Y'all are sounding like not being "accessible" or "mainstream" is a value unto its own
...
The same goes for being technical, it bears no fixed relevance on how enjoyable the music is either way.
I guess as far as music goes, any opinion you make there will
always be someone able to invalidate it.
Neither of those things was the basis upon which I said what I said.
But if you're gonna talk about "enjoyability" as the standard, well then, Justing Bieber is successful because many people buy his stuff because they enjoy it. So sure, the (artistic, technical, lyrical, etc) content of the music "bears no fixed relevance on how enjoyable the music is", nobody is arguing that. Now far be it from me to seriously judge what people enjoy, but the fact remains:
1) Enjoyability (while there is nothing wrong with it/shouldn't be judged) is no standard itself. Bieber is enjoyed by FAR more than Stravinsky is, but that neither makes Stravinsky any less of a genius than he is nor make Bieber a genius. Implying so would be just as silly as claiming virtuosity causes musical genius.
2) It's not the fact that
good music must be non-mainstream. It's that the majority of people today tend to enjoy stuff that is of inferior musical maturity. Based on that fact, it is natural that I have negative feelings about something that I deem as
leaning toward the generic side or being
targeted to a broader audience -something you are absolutely free to disagree with without having to invalidate my reason behind it (or rather your perception thereof).