Do I even need to point out that you've committed a tautology. "If's commercially successful, it is "good"." Good musicians are successful != successful musici

Do I even need to point out that you've committed a tautology. "If's commercially successful, it is "good"." Good musicians are successful != successful musicians are good. Like all tautologies, this isn't a good or bad argument, it isn't an argument at all. If you're trying to make the point that successful musicians are successful then no one can rationally disagree. If you're making the leap to inferring quality from success, then please reread my original post. I wasn't arguing for my 'taste', I was listing a few aspects of objective musical accomplishment. Feel free to substitute your own. Sales isn't one. Even from a (literally) tone deaf, utterly venal perspective modern pop stars don't do well in the musical marketplace. That's why a) charts exclude legacy sales - real sales charts consistently show 'classic' albums outsell new releases and b) charts include merch and other non-musical play / purchase sales. One factoid I often think about is that the first Counting Crows record massively outsold the first Brittany Spears record. Brittany of course, with her t-shirts, dolls etc was a greater source of revenue, and hence massively more highly promoted in the corporate media.