The importance of quality

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiva.edinburgh.ac.uk@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

"Important" is just something critics say to imply that they're
on top of what's going to Really Matter.

The distinction between quality and influence is better;
we all know that the worst stuff can be influential if it sells
because other people want to sell too (and because they've heard
the stuff that sells and not the stuff that doesn't).  But then
influence may not be a good sign after all.

What you want as a word of praise is something meaning influence
that moves music in a direction that you think is right; here is
where "important" comes back into its pretentious own.  But I don't
think this can easily be separated from quality.  If it's really
better, why won't it be more important in the end?  Well, perhaps
people just get it wrong and prefer the junk.  

But all of this seems rather pointless.  I like to hear what people
like and why they like it; I don't particularly care what they think
various words mean.  Now I know that some people think HoL is better
than The Dreaming and that others disagree, but I don't know anything
new about quality.  And I haven't learned anything new about either
record.