I was going to say something but I realised it was probably nonsense. I agree that the two things are two different discussions that people often think are interchangeable which is understandable because there is obviously a great deal of overlap.

I suppose it could be argued that it is an advantage or even a requirement to be a learned music person to some degree to discuss 'the best' whereas 'favourite' is obviously pure opinion and you ultimately can't argue with someones opinion outside of presenting your own opinion. In summary, 'favourite' is totally subjective whereas there is a certain amount of objectivity in picking 'the best'.

Personally, I find I am less willing to offer my opinion on what is 'the best' as I am my 'favourite'.

Sorry if this all seems a bit obvious but there it is.

I like this...

Since music is such a subjective subject, I'm going to retract my "kinda" that I had placed in front of "bullshit" in my previous post.

I think there's been an idea placed in our heads through years of absorbing music journalism that there is an objective idea of "good" music. There's music we think that we're supposed to like because it's been recognized as "good", and we're supposed to like/own the "best" albums, but who is that for? If it's not something you're going to regard as something YOU like, then what's the fuckin' point?

Y'all can go ahead and engage in pretentious convo... I'll be rocking out.

well no, i never said "what other people tell you is the best album acording to every rolling stone list", that's too boring a topic, I am saying that some people of their own accord can separate what they think is a solid classic and not be told it's a classic

Washing Machine and A Thousand Leaves are the best example from Sonic Youth i can think of, A Thousand Leaves is more solid song for song and doesn't has a song that drops off like No Queen Blues, but i find Washing Machine more enjoyable due to it's shimmery southern sound

trust me, if you have seen the top 200 list that the rock and roll hall of fame put out, i call bullshit right there, it's was a ploy based on marketability and selling a stagnant back catalog to save the major labels from their downward fall (no fucking way is 'Get Rich or Die Trying' a top 200 album, not even in the hip hop community either), but people are able to discern what they think is the best with no outside influence

What you say is true Panto but then if I was to try and think for myself what I thought was the 'best' album then I would be applying criteria which, to be honest, is probably learnt largely from music journalism. Sure, if you understand that what music journos is to be taken with a pinch of salt then you can be less 'influenced' but ultimately we are all coloured by our own circumstances ie, 90% of people on this board, myself included, are approacing music from a western perspective and all the baggage (music theory stuff which I'm sure Noumenal or Glice or someone could elaborate on) that entails...no matter how many Gamelan records we own.

Yes, those lists are useless and you'd expect even the walls to have realized that, by now. It's the same fucking BeachBeatlesRoses drone, and they are generally compiled by deaf music journalists who still haven't understood that music moves on, even if its pace seems slow. Also, those same journalists and their ignorant general public seem to understand good music only if it happens with some sort of movement that embraces fashion, aesthetics, or some drugs. That's true or was true for some years, but the times change, and wether we like it or not, it's a different matter altogether. Tell that to AlanfuckingMcGee or people of that ilk, who seem to forcedly make themselves think that you just need some drug addict on the rampage, in order to see punk (yawn) coming back to life.

Edit- panto

it is very symbiotic indeed Iain, i guess it can't be helped where we first learn of music journalism, but as we have listen to new musical styles, other writing styles do emerge aren't as critical as they are conducive to the proliferation of "the new scene"

I mean look at the NME, dear fuck have they lost their way, they have become a newsstand billboard, you could almost see them on a Neon sign in Piccadilly

A favourite record by a band can quite easily not their best record, as so many personal factors come into play. If you associate a record with a particularly meaningful event in your life, it will have a resonance that a better record may not.

^Kroppy - It's hard to tell, but my constant impression of the British Music press is more negative then American press, I not even sure if it's even true, but it seems that way, I guess i get thrown for loop when i saw a magazine in the doctor's office yesterday that had a full page ad for the Pitchfork Festival in it highlighting Cat Power, it's always something

^Nefeli - this is something i can't even fathom right now, but i am thinking they would say no to the question, i think if they think negatively of some of their output too much they will discount the good in it

Don't get me wrong
Try gettin me right
Your Face is okay
But your purse is too tight

i'm calling bullshit on you, you're trying to mask your willfull ignorance and solipsism with some sort of true spirit of rock crap.

What's wrong with solipsism?

...and since there isn't anything wrong with it, why the fuck am I asking you?

I"m not sure where the following fits in exactly, but I have a feeling it does. Somewhere.

Scottish philosopher David Hume talked about the "delicacy of taste." What he meant was that the more of, say, music one listens to, the better refined their taste will be.

Alright, let's use food as an example. If you've only eaten McDonald's your entire life and suddenly someone puts a great Indian dish in front of you, you'd be bewildered. You wouldn't be able to make sense of what your taste buds would be sending to your brain. On the other hand, an Indian cousine expert (someone who's eaten a lot of it) can better judge the same dish-- can detect the amount of curry, say, and determine if the cook has used too much or too little or just enough. The expert can pull apart the flavors and see how they combine to create the overall flavor.

This has been true of my own experience. Records or films or books I didn't like in my youth, I may return to and now "get." Why? Because inbetween I have absorbed 10,000 records, films and books.

Here's a problem: why does somelike, say, Cameron Crowe, who's listened to a ton of records, have such shitty taste? (He married someone from Heart for fuck's sake :)) You can find any number of critics who, one would assume, have heard/seen/read a lot, and still have terrible terrible taste. So maybe Hume's wrong, or only right some of the time, or maybe some people are just freaks.

favorites can have such a variety of emotional associations, of place time, and company, while best is more of an intellectual designation.

WALK AMONG US may be judged by many Misfits fans as their best but my favorite is EARTH AD

However, I personally find it hard to not have the two be the same


to ME, my favorite albums by anyone are the ones I consider their best.

this secretary, redhead, with freckles all cute on her big soft titties keeps bending over at the copier and giving me an eyeful oh man, I cannot take it.

hmm

i always think that... i recognize "holy mountain" is the technically better film and the one i'd reccomend more, but i prefer "el topo"...

i like "ice cream for crow" better than any other beefheart, but i say check out "trout mask replica"...

so yeah.

I'm with you on the Jodorowsky^

The Holy Mountain may have a lot going for it visually, and there are some very exciting ideas running throughout... but it's not a film I'd ever go out of my way to see again.

El Topo on the other hand is just a good ol' time. Even if it's not as "accomplished" as Holy Mountain.

led zeppelin are one of the best rock bands of all time.
but they are far from my favorite.

better example
the beatles are not my favorite band, but they are one of the best.

another one.
the velvet underground are the best band of all time.
but they are only like my third favorite.

there is definatly a difference between best and favorite. one has to differentiate between personal preferance, and quality.

Is this topic about My Chemical Romance? Because I know full well they're not the 'best' band. That doesn't stop me from enjoying them to the point of insanity. Avril Lavigne, meanwhile, has the best vocal production in (properly) mainstream music at the moment. It's like a big wall of voice. Bjork comes a close second in vocal production, I might add.

It's a difficult subject for me to talk about - you all have to understand that it causes me a great deal of pain being entirely right all the time. You wouldn't understand, what with rarely being right.

people on this board have a problem with separating favourite with best in my experience.

I agree.

yes. thank you.

favorites have a lot to do with emotional associations, memories, experiences, etc, and not always with "quality".

i can recognize the high quality of many a musical work, but for reasons other than musical they may not hold a place in my musical pantheon.

for the same reason, i own cds of such musical crap as rilo kiley (pre-more adventurous, mind you). i recognize they are crap, but they are crap of such nature as to tickle me, and i like that.

glice makes the same point with the crap bands that he likes, which are crap, but they are among his favorite, for what obscure emotional reasons i will never know, that's between him and his psychiatrist.

"evol" is my favorite sonic youth record. because it is the best? i do not know. but it's my first one, i bought it when dirty was out, bought those 2 actually, but evol left a deeper mark & remains my "favorite" sonic youth album until today, it strikes a profound emotional chord with me. people claim ddn is better, but for whatever reason it doesn't do the same to me, i am more indifferent to it.

anyway it's funny when people pigheadedly refuse to differentiate between concepts. what's so hard about recognizing obvious differences? don't we have dictionaries that explain the nuances of meaning in words?