I generally take "guilty please" to be a figure of speech, I don't think very many people feel actual guilt for liking them.
I usually use it for things that I enjoy because they have elements that I think are genuinely good, but the good elements aren't that spec ail, and they are other prominent elements that I think are bad in ways I'd usually describe as cringey, but that don't spoil things even though they feel like they should. I hope that wasn't worded too awkwardly.
My go-to example would be the Aerosmith album Pump. I'm sure that alot of people would hear that and say that even '70s Aerosmith is a guilty please, but I don't agree. Pump really does nothing well that the 6 albums from the original run of their lineup didn't do already, and it has really gross production values and alot of it feels pretty schlocky. I still find enough of what I liked about the band to enjoy it, but I REALLY understand anyone who doesn't.
I'd be less likely to find something with similar issues "guilty" if the stuff that made it good was more distinctive, rather than being a worse version of something we already have 6 albums of. I don't think of things that are significant but flawed as being "guilty pleasures."
> For example, maybe you love "The Hangover Part 2", but in a discussion about great movies you're not going to say "Well, if you like 'Citizen Kane', check out 'The Hangover Part 2'".
I've never seen the Hangover movies, but if somebody said this and I didn't think they were joking, I'd at least be curious about the thinking behind this paring of recommendations. Anyone have an actual guilt pleasure-Citizen Kane-analogue?
Responses