When I first started as a Collegian reporter, any form of feedback was a nice assertion that, yes, people are reading the stories I take the time to write.

This semester, I haven't had to worry much about readership. Apparently, if you want to tick people off, all you have to talk about is religion, politics or music. So when I make a snide comment about a band, even in the middle of a positive review, the fans are sure to show me they're reading -- in the form of angry e-mails.

I don't have a problem with negative feedback. My opinions are strong ones, but if I can go toe-to-toe with people who know what they're talking about, I can argue for hours and love every second of it. However, judging from some of the e-mails that I've received, I think that some people fail to understand what I'm trying to do when I write a review.

This is most notable in recent letters published concerning the recent reviews of both the Godsmack and Angels and Airwaves concerts at the BJC. People want to know why we send reporters to concerts when they aren't fans of the band.

Our mission is to write an objective report on how well the band performed onstage. I'm not a Godsmack fan by any means, but I felt the band's energy and stage presence were very good, netting them a positive review in my book.

On the other hand, when my fellow music reporter Dustin Pangonis went to review the Angels and Airwaves show, he found Tom DeLonge's stage antics to be pretentious and obnoxious, with the music falling short. That's not a good concert.

The fans can enjoy it all they like, but there must be a sense of objectivity in music. I always use the example of a gorilla learning to paint. To a proud gorilla trainer, the gorilla's painting of "The Mona Lisa" could be the greatest thing ever painted. But obviously, on an objective level, it doesn't quite live up to anything Leonardo da Vinci ever did. Angels and Airwaves, in Dustin's opinion, fell closer to a gorilla with a paintbrush.

Music reviewing is obviously not an exact science, as many albums get mixed reviews where critics disagree on the quality.

But there are certain standards that every reviewer must uphold, and crossing those lines in favor of personal bias is irresponsible and unreliable. On the bottom line is a simple question: Is this good art?

Godsmack, on its albums, does not produce good art, in my opinion. And I can back up that opinion with sound reasons that relate to the music, unlike a biased fan who will point to completely irrelevant claims.

But last week, the band turned its music into something meaningful and thoughtful, and thus created good art. In the case of Jay-Z's most recent album, I don't think Jay lived up to his potential. I got ample hate mail for this opinion, but the general consensus was that no, it didn't live up to his past glories. I love Jay-Z, but I can't give him a Grade-A rating if he's not living up to expectations.

One of my favorite, most relevant quotations about the state of the world is "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." If the popularity of a certain idea or product were the benchmark by which all art is measured, we'd be ranking Hootie and the Blowfish's Cracked Rear View above the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds on every list of the greatest albums ever made.

We'd have seen Mariah Carey's and 50 Cent's albums from 2005 ranked over Sufjan Stevens' and My Morning Jacket's on every year-end list. So yes, you and a few million other people may absolutely love Toby Keith, but that doesn't make him a great musician. And I'm here to tell you why.

Just promise me you won't stop sending the hate mail.