Anyone else hate music pretention and snobbery?

am i the only one who CANNOT STAND THIS??

i keep seeing it everywhere, especially on youtube... "people who dislike this don't know real music" etc. whether it's on led zep, gaga, jayz, WHATEVER...


why do people not understand music is SUBJECTIVE. opinions are SUBJECTIVE. why does it matter that one person likes one direction and the other likes daft punk....... really WHY DOES IT MATTER????? how do the music tastes of other people affect you in any way? why does liking a particular band or artist or aspect of music make you superior, why is your taste in music seemingly better?
or you like one musician, for example you might say "i like adele" and then someone could reply to you "wait, don't you like justin bieber" (inb4 these comments) and it's like your whole opinion is invalid? it's moronic...

why don't people understand we are not all clones and different people like different things! i don't give a **** what music you like and will not judge any other aspect of your character for it... it's not like you CHOOSE what music you like, it just happens... i don't see why you should be ashamed/embarassed for something as harmless as musical taste...

also, just because you like one musician/singer/band, does not mean you cannot like other artists that are completely different!


it's just one of my pet hates.

Who would you say are the Tolstoys of music?

Of course music is subjective and I can understand why someone will like a certain song. However, I can safely say that this song is utter ****.

If you enjoy Britney as much as Messiaen then you are probably failing to recognise some essential differences between them. Avoiding snobbery does not mean pretending that everything is exactly the same. Surely you see that with Messiaen you need to devote your full attention to the music for an extended period of time, and the rewards are correspondingly greater?

Bach, Beethoven, Muddy Waters, John Coltrane, Lennon & McCartney, Metallica et cetera, et cetera. The innovators, the originators, the shining examples of every genre.

That's just a random collection of musicians of wildly varying abilities, from the astonishingly gifted (Bach and Beethoven) to the godawful (Metallica). I suggest that if you are going to be a snob, at least make some effort.

...Metallica et cetera, et cetera. The innovators, the originators, the shining examples of every genre.

That's just a random collection of musicians of wildly varying abilities, from the astonishingly gifted (Bach and Beethoven) to the godawful (Metallica). I suggest that if you are going to be a snob, at least make some effort.

If anyone argues that Nickelback are in any way good, they are definitely wrong.

I hate this idea that if you listen to a certain artist or a certain genre, then you're automatically stupid or brainless. I've got a friend who hates the fact that I listen to pop, hip-hop, rap, R&B, dance, etc. He even hates stuff like soul and blues, and thinks that rock is the only good genre out there. If I get asked by someone else what music I like, he'll butt in and scream about how my music is complete crap. At the end of the day, I listen to music that I like, not what others like. Yes, fans of certain singers might have a certain stereotype around them (e.g. I've seen someone say that the stereotype of Lady Gaga fans is bitchy and obsessive), but you can't say "You like rap, therefore you're probably doing drugs and you'll blow my head off in 10 seconds" because while it may be true for some, it's not true for all.

I like loads of different artists, and I'll listen to them for different reasons. I listen to David Guetta because it's fun to dance to. I listen to Lauryn Hill because I think The Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill is a deep, intricate album which delivers powerful emotion with each song. I listen to Emilie Autumn because her music is generally an excellent insight into a range of themes such as mental health, as well as the fact that she can turn music from beautiful to creepy in a heartbeat. No matter what genre the artist is or why I listen to them, it's whether I enjoy them or not, and I don't see why so much music snobbery goes on when we all listen to music for different reasons.

When I visited Edge Hill for an open day recently, what I found interesting about my course (Music, Media & Sound) was that you have to be tolerant and open-minded with music, and honestly, it's something that I love about the course. Probably sounds a bit of a random anecdote, but it's something I appreciate.

That's merely your arrogant and uninformed opinion.

"Metallica are godawful" - stupid subjective opinion

"Metallica are excellent at what they do, but I don't happen to like that particular genre" - balanced, objective opinion.

Learn the difference. I don't happen to like Country music, but I'm open minded enough to acknowledge that the leading performers may be excellent musicians and composers in their own right.

Your post is bloody awesome (then again, you are too)

Someone told me just last night to listen to that Lauryn Hill album, so thanks for the reminder .

That's pretty cool that you like Emilie Autumn too . Speaking of which, she has a London gig next week that I'm thinking of going to. I've been wanting to go to more gigs and this'd be a good start

am i the only one who CANNOT STAND THIS??

i keep seeing it everywhere, especially on youtube... "people who dislike this don't know real music" etc. whether it's on led zep, gaga, jayz, WHATEVER...


why do people not understand music is SUBJECTIVE. opinions are SUBJECTIVE. why does it matter that one person likes one direction and the other likes daft punk....... really WHY DOES IT MATTER????? how do the music tastes of other people affect you in any way? why does liking a particular band or artist or aspect of music make you superior, why is your taste in music seemingly better?
or you like one musician, for example you might say "i like adele" and then someone could reply to you "wait, don't you like justin bieber" (inb4 these comments) and it's like your whole opinion is invalid? it's moronic...

why don't people understand we are not all clones and different people like different things! i don't give a **** what music you like and will not judge any other aspect of your character for it... it's not like you CHOOSE what music you like, it just happens... i don't see why you should be ashamed/embarassed for something as harmless as musical taste...

also, just because you like one musician/singer/band, does not mean you cannot like other artists that are completely different!


it's just one of my pet hates.

More than a few problems here. Where to start?

Firstly, there is no such thing as an 'objective opinion'; that's called a fact.

5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).

Secondly, a balanced opinion is merely one which takes in to account all possibilities, considers them and draws a suitable conclusion. It is not (necessarily) one which is an equal compromise between all possibilities. Similar considerations apply to 'open-minded[ness]'.

Thirdly, how much musical training, knowledge and listening experience do you have? Do you know how much I have? On what grounds are you calling me uninformed?

Fourthly, could you explain how my opinion was any more arrogant than yours, and if so, why this is necessarily a bad thing?

Fifthly, there are no objective artistic values. I think this is now generally agreed by philosophers. Metallica can be considered objectively good only against the criteria of goodness for metal music, which although implicitly agreed upon by metal listeners are ultimately subjective. I could make up a genre of music in which the only artistic criteria for a good piece was length, then declare my composition [hold A440 on an organ until the destruction of Earth] objectively great. Does this really mean anything? Objectivity is not the way to go.

Ok, thanks for that Captain obvious.

Appeal to authority a good argument does not make. Challenge him on the validity of his argument, not on the individual behind it.

Well because arrogance is traditionally recognised as a deplorable trait in a human being, especially when it is falsely justified. Your opinion it appears is based on subjective or flawed rationale, that is why he considers it to be arrogant.

This is a rational argument.

Ok, thanks for that Captain obvious.

What does this mean herpa derp? It means that objectivity is routed around the concept of the elimination of personal bias, it has nothing to do with the validity of the premise/conclusion.