Not long ago I was a member of a mailing list that talked about avant-garde music, and one of the posts to the list made it into my clippings file. I stupidly deleted the original message, so I am not sure who is on either side of the conversation. But with an exchange like this it scarcely matters. (Original spelling and punctuation preserved.)
as i've said many times, there is no good music or bad music - just music you like or music you don't like
that opinion is banal, false and mistaken at the same time.
you are probably right that 'good' and 'bad' won't take you very far critically. to that extent it seems a banal observation.
then you conclude that there is 'just music you like or music you don't like', which seems patently false. there is just as obviously music that is more or less complex, music that has strict tempo and music that doesn't, tonal and atonal music, etc., etc., and many more critical categories that can be applied that tell you alot about music.
finally, i think it is mistaken, in the sense of being an opinion that should be opposed. it sounds liberal but it is arrogant: it pretends to be democratic (admitting that everyone has their own opinion), but it is self-serving because it implies that no one can criticise *your* taste.
i am not trolling - i just don't think that such banalities should pass without comment
This could apply to a critical appraisal of just about anything, when you get down to it. As it stands, it's one of the better arguments I've heard for being willing to examine and refine your own tastes without falling back on know-nothing arguments like "I don't know what 'good' art/literature/music is, but I know what I like."
Plenty of people use this formula to justify what they like. I know I used to do it, but after a while I realized something: If you don't do any actual thinking about what you like and don't like, if you shun trying to make deeper connections, in a way you're damaging your future ability to determine what you're going to like and not like. The problem with saying "I don't know what's 'good', but I know what I like" is that it's an argument in favor of your own continued ignorance about your tastes. And that means, as I see it, enduring a lot more crap than you have to.
Most folks aren't critics and don't want to become critics. For them, it's completely beside the point. They don't want to analyze what they like, they want to enjoy it — and the analysis, for them, ruins the enjoyment by turning the whole thing into a boring homework exercise. They're not worried that their justification is a circular argument — I like what I know, and I know what I like — because none of this requires logic to work.
The flipside of this, though, is that if they're in the company of people who analyze what they like as a way to deepen their enjoyment of it and find perspectives on it that they might not have found on their own, it isn't a homework assignment; it's fun.
Follow me on 
Friend me on 
Friend me on 
Also on 
o*O
Honestly, whoever wrote the reply in there struck me as a complete ass, unable to think of the world in terms of external perspectives. I was expecting you to comment against it, not for.
Why doesn't the commenter question their own arrogance at inserting a bunch of negativity that was in no way hinted in the original statement? Why did they feel the need to label the statement banal, false and mistaken, pretending those descriptions are substantially different? How does making the statements that it "seems patently false" and is "an opinion that should be opposed" constitute fact or even support the argument at all --- if we assuming they're even making an argument?
There are indeed variations in tone and complexity between artists, tracks, and varieties of music in general, but that fact has no bearing on good or bad except, perhaps, in a personal sense --- depending on the individual's tastes. There can be as much beauty in simplicity as ugliness in complexity, and the verse is, of course, also true. Just like anyone else, there will be music I don't like, and I might like to suggest it's not even music at all --- but that's my perception, based on the complexities of my own mind and body, and there are plenty of people who love the music I can't stand.
The insertion of an implication against criticism is completely artificial. There is nothing in stating the demonstrable point that "good" and "bad" music are flawed ideas that implies one's own tastes should not be subject to criticism. The only implication I could find is, perhaps, that tastes should not be subject to attack. I don't see the sentiment nearly as self-serving as this socially Darwinian debate-style attack on the original poster, and the fact that they felt the need to preemptively deny themselves as a troll only acts as evidence in support of what they really are, in my perception.
what's your experience with film? for me, i find that it's very hard to find people openly discussing film with any aim at progressing what they find interesting or what they notice as interesting in what they've seen or could see.... as soon as you do try to join or start a discussion, you risk falling into what's become a typical "internet trap" for such things - that people want to be the one to dictate the dominant opinion. you'll also see that they'll likely not quite notice (even thought they'll say they do) that a positive response from someone doesn't mean you have to think of it positively and it certainly doesn't mean you have to find the same things as being positive (i.e violence in japanese films), either.
something about it all, for me, suggests there's not an intention to prolong, diversify, or progress as much as there's a subconscious acceptance that this is a temporary youthful thing that they want to be able to easily discard - it's certainly not, a lot of the time (and it's a habit passed along, i think) something it's easy to show people that they risk being talked into thinking of things too simplistically or frivolously to sustain an interest in something they also profess to think of as a fundamental part of their lives.
Well, the thing to remember, though, is that the statement isn't a panacea to begin with.
'There is no good music or bad music - just music you like or music you don't like' should never be taken to mean 'don't question why you do or don't like it, it's simply an answer to the issue of 'good' or 'bad'.
No matter how much you like or don't like a piece of music, that doesn't make it a better or worse piece. Sure, there may be technical levels of aptitude and talent, emotional depths plumbed or heights utterly fallen short of, but in the end, none of that speaks to 'how good is it?' It is itself, and how well the piece speaks to an individual will always reside with that individual.
And the idea that such a statement claims no-one can criticize one's taste... that's bizarre. If anything, it embraces the idea. I may like it. You may hate it. You may have a thousand wonderful reasons for hating it, and I may agree with all of them... but that doesn't mean any of those reasons will stop me from liking it.
I should add that I'm not arguing against the issue of people who won't accept criticism or think critically about their own tastes --- I just don't think the quotation is a good sample of the issue. I don't think anyone should necessarily be required to criticize their own tastes, particularly for a thing like music --- something so abstract that's sometimes difficult to think about critically --- but I've also experienced that some people really do have problems expanding their horizons or considering their tastes.
My roommate, for instance, can enjoy the occasional sophisticate film. More often than not, however, he seems to prefer the cheesy comedies and action films. He enjoys Steven Segal movies of all things --- films I can't stomach because I tend to think about movies, and they fall so short of reason, into that category of action films where the protagonist is a psychopath but not actually addressed as such. My other roommates and I tried to have a conversation with him about how it can be interesting to learn about things and enhance your appreciation of them, but he rejected the notion outright. He's the sort of person who likes to keep things simple and not think about them too critically. I can't fault him too much for that generally, but it also comes down to this: he doesn't see a problem with capturing and torturing foreigners in the name of national security, and he doesn't like to accept that the people in government could be horribly wrong about some things.
Correct: the more I think about it, the more I realize this was a pretty terrible example, in main part because of the wretched way the argument was mounted and played off.
Your friend makes for an interesting example of what I mean, though. When you think uncritically about one thing, it's that much easier to think uncritically about other things -- and vice versa. It doesn't mean you'll be immune to being suckered -- look at what happened here -- but it does become that much easier to recognize where you've erred and recover from them.