there's no place like home, theres no place like home

Fake is fake.
I started off looking at dissent in music and bands lying about it to make money. While I was doing this I realised that I was judging these bands based on my own values. I also realised that no matter how much research I did I would always be judging and categorizing them based on someone’s opinion, if not my own. The thing about musicians is that all musicians have fans who think they are the best.

I theorized therefore, that they all had equal value and each was thus an equally valid and real output. This was the only way to look at them all fairly and equally and unbiased. The problem with this is to find my outcome I am unsure what I will discover.

I can no longer judge artists on whether they represent truth in their music or lives. I can judge them on their product and the result it has. If the artists are all equal then and it doesn’t matter if they lie or not and I examine their work, that means that the end justifies the means. If the end justifies the means then if you know the end result you wish to accomplish then you can work out the means to do it and it is justified. No one can say that definitively you are not as good as someone else if both have the same end product except in their own opinion. Basically you can keep adding criteria until you reach a solution you like. So if the criteria are album sales and Anthony Callea sells more albums than an unnamed Australian band then he is obviously better. This is a simple and just way of analysing data, and like all categories, the results depend on the questions asked. But if we also consider the APRA nominations for each artist we would have a much more balanced appraisal between the consumers and the producers.