yet. I only recently completed my Strapping Young Lad discography.

Karl Hungus

malice_ wrote:

This is very true! Someone made the point in another thread that we don't remember the hair metal from the 80s, we remember Metallica, Megadeth, Testament etc. The hair metal may have been top of the charts but the good music stood the test of time!

Yep, that was me, in this thread.

malice_ wrote:

I have however been exposed to the genius of both Dimmu Borgir and Devon Townsend (cheers Karl!)

Devin!

But seriously, no problem at all. I'm always of the opinion that there's just phenominal music out there, and as I've said in the other thread, it's not even that hard to find it. Anyway, I always like helping people discover some more interesting stuff.

What do you make of Pain Of Salvation anywho?

Malice

Karl Hungus wrote:

I'm always of the opinion that there's just phenomenal music out there, and as I've said in the other thread, it's not even that hard to find it. Anyway, I always like helping people discover some more interesting stuff.

Sorry, I had to do it

Karl Hungus wrote:

What do you make of Pain Of Salvation anywho?

They are highly talented musicians that produce very intricate and interesting songs. They can be a little heavy going in places but they are well worth a listen. I would recommend them to anyone that's interested in non pop music. They're not quite metal, they're not quite rock. In fact some of their pieces are very ambient and they even do some folksy numbers. You should start pushing them as heavily as Dimmu Borgir on this board.

Executive Steve

what are you people on??? fm radio / music video pop music is in a better state than ever i think.

granted i rarely listen to it, and when i do i analyse the hell out of it, but if you don't think that britney spears "slave 4 u" was more musically and sonically innovative than whichever random guitar pop four piece indie band is sending you myspace friend requests then i honestly don't know what you're looking for in music.

justin timberlake? genius.

timabaland, the neptunes, destiny's child, outkast, gwen stefani...

just because they're not dressed head to toe in black leather singing about the desecration of the frozen north doesn't mean they're not pushing the envelopes...

Malice

[cm]tyranny wrote:

justin timberlake? genius.

You were doing so well up to this point

Executive Steve

i dunno - the thing about pop music is that for all it's supposed disposability it outlasts the "high culture" shibboleths by a comfortable margin...

in the same way a plastic razor in a landfill will probably outlast a ballet dancer.

philstar

the rot set in with SAW

Stock, Aiken and Waterman

Dudess

Yeah, that timing is about right. 1991 was when things really started to stink - Bryan Adams being number one for most of the year, people like Color Me Badd (I Wanna Sex You Up), the dross that is Cher's The Shoop Shoop Song being on the radio over and over and over; blandness taking over the airwaves - people like Marc Cohn (Walking in Memphis), Amy Grant (Baby, Baby), Oleta Adams (Get Here).
Only the previous year there were pop classics like Adamski's Killer, Deee-Lite's Groove is in the Heart, Beats International's Dub Be Good To Me.

mike65

Deee-Lite's Groove is in the Heart

I should'nt like it but I do Mind you as its 1968 re-cycled...!

I was flicking through the music cluster on NTL and something struck me rather forcefully - people have given up the tricky business of actualy singing. It really is just a shout now, even when the mood is meant to be slower and quieter its still a forced vocal styling thats used. Screech is a better term for much of it.

It seems melody is the enemy of populist music.

Mike.

Steez

The music in the charts is the music that the majority of people buy/listen to. Unfortunately the majority of people are idiots so it's usually terrible.

Look deeper and you shall find what you seek.

BaZmO*

Steez wrote:

The music in the charts is the music that the majority of people buy/listen to.

That might have been the case over 10 years ago but it's not the case anymore. It takes a ridiculously small amount of sales to get into the charts nowadays.

Rozie

BaZmO* wrote:

That's bullsh1t, music and all arts are subjective. Do you honestly think that you're gonna get a debate about music where the people involved are going to be objective?

The only way you can be totally objective to music is to base your judgments on facts and the only facts would be sales. But if you do do that, well then in the context of the original argument the music being released today, especially in the pop charts in far superior to anything alternative, which is nonsense.

At the end of the day what constitutes as good music, or bad music for that matter, is a totally personal thing. If you don't like an artist's work well then you don't hang one of his paintings in your hall, so therefore if you don't like what's being played on the radio put a CD on that you do like. Simple as.

So what you're saying is; that STEPS are on equal merit with Led Zepplin. It's all down to what people like, there's no objective merit to either one's talent.

Uh-huh.

BaZmO*

Rozie wrote:

So what you're saying is; that STEPS are on equal merit with Led Zepplin.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Rozie

BaZmO* wrote:

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Absolutely. What you are saying is that music is entirely what someone likes - therefore, as I said, Steps is on equal merit to Led Zepplin. Because only taste matters. What you're saying is that there's nothing, in any capacity, that makes Led Zepplin in any way better than STEPS. One simply cannot be be more talented than the other. You are, in otherwords, forcing equality between them to fit your simplistic way of viewing things.

Yet you yourself find it hard to stray away fully by stating that it's "ridiculous" that somehing in the Pop charts could be better than something alternative, showing how weak the relativist position is, despite it's insane popularity(which is due to to fact that any dumb **** can think in relative terms as it requires no reasoning or measure, no offense).

Relativism is an even simpler way of thinking than black or white - as there is no black, no white, only grey. You don't have to know or care what's good or bad, right or wrong.

It is a very simple way of thinking and those who uphold it cannot understand why it would not be correct. And it is not a correct way of thinking. There is a subjective element in the same way that anyone can like Apples despite there being no real creative merit in those. But that doesn't change the fact that some people are simply more talented and some songs simply inherently more engaging before the current hype of the times kicks in.

Karl Hungus

Yeah Bazmo! Didn't we already quantify that Dimmu Borgir are the greatest band in the world in that other thread, so of course we can be objective about it!

Rozie

Karl Hungus wrote:

Yeah Bazmo! Didn't we already quantify that Dimmu Borgir are the greatest band in the world in that other thread, so of course we can be objective about it!

I used up quite a bit of my 3 Bandwidth downloading their stuff(I have to try multiple threads in DC to make sure it works), so it better not be **** when I try it.

r3nu4l

BaZmO* wrote:

The only way you can be totally objective to music is to base your judgments on facts and the only facts would be sales.

I totally agree that tastes in music are subjective but it is possible to quantify good music based on something other than sales. Mathematics!

Maths is completely objective (unless you're a statistician :rolleyes:) and has been used to determine the musical quality of various pieces of classical music. I'm sure that maths can be applied to all types of music and that the results, while totally objective, would probably surprise everybody. After all a piece that is composed of excellent 'quality' may not sound 'good' to everybody. This is where the subjective element comes into it.

Can we say that what the masses choose to buy is good music? No. We can say that what the masses choose to buy is good marketing, not necessarily good music. On occassion, we do get good music and it is recognised by sales but sadly not very often today!

Rozie

r3nu4l wrote:

I totally agree that tastes in music are subjective but it is possible to quantify good music based on something other than sales. Mathematics!

Maths is completely objective (unless you're a statistician :rolleyes:) and has been used to determine the musical quality of various pieces of classical music. I'm sure that maths can be applied to all types of music and that the results, while totally objective, would probably surprise everybody. After all a piece that is composed of excellent 'quality' may not sound 'good' to everybody. This is where the subjective element comes into it.

Can we say that what the masses choose to buy is good music? No. We can say that what the masses choose to buy is good marketing, not necessarily good music. On occassion, we do get good music and it is recognised by sales but sadly not very often today!

This is pretty much my view too. But I believe in using a more kind of "fuzzy logic" in determining objective quality, as maths only tends to derive chord theory/progressions, etc.(though it's important to note that Bazmo's position of "No objective measure" is defeated alone by this, as it is at least some small objective measure).

Tonal quality is important, too. Some songs will never send shivers down your spine. Others will. Not all songs have to, but it's certainly one good way of having a "good" song.