Amphoteric said:
Hazard12 said:
Amphoteric said:
One of the things that really pisses me off in life is musical elitists, you know those people who think they are superior for the music they listen to.
I'd say crucially there's a difference between thinking you're superior for the music you listen to, and thinking that some music is superior to other music (and obviously you'll listen to the former).
Let us agree though, that Dara O'Briain is awesome.
It is just 100% subjective though. Some people will call this music superior while others will call that music superior. There is no objective way to find out what "sounds in your ears" are better.
Dara O'Briain's argument amuses me but I don't actually agree with it. The 'sounds in your ear' thing is just a rhetorical trick. It's like saying paintings are just lines in front of your eyes; there just is more to it than that.
There is subjectivity but it's not 100% subjective. Maybe it's merely based on consensus, but there are certain values which should be considered 'superior'. Originality in the music, artistry and profundity in the lyrics; there's more to what makes great music than 'I like it because it's catchy'. I don't want to say there's a definitive list that is immutably right for what is greater music, much less that my opinion should be it, but there must be a line drawn somewhere. The Beatles are better than the Backstreet Boys, they just are. I know people who prefer the latter but one can't genuinely argue that that music is superior. I will never be convinced that Katy Perry should be considered superior to, or even just as good as, Tom Waits or Jimi Hendrix, or The Smiths or Modest Mouse, just because some people like her more (and moreover would never give the others a chance). There is a difference between personal preference and superiority, and dialogue between the two should hopefully bring about some interesting debate, but subjective choice should not be the only criterion.