This argument always amuses me because its always ends as being moot due to the fact that neither side can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their point is anything but subjective.
Its similar to the arguments I was part of during art critiques in college. One artist would argue about their work; its relevance and significance...blah blah blah...another one would argue against it for whatever reason they wanted to hang their hat on that particular day, and the battle would range on for hours. Sometimes I think that they just loved to argue for the sake of arguing. In the end they were BOTH right and they were BOTH wrong.
Why?
Because the artists' intent and subsequent opinions of their work is just as relevant and significant as the viewer's reaction to it and his/her opinions. If it were a one way street then it wouldn't be "ART". It would be science or something.
Thats the ultimate problem with the music arguement that you guys are having....Its NOT a science. Its NOT quantifyable by numbers. Its not able to be proven through the Scientific Method or any other process that helps prove theories and make the law. So why do people argue about it in that way?
That being said,
NO...total album sales do not automatically equate to success or proclaim that said band is great and totally awesome. Neither do millions and millions of diehard fans, the adoration of music critics, or the opinions of a couple of producers that happen to work for the band.
But don't you think we should at least take that into consideration? I mean c'mon....50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong!
Interesting thought.
