Favorite band vs best band

[ehra]

Most of the times I've seen a discussion about "best *" or "favorite *" on here, it seems eventually someone tries to make a distinction between, say, the "best musician" and someone's "favorite musician." I remember this coming up particularly in a "who's the best vocalist?" thread. Someone would mention a person who doesn't have particularly noteworthy range then someone goes "lul, some people are posting their favorite singer instead of the best." Then a discussion starts about why that person couldn't be someone's "best" vocalist, then you get an answer like "they don't have the range!" Then you ask them what if someone doesn't care so much about the technical aspects and why they should be "necessary" when talking about the best singer, yet it's generally agreed that calling someone out for saying a technically simple song is the "best song" would be pretty ridiculous. Then you get an answer like "of course technicality isn't necessary, but it should be a consideration" (or something, that thread was awhile ago).

This showed up in the movie thread as well (or some thread about movies, can't remember which). Is there really any difference between someone's favorite movie and what they say is the best movie? Everyone seems to agree that different people have a different criteria for what might be the "best movie," so is any distinction between favorite and best necessary?

--------

While I'm making a thread I guess I might as well bring up something else I'm talking about. Say we're talking about the "best guitarists evar" and someone brings up Kurt Cobain. Ignoring the initial rage for a moment, what reasons exactly might someone feel Cobain is the best guitarist ever? The answer I hear the most is because he wrote some of the greatest songs and solos ever or whatever, but what exactly does that have to do with his guitar playing? Wouldn't that make him the greatest song writer ever? Is anything about his actual guitar playing noteworthy in any way? Is it just semantics? Is there any point in a distinction between someone's ability to write great, hooky guitar lines and someone's ability to actually play the guitar?


edit: Just want to be clear that when I talk about someone's "ability to play the guitar" I'm also talking about how well they're able to express emotion through their playing, not pure technicality.

[Zantera]

For me the best band is also my favorite band, however the lines become less clear when it comes to albums or songs.

[ehra]

however the lines become less clear when it comes to albums or songs.

What would you say is the difference between an album being your favorite and an album being "the best?"

[Portrucci]

This is a good discussion topic and I hope there are many posts.

I for one don't consider my favourite artist the best artist. My favourite artist is Neu!, a 70s german rock band. And while they were quite good at their instruments and even better at making increibly dark music that wasn't too serious, they certainly weren't the best artist. This is where one has to seperate ones own preferences, for a set of objective preferences (which will ineviably be subjective, but still different from a favourite). so maybe I'd say the best artist I listen to is Steven wilson. in alll his forms. Naturally he is high on my list of prefered artist, but not top. and the difference between top and best is the difference between our subjective preferences and our objective approahc towards music, which isn't factual, but also isnt completely biased

I am drunk, take what i say  with a grain of salt

[King Postwhore]

I think a great example you bring up erha is U2.  Not technical like most bands but they have a knack of writing great songs.  Are they the best musicians?  No.  But the Edge is unique & I love the way Bono sings and mabye that's what draws me to U2.  I think it's all about perspective and your own tastes.

I've never liked Nirvana.  A few songs a damn catchy and I understand why people gavitated towards them. Just not my cup of tea.

[ehra]

This is where one has to seperate ones own preferences, for a set of objective preferences (which will ineviably be subjective, but still different from a favourite).

I get what you're saying. I remember a post Reapsta made in the movie thread where he said that preferences may be subjective but that there are certain more objective measurements you can judge a movie by, such as actor performance for example. The subjectivity in this case comes from how well you feel the movie compares to those objective measures, which is why you may see people arguing over if, say, 2001 or Citizen Kane are the best movies.

But then you have to deal with the "problem" of how important each person thinks any of those individual measurements really are. As long as it doesn't detract from their enjoyment of the movie, should anyone really be obliged to rate a movie based on, say, it's cinematography?

But ignoring that for a moment, what objective measurements should a musician, band, or song be judged by?

[skydivingninja]

If I have a favorite  band, I'm gong to consider them the best.  Rush is the best band in the world.  They are also my favorite band.  Porcupine Tree is better than all modern prog acts that aren't PT.  They are my second favorite band.  I think we have favorite bands in the first place because we think their music is better than all the other music out there.  They just go hand in hand.  Of course, its all subjective, but hey.

[Fluffy Lothario]

I find that, for example, when asked who are the best bands in the world, people will just say their favourite bands a lot of the time, perhaps most of the time. But then some people do note the difference in meaning between the two words. So unless you want to analyse the shit out of every subtle nuance in what someone says every time they use the word 'favourite' to see if they really mean favourite or they actually mean best, and vice versa, it's easier to just assume that if someone says one of the two words, they simultaneously mean the other as well. Sure, you're going to be wrong some of the time, but personally, I don't have the time of day, and it's only very rarely that the nature or depth of the discussion is actually going to cause your assumption to come into question. I can only recall it ever happening to me once in my life.

[ehra]

But then some people do note the difference in meaning between the two words.

Yes, and what I'm wondering is what the difference between them means when it comes to art.

[MykeHavoc]

Yeah, best usually implies a level of technicality. I might describe DT as the "best" band, where as my personal favorite simply reflects of the catalog that I enjoy listening to the most at the moment. I'm not even sure who that is right now. My all time classic seems to be Maiden or Priest, but I've been listening to an awful lot of Nevermore and Kamelot lately. So...I don't know actually.

[AwakeFromOctavarium]

For me, best is overall musicality considering not only my perspective but the universal view (excluding the mainstream point of view of music) as well. So I'd say BE is the best album I know, and the best band has to be Opeth.

[MetalManiac666]

I would say that there's a small difference between "best" and "favorite."  And just because one band is more technical than the other doesn't make them the "better" of the two.  Skills like songwriting must come into play when trying to objectively determine which band is the "best."

[Marvellous G]

My favourite band is Tool, but the best band is probably The Beatles, or anything Miles Davis did.

[zxlkho]

I would say that there's a small difference between "best" and "favorite."  And just because one band is more technical than the other doesn't make them the "better" of the two.  Skills like songwriting must come into play when trying to objectively determine which band is the "best."

Songwriting skill is almost completely subjective, though.

[The Awesome]

There cannot be "best" when discussing art, because art is not competitive. Whether a person wants to call a band a favorite or the best, it's just a different way of saying they appreciate that artist for one reason or another. The only tangible data to work with in comparing artists is commercial success. Someone could make a valid argument that Katy Perry is the best current musician because she has reached the widest audience with her art as shown by her spot at the top of the charts. At least that argument has data to support it. I can say I think Paul Gilbert is the best guitar player, but there is absolutely nothing I can do to prove that, and a person claiming he sucks would have just as valid of a position. People that try to make a distinction between favorite and best are just subcategorizing their preferences by putting more emphasis on things like perceived technical ability or evolutionary accomplishment than enjoyment of the music itself. It's still all 100% subjective.

[glaurung]

There cannot be "best" when discussing art, because art is not competitive.

Yes, there can. Because we're talking about opinions here. It's not like anyone is trying to definitively say that their favorite band is better.

[Adami]

There cannot be "best" when discussing art, because art is not competitive.

Yes, there can. Because we're talking about opinions here. It's not like anyone is trying to definitively say that their favorite band is better.

Some people are.

[Pyroph]

Yeah that irked me when it came up in the movie thread. You look pretty pretentious when you say something like "Well these are my favorite movies, my list of best movies would be different." It really looks that you're just liking the movies that way because they're universally praised.


There's a lot more than just technicality in music, so I would assume that someone's favorite band is because what they consider the "best" quality in music is in that artist for them.

[Sigz]

There's no distinction/ My favorite band is the best band, IMHO if it really makes people feel better.

[Adami]

Yeah that irked me when it came up in the movie thread. You look pretty pretentious when you say something like "Well these are my favorite movies, my list of best movies would be different." It really looks that you're just liking the movies that way because they're universally praised.


There's a lot more than just technicality in music, so I would assume that someone's favorite band is because what they consider the "best" quality in music is in that artist for them.

Well with movies, I can see which is a better movie and which I just enjoy more. For instance, I know Godfather Two and Raging Bull are great movies, but I can't watch them every day, they're just too much to see to often for me. However I can watch Mallrats or something everyday and enjoy it, yet I know it's not a better movie.

[glaurung]

There's no distinction/ My favorite band is the best band, IMHO if it really makes people feel better.

[ariich]

From a purely technical standpoint certain objective comparisons can be made between musicians and bands. But beyond that, and especially when it comes to quality, 'best' is subjective and so no different from 'favourite'.

[lonestar]

I have the good fortune that my favorite band, Yes, is arguably one of the best technical bands there is, as most people on these boards would agree.

[Arcaeus]

Pain of Salvation is my favorite band. I consider them the most musically diverse, emotional, and experimental modern progressive metal band (if you could even call them that anymore). But do I consider them the greatest band of all time? Hell no.

From a purely technical standpoint certain objective comparisons can be made between musicians and bands. But beyond that, and especially when it comes to quality, 'best' is subjective and so no different from 'favourite'.

Also, this.

Though I don't give a flying fuck about technicality in music.

[skydivingninja]

The word "best" has no place if you're trying to actually make an objective list of the "best" artists or trying to discuss the "best" artists.  Its just going to come down to your favorites anyway, which is kind of like what arriich said already.

[MetalManiac666]

There's no distinction/ My favorite band is the best band, IMHO if it really makes people feel better.

I would say that there's a small difference between "best" and "favorite."  And just because one band is more technical than the other doesn't make them the "better" of the two.  Skills like songwriting must come into play when trying to objectively determine which band is the "best."

Songwriting skill is almost completely subjective, though.

To a certain extent.  Would you say that a band who just noodles around for a whole song (in b4 DT) has better songwriting abilities than a band that actually pays attention to writing a concise song that doesn't waste a note?  Of course not.

EDIT: To add another thing, the only time I would really pay attention to the differences between "best" and "favorite" is if a publication is making a top list of artists for a mass audience.  In that case, it's almost impossible to take into account favorites, as you have to be objective as possible.

[ariich]

Pain of Salvation is my favorite band. ... But do I consider them the greatest band of all time? Hell no.

This makes no sense. Especially as you then go on to agree with me where I say that statements like this make no sense.

Would you say that a band who just noodles around for a whole song (in b4 DT) has better songwriting abilities than a band that actually pays attention to writing a concise song that doesn't waste a note?  Of course not.

Why "of course not"? It would depend on a lot of things. The type of song and what it's aim is. Who the musicians are. What the listener wants to get out of it. "Songwriting ability" is pretty much impossible to properly define and, once again, comes down to personal preference.

[Arcaeus]

Pain of Salvation is my favorite band. ... But do I consider them the greatest band of all time? Hell no.

This makes no sense. Especially as you then go on to agree with me where I say that statements like this make no sense.

My mind blocked out the last six words of your post for some odd reason.

But yeah, Pain of Salvation is my favorite band -- but do I find them the best songwriters? No. Do I find them the most influential, experimental and innovative band? No. Do I find Daniel Gildenlöw the best vocalist, or find the band the best when it comes to instrumental technicality? No. But I love their sound, and enjoy the music they make more so than any other band.

[Portrucci]

I agree with Arcaeus here. My favourite band aren't my favourite band because they are the 'best band' I could find. They are my favourite because they are the source of the most aural pleasure than any other music. This is not really a criteria, just an actual emotional reaction you get from certain sounds entering your ear. This surely then is a different approach than evaluating song-writing, influence, creativity etc. Even though those criteria will be biased, the fact that they differ significantly from my 'favourite' criteria (or lack thereof) means that they are two separate concepts. For me anyway.

[Arcaeus]

Yes, that was an intelligible, detailed and eloquent way of stating what I was trying to say.

[Sigz]

I really don't see how you can separate the two without entering completely pointless territory. What's the point of a band being 'best' if you don't enjoy them as much as others?

[Portrucci]

I really don't see how you can separate the two without entering completely pointless territory. What's the point of a band being 'best' if you don't enjoy them as much as others?

It is pointless, I've give you that. And I nearly never bother making the distinction. I greatly enjoy the artists I consider 'best', but for all their superb attributes, the thing that actually moves me, ie, emotional reaction, isn't as strong in those artists as in others. This doesn't then mean that they are not the 'best'. They are just not perfect.

[ariich]

I really don't see how you can separate the two without entering completely pointless territory. What's the point of a band being 'best' if you don't enjoy them as much as others?

THAT.

Seriously, what does "best" even mean to you guys in that case? Because you both reeled off a list of completely random criteria that 1) still say nothing about the quality of the musical output to the listener, 2) have nothing to do with each other, and 3) are mostly entirely subjective anyway ('songwriting', 'creativity', etc).

[Portrucci]

I really don't see how you can separate the two without entering completely pointless territory. What's the point of a band being 'best' if you don't enjoy them as much as others?

THAT.

Seriously, what does "best" even mean to you guys in that case? Because you both reeled off a list of completely random criteria that 1) still say nothing about the quality of the musical output to the listener, 2) have nothing to do with each other, and 3) are mostly entirely subjective anyway ('songwriting', 'creativity', etc).

Quality is so completely subjective there is no point using that as a criteria. But it was implied that a bands music would be of high quality if it met all the other criteria. Have nothing to do with each other? They all relate to the band and it's members and their approach to music. I don't really see how they have nothing to do with each other. And like I have said a few times already, yes the ('songwriting', 'creativity', etc). stuff IS SUBJECTIVE. but that doesn't mean that it can't be a different criteria than that of a favourite band. Even if you judge favourite completely irrationally, that point is, some people can make the distinction. No it's not particular useful or necessary. But I don't see how you can argue the distinction doesn't exist when clearly it's present in others. It's all rather individual at the end of the day, and the fact is, I make the distinction just fine in my own mind, and it doesn't really matter that others can't or don't want to.

[Marvellous G]

I'm with Portucci, I can fairly easily see the flaws in my favourite music, but more often than not those flaws I might point out as a critic or something are the things that actually endear the music to me more. Whereas what I personally view as the 'best' music, has none of these flaws whatsoever and is still enjoyable, but perhaps not quite as much to me personally. For instance, Tool's pretension. I love it, but I can see why it's offputting and could be seen as a bad thing. I can make the distinction in my heard fairly easily between something I love that is flawed and something I listen to that isn't, although I suppose there's still an element of subjectivity to the latter anyway.