Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
It was Resolute, not me, that brought up the hockey analogy.
Clearly some people are better at evaluating hockey players than others, thus we should give their opinions more weight. Likewise, there are people who have more informed and valuable opinions when evaluating the merits of art or music or films or food or anything else "subjective".
|
You totall missed my point.
Hockey skill is something that can be objectively quantified.
Iginla scores more goals than Glencross, so he's a better player. When players are young it takes a lot of information and experience to figure out what indicates who will be an objectively better hockey player later in their career. So yeah, a pro scout is going to have a much more valuable opinion than me.
As for music, there is no agreed upon objective qualithy that makes one band better than another.
Technical proficiencey is certainly something you could measure, and in that instance, yes someone with more knowledge or experience certainly has a more valuable opinion, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about he subjective quality of "good" music, something that does not always correspond to technical proficiency.
Sure you can say that such and such band can play more challenging pieces, and thus are better, but that is your subjective opinion.
One peson decides that what they think is good music is something that is technically challenging, while others may decide that what they think is good music is something you can tap your toes to, why is one more valuable than the others.
For the record, I hate Nickleback, and listen to a lot of different things that a lot of different people who listen to just as much if not more than me would classify as bad music, that's what makes it subjective.