To be honest, this title has been a ripoff of a thread I found on another forum over the net.
Anyway... the interesting thing about that thread was the total inclination for the subjectiveness in music only, and basically the conclusion was that in the end the listener is the one who decides if he likes it or not, and there is no way to prove him wrong.
So the question is:
Is there a way to prove that x artist is better than y artist? Or it just depends on the perspective of each listener?

Thoughts?

it's the same method as proving any ideology as being superior to another. you have to establish accepted definitions of all the terms argued prior to presenting your argument for superiority.

the first thing you would have to do to objectively prove that one artist is better than another is provide a publically accepted definition of art.

Yeah, and good luck with that.

However, I think that the line between good and better is far more blurred than it is between good and bad.

For example, anyone here hearing me play guitar will undoubtedly say that I'm bad at it and certainly worse than Eric Clapton. Now throw Clapton against Pagey and you'll have a 'who's better' debate on your hands.

Also, though, the line between famous and good is pretty obscure to say the least.

If you take Eric Clapton and throw him into a discussion pitting him against Peter Green, some may suggest Clapton is better simply due to his greater fame and the whole "Clapton is God" thing (thoughbeit that was forty years ago) without really knowing Green's catalogue. Personally, I've never bought into the whole 50,000,000 people can't be wrong thing. If I don't dig it, 50,000,000 people won't convince me otherwise. 50,000,000 dollars now on the otherhand...

Right now I'm listening to Ronnie Lane and if you don't dig it that's fine, as long as you don't dig it well.

There's always some subjectiveness going on no matter how well-defined something is. Look at all the accolades the Beach Boys get. People with whom I generally agree on most things talk about them very highly. Me, I can't stand them and it's definitely not for lack of trying. LOL

at this point in my development i really don't see the point in trying to prove one thing as being superior to another. in the original example my question wouldn't be, why is X better than Y? but instead, why do you feel compelled to change my views?

like absolutely anything else, the intent of an individual's actions is completely irrelevant to the actual action until it is judged by others affected by that action. because again, just like art, right and wrong are defined by the individual and based upon their own perspectives framed within the society and culture they exist within. so while it's possible to force individuals to act and respond in the way you like through mental manipulation of their own insecurities, to believe there is a quantifiable way to prove that one view is superior to the other seems foolish.

that's not to say education or the dropping of knowledge won't expand an individual's perspective to better appreciate the original opinions presented though.

for example, while most people would agree that john coltrane is far superior to kenny g someone with very little knowledge on the topic might disagree. to simply spout of a list stats is not going to accomplish anything. while they might provide lip service to avoid an argument, nothing short of open and honest education will help that individual truly recognize the true differences between those two.

There are objective aspects to music (volume, pitch, retrograde, inversion).

As far as the qualitative aspect goes, you cannot prove that Bach is "better" than Bon Jovi.