basically, when group release good song it will chart well
I have to disagree here. I'd posit that charting is more a function of artist hype than song quality. For example, a crap song by BTS will probably chart better than a great song by a "nugu" group.
Not at all.
music is subjective but if many people listen to it and like it, it will chart high
if many people enjoy it and want to listen to it, you can say the song is objectively good, don't you think?
basically, when group release good songs it charts well, if they don't release good song,they don't chart
no, it just mean the song is popular
I have to disagree here. I'd posit that charting is more a function of artist hype than song quality. For example, a crap song by BTS will probably chart better than a great song by a "nugu" group.
and how does a group get hype?
BTS was once nugu too, they started charting because they had good song. if they release crap song it will get hype at first but it won't chart as well or have longetivity in comparison to their better songs
that's why majority of groups who release hit song, do not continue to have hit songs until the end of career and one hit wonders exist
no, it just mean the song is popular
it's popular because it's good
it's popular because it's good
this is the most view song on youtube
is it good? its depend on ur taste lmao
haha
do you not get the general idea? ofc nugu groups with zero exposure have a hard time to get the song to the public eye/ear
but brave girls is actually a good example. you can say that if the song has qualities and is good it will find a way to shine, even years later. unfortunately, their other songs are not so good so they don't chart so well anymore
Just because a song is popular it doesn't mean it is actually good.
Sometimes, the masses have bad taste 
I'm kidding, I don't believe in objectivity for music. 
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.this is the most view song on youtube
is it good? its depend on ur taste lmao
haha
i don't get what's your point
this song is obv aimed at little kids and little kids love it
if the song that's aimed for kids is popular with kids then isn't it good?
and how does a group get hype?
BTS was once nugu too, they started charting because they had good song.
Again, I have to disagree, since there are major factors outside of song quality that determine hype.
A recent example would be Nmixx. Their debut song O.O was pretty much universally hated, yet there's still a lot of interest and excitement about the group, largely because they're from JYPE and have solid performance skills.
if they release crap song it will get hype at first but it won't chart as well or have longetivity in comparison to their better songs
Right, I agree, if we restrict our discussion to BTS. So basically, your thesis that charting = quality only applies to songs from the same artist.
i don't get what's your point
this song is obv aimed at little kids and little kids love it
if the song that's aimed for kids is popular with kids then isn't it good?
u said it urself the song is aim at little kid, so little kid like the song
doesnt mean that other people like the song too
coz again it depend on ur taste
Just because a song is popular it doesn't mean it is actually good.
but how do songs become popular?
isnt it because there's something good about them?
but how do songs become popular?
isnt it because there's something good about them?
Usually because they get viral and have a catchy hook you can't get out of your head lol that's what I think
you can make some of the laziest compositions but if it's catchy it can become popular. If your definition of good allows for that then go for it. Personally, I prefer songs that sound like they have had some effort put in.
Again, I have to disagree, since there are major factors outside of song quality that determine hype.
A recent example would be Nmixx. Their debut song O.O was pretty much universally hated, yet there's still a lot of interest and excitement about the group, largely because they're from JYPE and have solid performance skills.
Nmixx released crap song and they tanked in charts, how does that not support my claim?
They have hype because they are from big company but unless they release good songs they won't chart
Right, I agree, if we restrict our discussion to BTS. So basically, your thesis that charting = quality only applies to songs from the same artist.
ofc context and circumstances matter
but if it applies on songs from the same artist then why does it not apply in general?
lets say popular and hyped group like BTS will automatically chart from the beginning because a lot of people are interested, but if the song is not good, it won't chart high or stay in chart for a long time and fall off quickly. something like what happened to twice for example.
no theres plenty of meme songs that are bad but are popular
Think about the kind of charting that Rebecca Black's Friday would have gotten if it'd come out after Billboard changed their rules to include YouTube views.
Look at Brave girls, when Rollin and We ride were release nobody cared about the song even if the song was good, and years later it became successfull even if they didn't change anything about the song
same for Laboum "Journey to atlantis" the song flopped in the chart, but made a comeback and charted well last year
a song charting well is in most of the case, thanks to the reputation of the artist or luck
Nmixx released crap song and they tanked in charts, how does that not support my claim?
They have hype because they are from big company but unless they release good songs they won't chart
Ah, but O.O did indeed chart within the top 100, which was, as we both admit, because of the hype they had. A group with the same song from a "nugu" company wouldn't have even done that...
ofc context and circumstances matter
but if it applies on songs from the same artist then why does it not apply in general?
lets say popular and hyped group like BTS will automatically chart from the beginning because a lot of people are interested, but if the song is not good, it won't chart high or stay in chart for a long time and fall off quickly. something like what happened to twice for example.
...So this gets to the larger point that, of course, context matters. And there are quite a few factors that contribute to context that we have to consider, of which song quality is just one facet. Basically, the assertion that charting equates to quality is a bit too simplistic for me given all the other factors at play, unless we restrict our purview to the same artist in a comparable time frame, as in your BTS example.
Regarding Twice, I'm not sure that they would be a good example. After all, we have the case of Signal, which was widely considered their worst title track, yet still hit #1 because of the massive hype Twice had at the time.
Usually because they get viral and have a catchy hook you can't get out of your head lol that's what I think
no it depends on a group's popularity and fandom. Sometimes poor quality songs becomes hit songs if they are catchy.
you can make some of the laziest compositions but if it's catchy it can become popular. If your definition of good allows for that then go for it. Personally, I prefer songs that sound like they have had some effort put in.
i'm not saying every song that charts well is a masterpiece that should be preserved for next generations
but i dont't think catchy songs should be dismissed like that
if there's something catchy about a song and many people enjoy to listen to it repeatedly then wouldnt that make a song objectively a good catchy song?
Sometimes things become popular because they are easily accessible, cheap, or appeal to the lowest possible denominator. See: McDonalds
Display More
Look at Brave girls, when Rollin and We ride were release nobody cared about the song even if the song was good, and years later it became successfull even if they didn't change anything about the song
same for Laboum "Journey to atlantis" the song flopped in the chart, but made a comeback and charted well last year
a song charting well is in most of the case, thanks to the reputation of the artist or luck
ok u have a point
claiming songs that do not chart well cannot be called objectively good is false, especially since not all groups have equal exposure
but i still think it applies the other way around
i'm not saying every song that charts well is a masterpiece that should be preserved for next generations
but i dont't think catchy songs should be dismissed like that
if there's something catchy about a song and many people enjoy to listen to it repeatedly then wouldnt that make a song objectively a good catchy song?
It's because the catchy part is like 10 to 20 second of the whole song. Usually the repetitive chorus.
Ah, but O.O did indeed chart within the top 100, which was, as we both admit, because of the hype they had. A group with the same song from a "nugu" company wouldn't have even done that...
but no one ever said that nmixx is charting well
if anything they are a proof that not even hype from the big company will make you chart well if the song is crap
...So this gets to the larger point that, of course, context matters. And there are quite a few factors that contribute to context that we have to consider, of which song quality is just one facet. Basically, the assertion that charting equates to quality is a bit too simplistic for me given all the other factors at play, unless we restrict our purview to the same artist in a comparable time frame, as in your BTS example.
Regarding Twice, I'm not sure that they would be a good example. After all, we have the case of Signal, which was widely considered their worst title track, yet still hit #1 because of the massive hype Twice had at the time.
yes, i was making simplistic statement
if a song charts well, it means a lot of people listen to it and enjoy it, the point of making songs is for people to listen to it and like it, so the song can be called objectively good.
be it because it's catchy, has nice melody, good lyrics or whatever it is that makes people like it
now what is "good charting" depends on a group and circumstances
i try another example:
i personally dislike g-idle tomboy, i find it annoying, that's my personal subjective opinion. but seems like a lot of people like it and enjoy it since it charts well so i guess the song is objectively speaking, good
I think so, and this goes for songs I personally dislike but can acknowledge most people do so they’re objectively good. Also I don’t think OP is saying that all songs that chart bad are not good, like people are implying.
True. But brave girls is a unique case to use here. They are a group that lacked clout and debuted from a small company so Rollin didn’t flop in 2017 because it was a bad song, but because it lacked promo. Which is a common development for nugu groups.
It would have done as well as in 2017 if they were a big 3 gg.
Now on the otherhand, if a group from the big 3 still can’t chart a song with all the privileges they promote with, I think we can “objectively” say it’s bad. Because the song ain’t picking up with any groups of listeners even though it’s being properly promoted.
well according to the OP
it was objective shit in 2017 but objective good in 2021!!! duh!!!!!
i think u can say that its popular among a lot of people i.e. its liked by a lot of people
There is nothing objectively good in music imo
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
