Why do you people act like taste in music is objective?

Why do you people act like taste in music is objective?

Sometimes it is my fren, sometimes it is

because it gives them security. if their opinions are facts then they're smarter than other people. instead of just finding more art they like and learning more (which is admirable by itself but hard to quantify) they can say that they have *objectively* better opinions than other people. the music critique world is built with this assumption twisted in and it's slowly being taken apart lately, which is creating intense anger. ultimately when you say "music is subjective" it feels like an insult to people's egos.

They are retards. They don't even know the definition of subjective or objective. Also this

I say it because it's a meme to ironically claim your opinion as scientifically proven and objectively right fact. I hope nobody actually believes that their music taste is "objectively superior" to others' or any of that shit.

There is no conversational function to specifying that your opinions are subjective because all parties involved understand that already. Far more annoying is people who attempt to derail a conversation because one party is confidently asserting their opinions.

>taste is objective
>taste
>objective
>taste is an individual's personal and cultural patterns of choice and preference.

As someone who follows a lot of anime analysis / analysis channels you would be surprised how much autism I've seen.
I once posted on Sup Forums saying there was no such thing as objectively good and got a bunch of drolling retards arguing that it existed

poe's law my guy

/thread

>I once posted on Sup Forums
Well there's your problem

pretty much

spbp

Because subjectivity is boring wankery at its extremes

Because a recording is an OBJECT to which people SUBJECT themselves to (or are subjected to).

Objects don't have opinions or agendas.

if "there's no such thing as objectively good" is an argument, then you could argue that nothing is objective.
a video game, for an example, is per definition "a game played by electronically manipulating images". if this wasn't the case with a specific game, you'd argue whether it's an objectively bad game, or a game to begin with.

I don't, my music taste is based my on my enjoyment of it. I can appreciate a brilliant piece or song but if I enjoy something like Joy Division more than I enjoy let's say Stockhausen I'll think that Joy Division is better no matter how amazing Stockhausen is. For some reason people here take offence from that but guess what mate? Nobody really cares but you

music is not objective but it's also not so subjective that people's opinions are literally always over the place

>if "there's no such thing as objectively good" is an argument, then you could argue that nothing is objective
"Good" is an intrinsically subjective evaluation of quality. Nothing can be "good" without a subject to perceive it as so. Why the fuck do so many people not understand basic concepts like this ?

>then you could argue that nothing is objective.
nothing is

So it's objective that nothing is objective eh user senpai?

this

>Nothing can be "good" without a subject to perceive it as so
nothing can exist without a subject to perceive it. so couldn't you argue that there's no such thing as "good"? and that definitions for subjective concepts, in the end, are worthless since they're, at the core, subjective?

itt:autism