What is "good" music?

The fact of the matter is FrozNLite was trying to prove a point about tastes but he made the mistake of making a topic called "what is 'good' music" instead of "why do people think their taste is the best" which is clearly what he really meant.

You're half-correct. Ironically this thread was designed with that title to see the interpretations posters took, and how they would respond. Personally, what I wanted to find out was quite literally what genres, styles of music, etc...in other words, what identities of music people preferred. Considering I only had a vague guess at what such identities were, determined by knowing a fair amount of the character of the average member of internet culture, you can't say I was trying to prove a point by getting people to post what I expected.

I like how the thread turned out, ultimately, as I think the discussion over these past few pages has been riveting. Confusing, at times, but mentally stimulating. I do agree with whomever made the comment about an "intellectual comment in a comedy club," as that's how I feel about the Funhouse, too. Serious can, and does from time to time, exist here, so don't pass up an opportunity to join a discussion simply because of the discussion's location. To those still uneasy, would it help if I quoted myself from the first or second page saying that I would have put this in The Speakeasy, but was worried it was too sensitive of a thread with the chance of Funhouse-esque derailment that I chose to put it here? Clearly I was wrong, and The Speakeasy is a more appropriate place, as the derailment that occurred was not the mass posting of ponys, but of good, thought-provoking banter.

One final comment for now: Rick, you know I love K-Chew and am glad (and expected/10) you posting her as the modern example of prime vocal talent. But I still think Gaga has great talent for a modern vocalist as well, and do so because it's in a different field of music. Vocal talent in musical music/vocal performance fields has far different requirements than that of stage pop artists. I think the best way for me to say this rather than type out some grandiose yet enigmatic response would be to give an anecdote about auditions for one of UW-Madison's acapella groups, Redefined. The acapella groups on campus sing non-musical theatre/vocal performance music, meaning genre classics of the past half century or so. I'm good friends with a decent portion of the group, and when I've talked to them about auditions, they don't want to hear people coming in singing The Pirates of Penzance in a beautiful operatic soprano. Even if the vocalist had phenomenal talent , it wouldn't be the style they're going for.

That's the point here. Now it's also important to point out that just because the styles are different doesn't mean one is not REALLY music, or isn't good music, or is full of talentless hacks. There are a number of phenomenal modern genre vocalists, with ADELE and Norah Jones being the first that come to mind. But I would still stick Gaga up there with them. That being said, if we were to compare modern genre vocalist/pianist Norah Jones to modern genre vocalist/pianist Lady Gaga, I would definitely say Norah Jones has more talent in those musical fields than Gaga. But she's not also creating stage shows and learning dance choreographies. That doesn't excuse Gaga from being a lesser talent, but it does provide some perspective for not criticizing her so harshly.

Oh, and I was also going to say: the reason musical theatre/vocal performance fields are chock full of amazing talent is because it's almost required to have professional training to make a name in those fields. Without such a requirement in genre performance it's a hit, miss, or in-between. But, again, that's not to say genre performance lacks talent. Oo, thought of one good, final example: Beyonce. Her vocals are stunningly amazing, yet are classified as genre vocals IIRC. But she can apply them to musical theatre and perform wonderful numbers (mostly good belts, though).