Do you think some music is better than others, or that its all a matter of taste?

They are two different things not readily linked by "or".

Taste does not necessarily mean the cited music is well or poorly written or performed; but if you ask on a forum like SW, "which is/was the 'best' band/singer/recording..." you elicit only a string of favourites.

"Better" suggests technical merit above competitors; perhaps reflected by evident skill and care in its writing and/or performance.

The composing would also have to be judged on originality. Influences are one thing but merely copying an individual style to the extent the music sounds as if by the copied composer, is not likely to gain marks for creativity however skilled the theme, harmony, variations and rhythm.

At one extreme is the avant-garde music so far-out it may show skill in creating and playing but is very difficult to listen to. At the other, is purely-sampled recordings showing only ability to cut-&-paste other's work: it might sell but does the assembler know a crochet from a quaver?

Having said that, do remember that almost all music was and is written to earn composers, arrangers and performers their living! I doubt Hildegard of Bingen was paid (being a Benedictine abbess), but Bach, Beethoven and The Beatles all were.

'

You can have the most sublime music written with extraordinary skill and passion, but spoilt by poor performance - not simply mistakes or unsteady rhythm, but weak artistic understanding and hence expression.

This is why an inexperienced piano-player might turn an otherwise-reasonable attempt at Midnight or the Moonlight Sonata into a leaden-handed plod. "All the right notes and in the right order" to paraphrase Eric Morecombe, but he or she has not yet mastered the instrument enough to play expressively.

Indeed, if you listen to music critics discussing the finer points of this-or-that recording of a particular piece; tempo, balance and expression are the criteria, not the given accuracy of full professional standard. Sometimes, at that level, you really do need to know music and to listen to it very carefully to hear what the reviewer means; and they will admit verging on their own tastes. I miss these subleties because I am not musically-skilled, but whether I still enjoy the music may not depend on it being Silver rather than Gold level. And that is comparing recorded, professional performances of the same symphony or concerto!

'

I can give two example of songs given cover arrangements or singers who make them jarring to my years, by poor expression and understanding - and why I find them so.

1) Band of Gold, as covered by Bonnie Tyler. The original (sung by Gloria Gaynor or Diana Ross?) sounds as if the singer really has read the lyrics. Her voice and the strong but sympathetic arrangement made you wonder if she was singing from unfortunate experience. Poor Bonnie though, was given an arrangement that turned a very sad song of despair into a disco number so jaunty that wedding DJs probably had to ensure they left it at home.

2) Who Knows Where The Time Goes, by Fairport Convention. Widely regarded as a firm favourite, and as among the most beautiful of modern folk-inspired songs; thanks not only to its message, but very much to Sandy Denny's singing with sensitive backing. It became covered by many others, including Lionel Ritchie, to varying standards; but the oddest and poorest I heard was by an American opera singer! (I forget her name!) I think she was trying to sing in a folk-ish voice rather than her second-nature mezzo or soprano style. So whilst technically perfect, and rightly so, the effect was bizarre and the expression weak.

'

So is one [i]style[/] of music "better" than another?

No. Not objectively. Style is not an expression of quality.

There is technically poorly- and superbly well- written, music. Some is very simple and direct, some is very deep and difficult to listen to fully - a challenge whose reward is deep appreciation.

There are technically bad and good performances. The music might be well-written and subtle but let down by poor rendition. It might be simple, run-of-the-mill, even weak and derivative; but lifted by a caring performance.

Those are technical assessments, and anything else really comes down to individual taste.

That depends on your definition of “better”.
Some music is more complex than other music, and musically a superior composition.
That doesn’t mean that it necessarily moves people as well as a simpler composition.
There’s definitely some very simple pop music which is enjoyed by a lot of people, and some very deftly crafted songs that are musically suited only to a few.

"You may be a symphony but i believe in song
It's got a catchy melody so you can sing along”
-Kenny Loggins, Loggins & Messina, “Long Tail Cat"

I also prefer classic rock 🎸!! 80s music holds a special place in my heart!!🙂

There's legitimately good and bad music in every genre. Whether you like a song is a matter of taste.

It is a matter of taste, that's why I think some music is better than others.🤨

Matter of taste... Kinda like some mumble rap but I know that it's shit!!........ Ain't no one beating Dragonforce though..... Only nerds don't like Dragonforce.. ┬┴┬┴┤•ᴥ•ʔ

I prefer classic rock.

Mostly taste,but if your singers are off key and you're musicians have no rythm, then it's bad

some are better
i can make music with banging 2 pans together but i doubt anyone...🙄

mostly matter of taste but pop music is for when you're 12

taste