Nickelback is the band of the decade

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

this is why this decade sucked in music like no other since the 90s

Wait a minute, since the 90's? The 90's were pretty damn good I thought.

Plus how could this decade suck like no other since the previous decade before it? There are no other decades in between.

Unless you misspoke I'm not getting this comment.

EDIT: Shoot, I hate it when I page bury one of my previous comments.

[true#1center]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I guess if you go by sales it's true but if you go by music it's woefully untrue. I don't mind that Nickelback is popular, beyond that I can't stand listening to the radio because of how much I dislike Nickelback's and others corporate tunes. They are just a good for those who don't really care about music and only care about enjoying a few minutes in the car.

McDonalds, Michael Bay, Nickelback, Coors Light, it's all the same thing. I eat at McDonalds and drink Coors Light but I know that if I had the willingness, time and money to really delve into food and drink I wouldn't touch those things ever again.

What I really dislike is the argument that music is entirely subjective and each band is equally valuable. It's not true and destructive to music and art. A band that spends years laboring over an album and releases something that innovates, shows music in a new light, and brings real insight deserves far more praise than a band like Nickelback.

Maybe a hundred years ago, not today.

[MarchHare]

Aeneas posted the following in the Worst Cars of the Decade thread:

I love the Aztek. Great vehicle for me. I camp in the tent thing, use the built in air compressor. I like the way it looks. Tons of room inside for me. Functional for two kids and dog. In short, perfect vehicle. Maybe not for others.

Now, he's entitled to his opinion, and if he likes the exterior styling of the Pontiac Aztek, none of us will be able to change his mind. But clearly he has poor taste when it comes to choosing aesthetically pleasing vehicles. I see someone who likes Nickelback no differently than I do someone who likes the look of the Aztek. It's purely a subjective opinion, but if you like either, then you clearly have poor taste in music and vehicles.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by jammies

Not being able to define the "true" value of music doesn't mean that false values cannot be discarded. There can be multiple valid and different opinions about something without ALL opinions being valid.

It is a mistake to think that because you cannot definitively choose criteria by which to judge a thing's quality, all judgments are equal. There is such a thing as "informed" opinion and "uninformed" opinion. If I want to buy a "good" car, for example, should I consult my friend the mechanic, or my friend the fashion designer? Surely "good" is subjective, but unless I am only interested in the appearance of the car, the mechanic's opinion is the one that any reasonable person would trust if forced to choose between the two.

In music, "good" is similarly a fuzzy value, but the opinion of a trained musician, critic, or serious student has far more value than your average person on the street. Consensus amongst informed opinion is a good indicator of where truth likely lies; consensus among the uninformed means nothing.

That is not an apples to apples comparison, however, as when comparing cars, there are quantifiable attributes that must be considered: size, cost, durability, mechanical reliability, etc.

The value of music is, like any other artform, entirely in the eye of the beholder. There is no quantifiable definition of what makes music "good". It all comes down to personal taste and interpretation.

The problem we have here is the automatic assumption that someone who likes Nickelback/band you hate is simply the "Big Shiny Tunes buyer" who has not looked at other kinds of music. Certainly there is a great many who have, but it is not mutually exclusive either.

Commercial music is called that for a reason. It is designed to appeal to the widest audience. Or, frankly, a consensus amongst the listening public. A trained individual might make an argument on the technical skill of a musician, but they are no better equipped to make an "informed" decision on what is worthy to listen to than any random schmoe off the street.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

Not automatically though. Ask any of us who watched the Hitmen when Pavel Brendl was here how good an NHLer he would be. Our opinions proved to be a hell of a lot more reliable than the scout who convinced the Rangers to draft him 4th overall.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

But the thing is that hockey skill CANNOT be objectively quantified, for if it could be, why would there be arguments about who is the best player ever: Gretzky, Orr, or Lemieux? You are confusing the products of skill - goals, assists, awards - with the skills themselves. A hockey scout is going to be better than you at evaluating skill because he is an expert in his field, not because he can look at objective statistics, as otherwise any nebbish with a spreadsheet could be a scout. For that matter, "objective" statistics about hockey don't exist - does scoring 50 goals in the NHL equal 50 in the KHL, or the SEL?

You are arguing against yourself, really - you admit that you don't know as much about evaluating hockey talent as an expert, but claim that the similar statement about evaluating musical talent doesn't apply despite it being exactly analogous. Why shouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Muta

To be quite honest, I'm not a fan of Nickelback because of their cheesy and high-schoolish lyrics. Kroeger's voice is also unique, so it gets tiring after listening to it continually. However, change the lyrics to some of their songs, and change the singer, and the tunes and melodies themselves are just fine.

So if their lyrics didn't suck, and Kroeger wasn't an annoying vocalist, they'd be better? The point is that their lyrics DO suck, and he IS a singer of limited range and repetitive mannerisms. Sure, there are people out there that probably think the lyrics are deep and meaningful, and there are probably people that think he's a great singer - but any English major would laugh at their lyrics, and any trained vocalist would notice his technical ineptitude.

These aren't subjective measures in any real sense anymore than the observation that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Tiger Woods could be false because just because Tiger and his cronies might disagree. Again, just because one opinion can't be "proven" correct, doesn't mean another opinion about the same issue can't be wrong.

I really don't care if people like Nickelback, or Michael Bay, or Dan Brown, or any other purveyor of popular "entertainment", so long as that liking isn't somehow hallowed by the mantra of "everyone's opinion is equally important", especially as there's a very simple way to ensure your opinion is respected: know something non-superficial about the subject.

[KTrain]

Starting this thread did not disappoint. Thanks CP.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by true#1center

Maybe a hundred years ago, not today.

Just because it happens less than it used to does not make the point any less true.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That is not an apples to apples comparison, however, as when comparing cars, there are quantifiable attributes that must be considered: size, cost, durability, mechanical reliability, etc.

There are quantifiable aspects about a piece of music as well: tempo, key, length, time signature, melody, instrumentation, performers, complexity, harmony, etc. None of these define "good", true, but neither do your quantifiable attributes; the most mechanically reliable vehicle is not necessarily a "good" vehicle if it lacks in other areas, any more than the most technically perfect pianist performer will necessarily play a song well enough to make it "good" if it lacks elsewhere.

"Good" is a sum of many different attributes, some quantifiable, some not. That's why the world's "best" car is debatable - different people weight different attributes in different ways. However, that doesn't mean I can't say any Yugo was a piece of junk and a 68 Mustang GT390 is a sweet ride without having to worry about there being no "objective" way to prove it beyond all doubt - only a naif would try to argue the contrary.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by jammies

But the thing is that hockey skill CANNOT be objectively quantified, for if it could be, why would there be arguments about who is the best player ever: Gretzky, Orr, or Lemieux? You are confusing the products of skill - goals, assists, awards - with the skills themselves. A hockey scout is going to be better than you at evaluating skill because he is an expert in his field, not because he can look at objective statistics, as otherwise any nebbish with a spreadsheet could be a scout. For that matter, "objective" statistics about hockey don't exist - does scoring 50 goals in the NHL equal 50 in the KHL, or the SEL?

I think you're reaching here. Evaluating the skill of a hockey player based on past results, physical attributes, and personality is not the same as evaluating music, because the only thing that matters about music is whether or not the listener enjoys it. That is where the difference lies.

You are arguing against yourself, really - you admit that you don't know as much about evaluating hockey talent as an expert, but claim that the similar statement about evaluating musical talent doesn't apply despite it being exactly analogous. Why shouldn't it?

There are clear objectives for a hockey scout. Find the player who will help the team win more than any others. Music is not nearly as clear. When you are evaluating musical value (talent is different and not what is being talked about in this thread), what are you looking for? And why would the things you are looking for have to be the same as what I, or anyone else, is looking for?

If I were to sit down and talk to you about music and learn about the kinds of things I should listen for and what makes them challenging or artistic or incisive or revolutionary, and I change my buying styles and tell other people that they should like based on what I was told to look for rather than what I actually enjoy, that would make me a phony.

So if their lyrics didn't suck, and Kroeger wasn't an annoying vocalist, they'd be better? The point is that their lyrics DO suck, and he IS a singer of limited range and repetitive mannerisms. Sure, there are people out there that probably think the lyrics are deep and meaningful, and there are probably people that think he's a great singer - but any English major would laugh at their lyrics, and any trained vocalist would notice his technical ineptitude.

This is an obsession with expertise. What exactly is the value of measuring a personal taste against that of an expert? If we were talking about cars and I was claiming that the Dodge Viper is the most ingeniously engineered car of all time and an engineer told me that I was wrong, there would be value in that. But, if I said that I thought the Viper was the coolest looking car of all time and somebody told me I was wrong, then their opinion is no greater or lesser than mine regardless of their expertise.

These aren't subjective measures in any real sense anymore than the observation that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Tiger Woods could be false because just because Tiger and his cronies might disagree. Again, just because one opinion can't be "proven" correct, doesn't mean another opinion about the same issue can't be wrong.

Surely you would have some criteria in mind when you make your claim that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Tiger Woods. Even claiming somebody is generally smarter than someone else is less subjective than telling somebody that they shouldn't enjoy something because you do not enjoy it.

I really don't care if people like Nickelback, or Michael Bay, or Dan Brown, or any other purveyor of popular "entertainment", so long as that liking isn't somehow hallowed by the mantra of "everyone's opinion is equally important", especially as there's a very simple way to ensure your opinion is respected: know something non-superficial about the subject.

The fact that you put entertainment in quotations seems to contradict your statement that you don't care what people like. You're mocking people's taste and it's arrogant, not informative. There might be dozens of technical aspects to take into account when comparing two artists, but if you like the work of one and don't like the work of another, then those aspects become moot.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

If I were to sit down and talk to you about music and learn about the kinds of things I should listen for and what makes them challenging or artistic or incisive or revolutionary, and I change my buying styles and tell other people that they should like based on what I was told to look for rather than what I actually enjoy, that would make me a phony.

Well, if you actually like the music someone with an amount of expertise told you to look for, you wouldn't be a phony. You'd have, you know, learned something from someone who knows a lot about the subject.

Music seems to be taken so much more personally than other things.

Me, I don't like beer snobbery. I drink Pil, I like it, I'd rather have a Pil than some 9 dollar Bavarian thing. I roll my eyes at people who take it so damn seriously. But I still respect that they actually know more about it than I do, and some guy who brews his own beer, drinks beers from all over the world, knows what beer to eat with what meal, and can talk about stuff I've never heard of knows more about beer than I do, and does drink better beer than I do.

It doesn't piss me off. The guy has put in the effort and knows the subject and I don't.

It's the same thing with Nickelback. Liking Nickelback is "drinking Pil". But the Nickelback lovers don't seem to recognize that some guy who has 5000 cds and listens to music that you've never heard of just might actually know more about the subject than you do. That guy is a joker, a dork, a snob, he's every name in the book and hiis opinion is no better than yours.

Well, his opinion probably is better than yours, just like the beer expert's is better than mine.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I think you're reaching here. Evaluating the skill of a hockey player based on past results, physical attributes, and personality is not the same as evaluating music, because the only thing that matters about music is whether or not the listener enjoys it. That is where the difference lies.

It's an analogy, so of course the actual evaluation is going to have a different purpose. The point is that skill in both areas is not quantifiable by purely objective criteria, and yet that doesn't stop an expert from having a more useful opinion than an amateur. It has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose to which that evaluation is being put.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

There are clear objectives for a hockey scout. Find the player who will help the team win more than any others. Music is not nearly as clear. When you are evaluating musical value (talent is different and not what is being talked about in this thread), what are you looking for? And why would the things you are looking for have to be the same as what I, or anyone else, is looking for?

You're dressing up the old relativistic arguments again - I'm not saying that everyone's reasoning has to be the same, but only that they have to have relevant reasoning.

Is a child banging a stick and singing the same note over and over again music equal to Beethoven's 9th? Taken to its logical conclusion, the dogmatic relativist must say yes. The absurdity of this, instead of making the proponent reconsider his postulates, only convinces that person to shrug the shoulders and throw up the hands. Instead, I offer a different theory - taste may be relative, but art is only partly a matter of taste.

Discarding absolutes does not mean discarding discrimination between quality and trash.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

If I were to sit down and talk to you about music and learn about the kinds of things I should listen for and what makes them challenging or artistic or incisive or revolutionary, and I change my buying styles and tell other people that they should like based on what I was told to look for rather than what I actually enjoy, that would make me a phony.

Where did I say I hold the keys to understanding music as it "should" be understood? You might value different aspects of the form than I do, which is not only acceptable but inevitable. What matters is if you have a coherent theory of WHY you have those values, and HOW your preferred artists embody them.

For example, serious rap fan Jimmy Beatz undoubtedly gets satisfaction from complex, subtle rhythmic accents that I barely notice. If asked, he can point to different artists that use different beats in innovative, fresh ways. Joe Suburbs might like some of the same music, but he likes it because he's a wannabe gangsta who enjoys the songs with violent imagery and has about as much insight into the craft behind the music as his pit bull. If I was interested in learning about rap, Jimmy can tell me something about the music that teaches me how to appreciate it, whereas all Joe can do is tell me how "awesome" it all is.

Jimmy's opinion about rap is an informed, coherent one, and Joe's is an uninformed, incoherent one. Saying that their opinions are equal ignores the objective fact that Jimmy knows something useful about the genre that he can explain to other people, and Joe knows nothing more than what can be gleaned from just listening to a rap playlist on Youtube.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

This is an obsession with expertise. What exactly is the value of measuring a personal taste against that of an expert? If we were talking about cars and I was claiming that the Dodge Viper is the most ingeniously engineered car of all time and an engineer told me that I was wrong, there would be value in that. But, if I said that I thought the Viper was the coolest looking car of all time and somebody told me I was wrong, then their opinion is no greater or lesser than mine regardless of their expertise.

I'm not obsessed with expertise, the obsession lies with those who insist that their opinion is as good as an expert's.

If someone were to argue that Nickelback is the best music for screwing by, that would be a completely subjective opinion, and it would be hard to argue. (After all, all their songs run at one of only two tempos, so maybe a couple 70 bpm ballads and then a steady stream of 120 bpm songs would be just the thing for that particular purpose!) Yet if that person said that Nickleback recorded some of the finest vocal performances in the history of humanity, I would and could argue the point, just like your hypothetical engineer - because that is not a completely subjective opinion.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Surely you would have some criteria in mind when you make your claim that Stephen Hawking is smarter than Tiger Woods. Even claiming somebody is generally smarter than someone else is less subjective than telling somebody that they shouldn't enjoy something because you do not enjoy it.

Well I could argue that if Hawking is so smart, why is Tiger Woods richer? As long as I define intelligence as "a quality that enables one to make considerable sums of money", my opinion is no less valid than the opposite! Well - at least if you think that any criteria will do, reasonable or not. I don't.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

The fact that you put entertainment in quotations seems to contradict your statement that you don't care what people like. You're mocking people's taste and it's arrogant, not informative. There might be dozens of technical aspects to take into account when comparing two artists, but if you like the work of one and don't like the work of another, then those aspects become moot.

Ah, but I'm not mocking people's taste - I'm mocking their insistence that their taste shouldn't be mocked. A subtle difference, but an important one.

[Oil Stain]

[Muta]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'm not obsessed with expertise, the obsession lies with those who insist that their opinion is as good as an expert's.

If someone were to argue that Nickelback is the best music for screwing by, that would be a completely subjective opinion, and it would be hard to argue. (After all, all their songs run at one of only two tempos, so maybe a couple 70 bpm ballads and then a steady stream of 120 bpm songs would be just the thing for that particular purpose!) Yet if that person said that Nickleback recorded some of the finest vocal performances in the history of humanity, I would and could argue the point, just like your hypothetical engineer - because that is not a completely subjective opinion.

I just explained that I don't listen to Nickelback for reasons of my own. In my opinion, Kroeger is not the most skilled vocalist out there, and most of the lyrics in Nickelback's songs lick mushroom crud because of their high-school cheesiness.

THAT SAID, I've also developed a certain taste for music that I prefer over time being exposed to music daily on a continuous basis. This does not make me anymore of an expert, however. I am an expert in my own opinion, and nothing more. I can change my tune and understand that people like Nickelback, given that they might LIKE those types of high-school lyrics, they might like the scruffiness in Kroeger's voice, and given the fact that they write fairly catchy melodies. Hence, my point is... music preference comes from the soul. Everyone is different. If you ask for someone's opinion on a type of music, it's going to be biased, no matter what they say. This is why you cannot criticize someone's choice in music. Or atleast, I won't. Everyone interprets it differently, and I think you have to try to understand that. There is no 'right' type of music when it comes to preferences. You have to form your own opinion, and leave everyone else to what satisfies them personally.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's an analogy, so of course the actual evaluation is going to have a different purpose. The point is that skill in both areas is not quantifiable by purely objective criteria, and yet that doesn't stop an expert from having a more useful opinion than an amateur. It has nothing to do with the ultimate purpose to which that evaluation is being put.

A band's value is determined by the subjective interpretation of a listener. A player's value is determined by performance. If a scout is telling the fan which player he likes watching the most, it is a different conversation than talking about who is the best player.

You're dressing up the old relativistic arguments again - I'm not saying that everyone's reasoning has to be the same, but only that they have to have relevant reasoning.

It is a relativistic argument. We're talking about the subjective experience of listening to music. The only truly relevant matter is the intensity of enjoyment that an individual derives from listening.

Is a child banging a stick and singing the same note over and over again music equal to Beethoven's 9th? Taken to its logical conclusion, the dogmatic relativist must say yes. The absurdity of this, instead of making the proponent reconsider his postulates, only convinces that person to shrug the shoulders and throw up the hands. Instead, I offer a different theory - taste may be relative, but art is only partly a matter of taste.

So where do we peg Beethoven's 9th? 9/10, 47/50, 106/113? There is no scale. Once you move beyond the initial questions of 'do you enjoy this?' and 'how much do you enjoy this?', the argument becomes academic. And the usefulness of a 'scholarly analysis' of art is dubious anyways, because any quality that goes into the production of it that does not contribute to making the piece more enjoyable (in the general sense) is worthless to anyone who is not a music aficionado.

Discarding absolutes does not mean discarding discrimination between quality and trash.

Yes, it does. If there were a large group of people who absolutely loved the kid banging the stick, it would be because in their own experience that particular music has greater value than Beethoven's 9th. If the group were somehow larger than the Beethoven fan base it would not mean that kid w/ stick's music is intrinsically better, just as the more realistic opposite situation does not mean that Beethoven's music is intrinsically better.

Where did I say I hold the keys to understanding music as it "should" be understood? You might value different aspects of the form than I do, which is not only acceptable but inevitable. What matters is if you have a coherent theory of WHY you have those values, and HOW your preferred artists embody them.

That is not what you are arguing in regards to Nickleback. You are stating that everyone's opinion is not equal because "there's a very simple way to ensure your opinion is respected: know something non-superficial about the subject." Perhaps I have a coherent theory behind my reasoning that I do not need anything more than a superficial understanding of music to enjoy it to as full of an extent as is possible for me (let's go with: music should be upbeat, with vocals I can understand and lyrics that I can relate to... beyond that a song need only meet the criteria that I find it enjoyable to listen to). You may not care about the opinions of somebody who holds these values but simply having more complex criteria does not give precedence to your opinions... especially when I am still the one who has to listen to the music.

For example, serious rap fan Jimmy Beatz undoubtedly gets satisfaction from complex, subtle rhythmic accents that I barely notice. If asked, he can point to different artists that use different beats in innovative, fresh ways. Joe Suburbs might like some of the same music, but he likes it because he's a wannabe gangsta who enjoys the songs with violent imagery and has about as much insight into the craft behind the music as his pit bull. If I was interested in learning about rap, Jimmy can tell me something about the music that teaches me how to appreciate it, whereas all Joe can do is tell me how "awesome" it all is.

Why would you need someone else to tell you how to appreciate music? This stinks of snobbery. It's like when a kid shows an art connoisseur their favourite comic book art, only to be disregarded because "low-art" cannot possibly compare to the "high-art" of Picasso or Rembrandt.

Jimmy's opinion about rap is an informed, coherent one, and Joe's is an uninformed, incoherent one. Saying that their opinions are equal ignores the objective fact that Jimmy knows something useful about the genre that he can explain to other people, and Joe knows nothing more than what can be gleaned from just listening to a rap playlist on Youtube.

Who says it's useful knowledge? You already established that people inevitably value different aspects of music, so why should opinions on rap music matter to you, other than the instances where your values overlap?

I'm not obsessed with expertise, the obsession lies with those who insist that their opinion is as good as an expert's.

I think you're misunderstanding people. It's not that after a careful review the quality of every individual's opinion adds up to the same value, it's that there is no need for a comparison at all.

If someone were to argue that Nickelback is the best music for screwing by, that would be a completely subjective opinion, and it would be hard to argue. (After all, all their songs run at one of only two tempos, so maybe a couple 70 bpm ballads and then a steady stream of 120 bpm songs would be just the thing for that particular purpose!) Yet if that person said that Nickleback recorded some of the finest vocal performances in the history of humanity, I would and could argue the point, just like your hypothetical engineer - because that is not a completely subjective opinion.

You're right, but a person saying that Nickleback is their favourite band is not the same as saying that they have recorded some of the finest vocal performances. You're breaking down the reasoning behind liking the band when a lot of people who like them are not.

I have a friend who was explaining to me how the Red Hot Chili Peppers (his favourite band) have a very complex style of music. He described how they all had to be very talented musicians and that their instrumentals meshed together perfectly to create what he basically feels is a higher form of musicianship.

Another friend told me that he like Notorious BIG the best because his flow was "the dopest".

The first friend's reasoning was far more interesting and I would love to hear him re-tell it when I'm sober, but if I decided to check out both artists and buy one CD, the only significant attribute of either would be the level of enjoyment I got out of listening to it.

Well I could argue that if Hawking is so smart, why is Tiger Woods richer? As long as I define intelligence as "a quality that enables one to make considerable sums of money", my opinion is no less valid than the opposite! Well - at least if you think that any criteria will do, reasonable or not. I don't.

You're right but that has nothing to do with art being about more than taste. I don't think you should try and define what enjoyable means when discussing subjective experience.

Ah, but I'm not mocking people's taste - I'm mocking their insistence that their taste shouldn't be mocked. A subtle difference, but an important one.

That's not really less arrogant. There are people who actually do not need validation for their personal tastes and I don't see why that should make them a target for ridicule.

[CrusaderPi]

I use to hate Nickleback on principle. Back when my principles were stronger. But it occurred to me, who the hell cares. Yes, Nickleback songs sound the same. Yes they are cheesey. Yes they are musically simplistic.

But, but. You can drink to them, you can talk smack about them when a Nickleback song comes on, and other people like them so you can have fun while they're playing.

In short. Get over it. Accept mediocrity occasionally and have some fun.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by true#1center

Maybe a hundred years ago, not today.

Why? How is the time at all relevant?

[Mad Mel]

When the experts are as successful at playing music as Nickelback, I'll consider them experts.

[thesmugger]

Jammies you're making my head spin.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

This is an obsession with expertise. What exactly is the value of measuring a personal taste against that of an expert? If we were talking about cars and I was claiming that the Dodge Viper is the most ingeniously engineered car of all time and an engineer told me that I was wrong, there would be value in that. But, if I said that I thought the Viper was the coolest looking car of all time and somebody told me I was wrong, then their opinion is no greater or lesser than mine regardless of their expertise.

I think this quote pretty much sums up exactly how I feel when it comes to people enjoying certain types of music or certain types of art. Music, unlike car performance or hockey talent, is all about aesthetics and what people enjoy. At the end of the day, the purpose of music is purely for entertainment. And if the person listening to a certain type of music is entertained by it, then to them it is good, regardless of technical skill.