Quote:
Originally Posted by WaspStar
But that's not objective. If you happen to be a teenager who's into teeny pop, whose opinion will you respect more? In this instance, it's subjective.
1. I'm pretty sure there are people who will disagree. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that most people in the world would prefer "No Jacket Required" to "Psychocandy." Still, would you rather have the Phil Collins album?
2. But exposure and open-mindedness is still a subjective trait; it ties into your personal listening experience. Why is that opinion more objectively valid than your opinion 10 years ago?
Just because nobody takes an opinion seriously doesn't mean that the opinion can be completely disregarded, nor does it mean that the entire field (whether it be music or fine dining) must, therefore, be open to objective analysis. What universal, independent law states that a fancy restaurant serves "better" food than your generic fast food chain?
|
1. Excellent point, and made without assuming Im egotistical as well.
2. The difference is how much music one is exposed to. I essentially have the same tastes, however, the amount of music Ive been exposed to changed it. Im not saying its BETTER than anyone elses-to me it is because my exposure has led to me discovering music thats better IMO. The point Im trying to make is that the amount of music people are exposed to tends to broaden their tastes, thus having a more informed opinion, thus having a larger influence over other tastes/more compatibility, which is viewed as "good taste" (again, Im NOT being egotistical-Im simply raising the point that those exposed to more music tend to be compatible with more music listeners)
Might I also add that In no way do I consider my tastes broad, Im simply trying to play devils advocate.