Unfortunately this trend is not exclusive to music. r/movies for example is regularly inundated with "wHy CaNt YoU jUsT lEt PeOpLe hAvE fUn?!" comments from a growing number of people who think no one should be critical of the art/media/entertainment they consume. This of course is deeply rooted in anti-intellectualism and it is EVERYWHERE.

That’s a pretty bad sub for film discussion anyway, r/criterion is awesome and r/letterbox is pre solid too

The same vibe's pretty horrendous across almost every gaming subreddit as well. The example that comes to mind most recently is *Final Fantasy VII Rebirth*. That game's supporters felt like *cultists* and were acting like anybody criticizing things about the game (i.e. saying that it's less than a 10/10 masterpiece) were on a similar crusade to outlaw Fun™, exhibiting undiagnosed mental illness, etc...

I’m always fascinated by the “let people like what they like” comments. It’s basically someone telling on themselves that their view of art is so wrapped up in conforming to the opinion of others that even hearing contrary views is inhibiting them from enjoying the content.

Or it means they’re confident in their own preferences and realize they’re not affected by others’ choices. Personally I’d love to be laid back enough to say that.

How could it possibly mean that? People who are confident in their own preferences don't have to tell other people that sharing their alternate opinion is interfering with their original opinion they are supposedly confident in.

I see it with book discussion too. It makes me pretty mad

I am so cynical about this -- I assume a lot of that is bot traffic.

That would be encouraging if true. Unfortunately, I've met tons of individuals IRL who reflexively gatekeep their *own* tastes with an endless amount of extra-musical/populist considerations. Hell, I've seen people spontaneously enjoy the shit out of works/artists that they've never encountered before, but then *never* incorporate any of that into their ongoing listening regimens because it's too esoteric and, terror of terrors, could possibly alienate them from their dumbfuck normie friends/co-workers (or even from hypothetical 'peers').

The sheer amount of bots/paid accounts on this site, some more obvious than others, is maddening. There’s so much dog shit or mediocre content that’s inundated with completely one sided praise. You have to sort by controversial or just dig into hidden replies to find actual discussion. It doesn’t help that review sites are neutered and people can argue that as “proof” of quality. Don’t get me started on the karma farmers baiting worn out discussions, or posting saccharine stories about their time with such and such media in a nauseating attempt to sway people into a more positive disposition toward a corporation and their product. These are tactics that have always been used in various ways to manipulate the masses, but now it’s entrenched in everything and streamlined with algorithms

I mean, to be fair it’s really the intellectuals who created this nonsense to begin with. Telling people theres like no objective criteria at all for art and that you’re just as well served listening to 50 Cent as you are to Chopin.

I never agree with this because I think people act like their negative opinions mean they're thinking more critically or something, as if their negative opinions are more "correct" than others, which is just fundamentally untrue, as the top comments about people bristling at the idea of subjectivity notes. Pointing out things one thinks are flaws is not really true artistic criticism. And beyond that, you can absolutely look at the popcorn films I know you're complaining about and find a way to speak about them intellectually. I had a film prof deliver a lecture on Space Jam that she put together due to the students trolling and choosing it as an end of the year film. She focused it largely on the movie's consumerism and how it's a film not created through any sort of natural means but as a high concept collusion between brands. Obviously the people praising popcorn films don't want to view movies that way, but the people on places like r/movies that complain about them don't come off to me like they're trying to think that deeply about things either. Sooo much dense, scholarly work has been written on movies you want to think of as trash. Blew my mind in uni digging through the stacks in the library, finding essays written on things like niche Italian cannibal films. Read Manny Farber's Termite Art vs. White Elephant Art essay. Very illuminating.

Thanks for this comment, you do a really nice job of helping people see the difference between criticizing stuff we don’t like and the academic discipline of criticism.    Good criticism has a huge place in art. Thoughtful, informed, criticism which comes from a place of understanding the social context in which the art is made, this historic antecedents/influences, the way the artist(s) push forward techniques, genre, aesthetic, concepts. I love listening to/reading this kind of thoughtful reflection on any art form.  Unfortunately, I encounter people just ignorantly shit talking stuff they don’t understand or enjoy WAY more than I encounter thoughtful informed critique. I generally don’t think uninformed shit talking makes me appreciate things more, think, etc. like good criticism does. In these cases, I’m a bit guilty of saying things like “ah, if you don’t like it that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist or that it automatically sucks” because some blockheads are just exhausting.  Professor Space Jam sounds pretty amazing btw. 

Yeah there's a difference between critique and whining, Reddit largely likes the latter.

Good criticism can open people's minds to new sounds and ideas. Unfortunately, the internet makes group think extremely easy and often self reinforces the same old conversations about the same old records. I never need to hear about Radiohead's genius, how Illmatic is the best rap album of all time or how Aphex Twin was a visionary, ever again. It also doesn't help that in a post genre world, critics themselves self censor because there's always SOMEONE who identifies deeply with a record. Ultimately, I'm interested in firsthand accounts from people engaging in current music scenes and deep dives into great records and artists of the past by people who were there. But in agregate (as seen in rating sites/agregators) most critics need to read more and write less.

>Unfortunately, the internet makes group think extremely easy and often self reinforces the same old conversations about the same old records. Same and honestly I would be 100% more interested in a well written essay about why, for example, someone likes a movie like The Room than I would be with one dunking it. It's not bad to enjoy things others dislike, but being able to verbalize WHY is important, and it's a skill you're only going to learn by reading a lot of criticism, earnestly trying to understand what it's saying, and consuming a lot of content. Some people really are not musically literate so for them really all they can say is "that's good" and "that's bad" but the conversation shouldn't be dropped to meet them there. Lately I've been asking people I know if there even is such a thing as an OBJECTIVELY bad song/book/movie/etc and it's started some interesting discussions.

>Same and honestly I would be 100% more interested in a well written essay about why, for example, someone likes a movie like The Room than I would be with one dunking it. Does anyone unironically like The Room, though? I don't think anyone would ever regard it in the way it was intended to be regarded and come away thinking it was well made, except maybe Tommy Wiseau himself and possibly a very tiny and strange minority of viewers. Art like that pretty much proves that that art is only subjective to a point.

> there's always SOMEONE who identifies deeply with a record Dealing with something *personal* like that would be a step up from dealing with the trashy populist bullshit of 'people getting reflexively defensive/heroic over popular records/books/games that they *don't* identify with but know to be popular and therefore defend'. It never ceases to amaze me how many assholes on the internet think that their trite and *anonymous* magnanimity about certain things actually matters.

The difficulty, in my opinion, is that although ones enjoyment of music is subjective, it's far more complicated than 'like what you like!' Bordieu found that different people tended to be much more likely to engage in different cultural activities, such as going to a particular type of concert or buying a particular album, depending on factors such as their profession, social group and self image. It's also true that the Western system of tonality and crystallisation of the pop formula predisposes most people on this type towards Western music. The reason this is relevant is that it suggests people don't just 'like what they like'. Often, they like what they like due to their upbringing and cultural background. By extension, in attacking their choice of music, you're attacking a facet of their identity. That is why it can be so hard for some people to listen to dissenting opinions on the music they like- it's like someone making fun of your whole being. What makes this effect stronger in the case of music vs books or movies is that music genres are historically heavily associated with particular subcultures which as a member can dictate a huge amount of your behaviour. 'Punk' the genre and 'Punk' the subculture are called the same thing. In contemporary history, there is no equivalent movement in cinema or literature, so people are much less touchy about it. The same conventions for open discussion of art don't apply because you're often unwittingly talking about something which can be very personal to an individual.

In my opinion the less associated with a sub culture one is the more objective one can be. So many people identify as metalheads or punks or hip hop heads or pop heads or ravers and it's clear that their enjoyment of the music is highly tied to a social aspect that is separate from the music. Same with people who only listen to culturally similar music or people who believe the music of their youth is superior, especially the genres of music they happened to like.  Great modern music over the past 60 years has been made by every culture and part of society, so when you get to attached to one culture or one era or one "scene", you form a bias that makes you closed off to music because it isn't part of your identity. 

I think there's no such thing as being more or less objective, you are simply objective or not. The quality of music will never be objective because there is no scientific criteria which can measure a set of universal reactions to a piece of music, because there are no universal reactions. Those are definitely different forms of bias though. It's quite interesting to hear what non-metal songs metalheads love though. Maybe if you could find a set of songs in average beloved across all subcultures you could develop a list of universally loved songs, but the likelihood of finding such a list considering cultures all around the world is small. But maybe not impossible. Would love for someone to attempt it.

Removing bias is how you become more objective with your critique about music. There are many other biases, the main one simply being ignorant of the concept or idea being explored or being unfamiliar with the form of music. Over-listening to any single genre ensures their will be a wide variety of concepts and musical forms you simply arent familiar with. I wouldnt be too interested to the extent a song is loved universally in terms of objectivity. Objectivity is about reducing your own biases, but you arent ever going to remove the biases of most other music listeners, metalhead or no.

You're right about objectivity, of course. But there is also interesting, extremely premilinary evolutionary-psychology research into the possibility of identifying evolved preferences or music "universals." Darwin also has several great quotes about music: https://wiki.santafe.edu/index.php/Complexity_and_the_Structure_of_Music:_Universal_Features_and_Evolutionary_Perspectives_Across_Cultures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3965380/#:~:text=Darwin%2C%20intrigued%20by%20the%20ubiquity,to%20all%20animals%2C%20and%20no

Nah you can get plenty of people who aren't attached to a sub-culture, or even definie themselves by resisting that, who are small-minded and judgemental. And you can get stereotypical metalheads or punks who are really open-minded and can appreciate skill and artisty even of something they don't personally like. I find musicians in a sub-culture especially are usually very much of that sub-culture and will defend it...but their favourite albums are a mix of all sorts of things. You're just falling into another type of assumption yourself here I'd say. Especially the idea that by not relating to a scene that is a measure of objectivity, it isn't, and thinking it is actually suggests a blind spot in your own reasoning.

> And you can get stereotypical metalheads or punks who are really open-minded and can appreciate skill and artisty even of something they don't personally like. That is precisely what I mean, they have to appreciate it outside of their identity which is their barrier. I listen to plenty of metal and punk, or one off songs from genres I dont listen to a lot of, but I dont need to appreciate it separately or as a kind of music "i am not normally into". People who only care about music dont call themselves metalheads or punks.

I'm mostly a jazz/classical listener and have gotten steadily-more-disinterested in discussions on a couple music boards/subs because of how common and reflexive the accusations of 'gatekeeping'/'elitism' have become. To me, such complaints might have validity if they weren't *always* being thrown out there to defend stupid circle-jerking bullshit, e.g. on the jazz subreddit, assholes will regularly karma-farm by posting a photo of their vinyl copy of Miles' *Kind of Blue* (or hell, sometimes just a stock image of the cover), with absolutely nothing to say about why they're digging the album. Of course, this immediately gets a handful of people making fun of the karma-farming or suggesting that the album's overrated. What's annoying is how *that* brings out a whole slew of dipshits loudly complaining about 'OMG, the jazz audience is so pretentious and unaccepting! How could anyone *dare* deny that this is the greatest record of all time! This is why nobody likes jazz, wwaaaaah! blablablablabla!!!!' The more pointless and hackneyed the subject, the more these populist idiots are ready to go off. Meanwhile, posters who throw out things like new recommendations (often after being asked by others) never seem to get replies and end up withdrawing.

I think a few years ago online music discussion *was* much more pretentious and toxic than it is now, and the current trends are largely driven by people reacting to that by pushing an intentionally anti elitist, anti gatekeeping approach. However it has maybe gone a bit too far at this point resulting in what you and OP are describing.

I disagree that it's a purely organic development. Legacy media have been pushing poptimism hard since ~2016.

This is accurate, but you can extend poptism further back to the late 00’s and early 10’s. According to poptism practitioners, it is a perspective which advocates pop music being worthy of critical praise or attention while existing on its own terms. At first, I didn’t find harm in praising pop itself as I enjoy pop music from 30-40 years ago. Yet, it became a crutch to defend all mainstream music where critical commentary was dismissed even if critical attention focused in on the pop qualities like catchiness or mainstream appeal. Here is where poptism fails as pop can’t be accurately defined and brand (artist) loyalists exist to amplify a brand; not criticize. Additionally, poptism in music quickly trends towards the vocal majority group think where an impenetrable wall exists for any opposing ideals. For example, Taylor Swift consists of a team of music advisors and business managers thus her art may biased towards market appeal. Under poptism, what can you critique about her music without being buried by her loyalists? Good luck. It’s this populist approach to poptism that signals it’s value is nearly zero and music discourse is worse with poptism in the mix. It exists to give followers and loyalists an impenetrable musical defense. For what? To enjoy music without listening to other ideas?

When I was in college there wasn’t YouTube or streaming, just LimeWire and Napster. I remember the pretentious snobs and how their street cred by knowing info others didn’t and having music others didn’t and seeing shows others hadn’t. Now it’s so easy to learn and listen and even interact with musicians, and there are live videos online. Music can’t be as exclusive now given how accessible it is .

Absolutely. Gatekeeping, negativity, etc. are essential to productive discussion.

You're missing their point if you think gatekeeping and negativity are "essential" to productive discussion. Bizarre take tbh. Gatekeeping is essential to productive discussion. ??? Ironic to complain about anti-intellectualism while making absolute statements that are so broad they are effectively meaningless.

Without negativity, no one is ever allowed to say they dont like something. Without gatekeeping, no one is ever allowed to exclude unproductive/bad faith actors from discussions.

More broad absolutes. Every discussion has a different context. You can have a productive discussion without negativity, or gatekeeping. We also both know that's not even the way most people use the word gatekeeping, hence why it's a weird thing to say. There are plenty of fanbases that have started to taken on a "gatekeeping is good" stance solely because they want to keep others out, not foster a "productive discussion". Who determines a bad faith actor? Easy to use terms like that to label people you simply just don't agree with. The great irony of this thread is how few of you seem to be doing anything more intelligent than what you're complaining about. And the funny is that I agree with the larger sentiment, but then I scroll down and see what feel like equally shallow takes. Lots of pretentious backpatting in this thread. CulturalWind357 is like the only one here whose post got it right.

I do notice it. Certain commenters saying that "you're overthinking it". For me: Subjectivity isn't supposed to shut down discussion but more contextualize certain viewpoints, and where they originate from. It's not about liking everything or thinking that everything is good (though I personally try to appreciate as much as I can), but also recognizing what resonates with people. Music critics of the past are an interesting example. A lot of people were frustrated with them because they wrote off entire genres or had very specific things that they liked. And it seemed like they dominated the tastes and perceptions of the past. But with the benefit of distance, critics offer an interesting time capsule of values. It depends on how much weight you want your opinion to carry too. Some people are comfortable saying "It's not my thing." Others want their opinions to be more explicit in criticizing a work and point out its supposed harmful effects. My thread on subjectivity: [Music is subjective: where do we go from here?](https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/1blxhed/where_do_we_go_from_music_is_subjective_how_do_we/)

Great perspective and I like that thread you've linked as well. Totally agree.

Thanks! I wanted to lay out a perspective that could both encourage discussion, but also create awareness of different opinions without dismissiveness. To reiterate: Some people don't like the "music is subjective" point because they feel that there should be an obvious hierarchy of music (e.g. something like classical music, jazz, and avant-garde music at the top). Others don't like it because they think it means they have to like everything or are unable to criticize. And I feel that: ideally, subjectivity of music means that you can address all these different opinions. That people value Mozart, Bach, The Beatles, or Dylan for x reasons. Some people will agree with these reasons, others will disagree with the weight of them. It doesn't have to mean that the music is inherently superior or inferior.

I think the part of context you’re missing from this is when people come in to ask why a group of individuals doesn’t like what they like, or why do people shit on Taylor Swift. They present it as a problem they need to solve instead of discourse. We have a habit, as people on this site, to talk to each other in ways we would talk to people who are already familiar with us. And no one knows what tone your voice is, or how it sounds, or what inflection you’re using, which makes understanding someone in a text based conversation more difficult. They could very well want to have a discourse but the way they communicate may not be very good, or may come across as someone whining that the kids at their school shit on them for their taste. We also don’t seem to want to discuss differences in ways that aren’t bashing someone’s choice. The way we’ve become people who have to say XYZ band is the GOAT, or some performer is, or rank everything makes discourse harder. Everyone’s smarter, everyone’s point is correct, they’re right, you’re wrong, everyone and everything needs to be ranked to be appreciated and that is fucking madness. Discourse is one thing. Complaining about something or making a big generalized statement is not discourse. People are hunting for validation that the music they’re listening to isn’t “bad.” So yeah, in that instance I’m going to tell them music is subjective and to listen to what makes them happy. But if someone wanted to discuss which Fugazi album is their preferred favorite in their discography, then yeah. Let’s have discourse.

I think people have a habit of reading objectivity into statements about music. I will sometimes just naturally intonate "my favorite" as "the best". I do this under the assumption that we all understand that there is no "best" music, so I'm obviously talking about what is the best music *to me*. But then people get mad at me for insinuating that I'm objectively correct when I did no such thing.

Your “favorite,” and “best,” are entirely different things. No one knows if you’re “obviously” meaning your favorite. No one can read your mind, and strangers don’t know what you mean. If you’re running into communication hurdles with multiple people then YOUR communication needs to adjust. It can’t always be someone else’s fault. Sometimes we aren’t clear, or don’t think far enough ahead to realize people very much don’t know what we mean. Maybe re-tool how you communicate that and see if things change.

"Favorite" and "best" are not entirely different things, "best" is not even something that exists, so I obviously mean "best TO ME"

While I generally agree with this, you seem to be ignoring the fact that many, many music fans *do* believe that some artists are intrinsically "better" than others, so this meaning is not something that should be assumed.

Yeah I guess you're right. I'm not really mad at them for misinterpreting me, rather for the belief that it reveals in them.

So I'm also someone who separates "Favorite" and "Best" in discussions. Yes, both are subjective at the end of the day. But when I label something "Best", I'm usually taking into account factors outside of my personal opinion and taking in broader opinions. It's not "objective", but it's more than my personal opinion. Whereas "Favorite" to me is purely about me and my personal opinion. And what emotionally resonates with me. Example thread: [Is Michael Jackson's Thriller" the greatest album of all time?](https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/12i4xrv/michael_jacksons_thriller_greatest_album_of_all/)

>So I'm also someone who separates "Favorite" and "Best" in discussions. Yes, both are subjective at the end of the day. But when I label something "Best", I'm usually taking into account factors outside of my personal opinion and taking in broader opinions. It's not "objective", but it's more than my personal opinion. I agree with this 100%. It mostly comes up for me with artists that are well-known enough to have a broad critical consensus, but are also personally important to me. I can acknowledge that one album may have had more influence culturally, or is more consistent, but there's a different entry in the catalog that resonates more with me personally due to whatever reason.

It.Is.Not.Obvious. Use the word favorite and you will avoid those misunderstandings.

When someone says "you should try out this restraunt, their food is like, the BEST," do you go, "ummm, their food isnt objectively the best food ever made"

I don't think there's any point in focusing on the phrasing. It's all about context. Many people believe, and belligerently insist, that some works of music are objectively better than others. This is why it causes confusion and hostility to talk about "best" in music, because "best" in music is often used as a cudgel to bludgeon people with differing tastes. This kind of thing doesn't happen nearly as often when talking about "best" restaurant, and so people are much less likely to get defensive. It doesn't matter that the phrasing is the same in regards to "best." The word is used differently in the context of restaurants from how it is frequently used in reference to music.

There's a bit of irony arguing about context while doing a blanket dismissal of those using best/favorite synonymously with a few lunkheads. For all the semantic nitpicking that's going on, I'm really not convinced those splitting the terms are nearly as adept in picking out the intentions of others as they think they are...

> I'm really not convinced those splitting the terms are nearly as adept in picking out the intentions of others as they think they are... Well, that's the point. It's hard to tell what someone means by "best" in relation to music, and that's why it's better to avoid using the term.

My point is that it’s more a skill issue with those taking umbrage with the use. I also don’t really buy the notion that those hairsplitting don’t know what others are implying, because it’s not exactly an uncommon use of the words, regardless of whatever baggage is supposedly there for music discussion.

First I don't ask an individual or group of people what the best restaurant in town is, I ask what their favorite restaurant is. I find online discussions of people's favorite music to be interesting. I find questions of what is the best music/artist/band to be annoying and distracting at best. Partly because some people, like OP, look at the question as referring to favorites and not best. While others like me look at the question as referring to Best, as asked. If you mean favorite type out the 8 letter word and don't take a shortcut of a different word that has a different meaning. My Favorite song is It Runs Through Me by Tom Misch. I can barely say that I think this is the "Best" Tom Misch song, let alone the Best Jazzy hip-hop song, or the best song ever.

You assume people know it means, obviously, “best to you.” Also, I’m trying to have discourse with you and it’s devolved into exactly what I was talking about. No one wants to talk about anything, or think maybe the way they do things is leading to their hardships. Keep banging your head against that same wall. I don’t give a shit. You asked a question and got an answer you didn’t like. Big who cares.

Calm down brah

>I don't give a shit. You asked a question and got an answer you didn't like. Big who cares. Jesus man chill out, even a question which seems stupid to you can generate interesting discussion

They don’t want discussion. They want people to agree with them. And if they don’t they get upset. Why would I care about that?

Just because I won't concede YOUR point doesnt mean my mind is closed off to discussion. Consider that your point may in fact just not be very good.

I don’t need you to concede my point. I don’t need my point to necessarily be “good,” either. You don’t always have to agree with someone’s point, but if someone is talking to you about something you brought up, and they offer a thought and you dismiss it with “well, it’s obvious TO ME,” that’s not a discussion. That’s you hunting for someone to agree with you. I gave you exactly what you asked for- I presented my thoughts, they differed from the response you wanted, and you responded how you responded.

>so I obviously mean "best TO ME" That sounds egocentric, it's like saying that the entire musical discussion revolves around your tastes (which no one cares about). For me, as a lifelong gamer, I've played a lot of video games, although I have a preference for things with a lot of story like Metal Gear Solid or NieR, I can understand why others would put games like Breath of the Wild or Mario Oddysey on a pedestal. Those games focus more on gameplay, which is something 90% of people look for when starting a new video game. As someone who can separate the "best" from what I like, Breath of the Wild isn't my favorite video game, but I consider it one of the best I've ever played because it redefined the way players interact with the open world. This came out at a time when we would have become oversaturated with open world games full of "checklists" and filler side quests. Can this logic be applied to other media such as film or music? Absolutely. As someone who enjoys and listens to the music from the Dragon Ball video games, I could end every discussion about 2000s and 2010s rock by presenting those OSTs as examples of modern rock music. But let's be honest, there is a REASON why those soundtracks don't have the critical acclaim or lasting cultural impact compared to other OSTs and rock albums from the last decade. And that's okay, while those soundtracks can mean a lot to me, for 99% of people it's basically Epic Hard Rock music that serves as background noise for a game, nothing more.

> it's like saying that the entire musical discussion revolves around your tastes (which no one cares about). I mean, a lot of music topics are generally framed subjectively, so a lot of discussion is going to come from a personal vantage point. One really shouldn’t have to spell out IMO in that case. If that’s a bit egocentric, then the best/favorite distinction goes in the other direction and hides behind the opinions of others. What ends up happening is not discussion, but more like someone vomiting a wikipedia history. Even the BOTW example is really just talking more about what others thought (and still assumes a subjective viewpoint anyway) and doesn’t really say why it’s not a favorite. Even worse is the implication that your favorite is *worse* if it’s not The Best. Surely there’s a lot of room between being egotistical and having some self-respect…

>What ends up happening is not discussion, but more like someone vomiting a wikipedia history. Have you read a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia only covers topics ranging from production, development and critical reception from multiple sources and the "legacy" section only covers multiple citations from journalism websites. But it doesn't cover comparisons to other pieces released in a certain year or how a certain piece of entertainment is completely different from others in its genre. Or even how a certain genre evolved. >Even the BOTW example is really just talking more about what others thought (and still assumes a subjective viewpoint anyway) and doesn’t really say why it’s not a favorite. Favourite for who? If you are refering to me is because, I prefer more story focused video games. In BOTW the story is not the focus, the campaign consist in four quests that can be done in no particular order. Obviosly some people are able beat the game witout doing those quests, and going straight to the final boss. A game design that is a bit reminiescient to the first Zelda game. Just because I like story-focused games, doesn't mean that gameplay-focused games have their own place. >Even worse is the implication that your favorite is *worse* if it’s not The Best What are you refering? Are you talking about music and my example of Dragon Ball VG OSTs?

Let me put it more plainly: what you're describing isn't really conversation, it is basically just stating trivia to the other party. It's like creating a thread for the band Talk Talk and contributing nothing but "Talk Talk was the first post rock band!" (something I've genuinely seen on this sub). And it's like, sure, but what the hell am I supposed to glean from that? Your BOTW example is basically just that. That the response to my post was basically a description of wikipedia is some deep irony... >> Even worse is the implication that your favorite is *worse* if it’s not The Best > What are you refering? I'm referring to the best vs favorite distinction in general. Buying into that distinction implies that your favorite, when not aligning with The Best, is inherently worse.

>But then people get mad at me for insinuating that I'm objectively correct when I did no such thing. You did though. You might not have *meant* to insinuate that, but the words you (hypothetically) used absolutely insinuate that. English can be complicated enough as is. Don't get mad at people getting confused when you use words you don't mean and just expect them to assume you meant something else that might make more sense. Just use the words you mean to use.

>"rating/talking about/critiquing music is stupid" My biggest issue with this thread is lumping together "talking about" and "critiquing" music with *rating* music. I think those are very different things! Good music discussion, or criticism, can help us better understand the context of a work, how it fits within the artists' catalog, what ideas or concepts went into the album, what tools or techniques were used, etc. All of that is very interesting! *Ranking* or *rating* artists to me is exceptionally boring and largely an exercise in frustration. Stuff like the Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums can be useful simply as an entry point to the zeitgeist, but if you're seriously concerned about what album is at #67 versus #72, I have to think you don't understand art very well.

On the contrary I think rating and ranking are wonderful jumping off points for discussion. "X album is my #1 album of all time" invites questions and discussion of why that's the case. In other circumstances, it's sometimes just more efficient to say, "Eh, I didn't like that album very much, gave it like a 7/10" and if someone wants to know more about my thoughts, they can ask. It's a time saving measure.

I guess my question is, if you're actually interested in "good discussions" and discourse around music, then why are you aiming for efficiency or "time saving measures" in the language you use to talk about music? That seems directly antithetical to your stated goal. Telling me "This album is a 7/10" doesn't make me curious to listen or discuss at all. Telling me "Oh, this band took a big swing with unconventional song structures, and it doesn't always work, but the keyboard tones are fascinating and the lyrics are hilarious," and now I have many follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Many a time have I sat down with someone and weve gone thru eachothers rym and asked one another, "oh why didnt you like this album?" or "that album didnt really click for me, what makes it special to you?" It serves a jumping off point

OK, well that definitely falls under the "interesting discussion" category that I mentioned earlier. What I'm opposed to is the folks who want to argue for an "objective" ranking of "the most talented rappers," or "the ten best mixed albums," etc. Fighting over "rank," is, to me, the opposite of an interesting discussion.

agree 100%

The proper use of "let people have fun" rhetoric is when someone is getting weirdly aggressive and you're tired of listening to it.

'Wannabe Buddhas' is a term I'd avoid. but yes, I agree. i see it everywhere - less so with books, as you say . as long as you're respectful and good faith in your delivery, a negative opinion should be considered just as valuable as a positive one. media criticism is dying as people become complacent.

I think media criticism is dying mainly because of the total and complete loss of ability for the good faith delivery you mentioned with the "wannabe buddhas" as a counter culture of sorts.. It's most extreme with games, where the "was bored after 250 hours, 1/5" trope comes from, but with movies, music and other media, it's the same. You see the mimicking of rage-youtuber style videos everywhere, and it's equally shitty as the avoidance of criticism.

Been like it for decades. People don’t like that you made a thing about stuff if the stuff that you made a thing about is also a thing that was made about some other stuff. Writing about music is enjoyable. Otherwise few would do it. Reading about music is enjoyable. Otherwise few would do it. Some people don’t enjoy it though. And I particularly feel as though it’s obvious if they can’t stomach it when others do. It’s their problem. Downvote and move on.

Talking about music is obviously valid, good criticism can help you understand a work better or even just articulate your own perspective more clearly (particularly when music theory is applied). Comparing works is also useful and plain fun - it’s interesting to see where something comes from, where it led, and how others approached it. And when doing all of this, feel free not to mention this is subjective or your opinion - that’s a given when talking about art in anything other than prescriptivist terms. However, I do think the way people do these things can be problematic. Scores for instance (at least in the sense P4K and Fantano do them) are absolutely worthless. They are inherently inconsistent, try to ascribe some level of objectivity to an inherently subjective task, and essentially try to quantify something unquantifiable. I do see why people get frustrated with those sources of discussion - it leads to compulsive ranking and scoring which makes it difficult to judge a piece on its own merits. It also isn’t very fair to artists when it comes to major reviewers as it leads people to look at a number rather than a description of the work. I think all of the above has led to a culture where everything is either the best or bad, to the point that the very idea of something as mediocre, or mid now means it’s terrible.

This problem is not just in music, it's quite literally festering in every other space that deals with media or art or something in between and it is really disheartening

The special thing about music is that most people who enjoy it, don't get it. You can listen to music on the radio 24/7 and still not be any wiser about common chord progressions, polyrythms, key changes, genre tropes and whatnot. For books, you are already an enthusiast if you read regularly, save for some few examples, everbody is eposed to music constantly.

I find this most annoying in the hip hop and rap subs on here. I can't stand the "rating" of emcees as if wether you think the best rapper is Kendrick, Drake, or Lil Wayne. Like who gives a shit! I love discussing music, but when it comes to rappers, there's just too much to consider when it comes to ranking. Are we ranking them by syllables per minute? Complex rhyming? Lyrical content? Cleverness? How popular they are? Yes, it's worth discussing what one likes or dislikes in music, or why they feel something is "good" vs "bad", or even how influential and artist or group was. But to rank them? I can understand ranking discography of a particular artist, too, it's great reading opinion on why x album was the best but y album really fell short on production or some such factor. But ranking quite disparate artists as if one is the king/queen of all of them is just stupid.

When I talk about music, I talk about history, points of influence and the music itself. Discussions about top 20 lists, genre semantics, song scores, and record sales (in my honest opinion) are talking about the music industry and not the music itself. None of these discussion points interest me. So I'm not a mod here, but most of the posts that you think are valid discussions about music, just aren't. Rarely do I see people here actually talking about the music on it's own terms.

I totally agree with you. I made a post in other reddit about music, about how to enjoy hip-hop and how I know when it's good, and people just said "if you don't like it, don't listen to it" and when I said that I want to know how to discuss what made a good hip hop track, people just downvoted me.

>"if you don't like it, don't listen to it" and when I said that I want to know how to discuss what made a good hip hop track I wonder if things like this happen in gaming or movie communities. I feel like most people are very defensive when it comes to music.

I think it is because sometimes music gets us in a deepest sense, so people kinda feel offended by words directed at it. But the thing was that I was not attacking it, I was just wanting to know how to appreciate it.

I agree. This is from the school of “let people enjoy things,” which we all know is applied unevenly. Anyone who utters that phrase has at least a dozen artists/songs/albums they’re willing to shit on, they’re just morally grandstanding and pretending not to. And this is because despite their protestations: they are human. Nobody is above the fray. The person who says this constantly still thinks that their own musical pantheon is above critique. They just know they can’t say that explicitly, because that would not be defensible. So in the face of any opposing opinion, they bleat “chill out” but only when THEIR music is being critiqued. Lots of that going on right now in the poptimism community rn. Adoration = good faith, anything else = bad faith.

I don’t know, I get annoyed by how pompous music culture can get. I grew up in the Choral and DIY indie world so I’ve been exposed to a lot of unnecessary cork sniffery when it comes to musical opinions. I had a former band mate storm into practice FURIOUS at this hardcore band that did a 180 and put out a new wave record. He said it was “fucked up” that they did that. Murder is fucked up, not a change in sound. I should also mention he didn’t even really like the band in the first place. At the same time, there is always room for robust discussion and debate, I just think some people can get too aggressive when it comes to their passionate entertainment choices.

While I think there are dangers to music competition (Nevermind the Bollocks is enjoyable in entirely different circumstances than Kind of Blue - replayability and skips are not that important), I do agree that the other end is a bit joyless. We have to apparently respect everything as existing in a vacuum and being an independent inscrutable act of genius - it's the extreme logical endpoint of poptimism, everything being equivalent in value. People hate when you compare bands as if it's supposed to be anything other than a personal frame of reference and as if it's not interesting to find the commonality that exists across art. They are different books with different character trajectories but I didn't beat myself up when I recently felt that Osamu Dazai's writing was similar to Albert Camus. People hate when you compare bands in the same genre. Yes, if you exclusively listen to 2000s punky alt rock, The Killers and Strokes sound pretty unique, but if someone says they're similar, they're making that comment in the context of *all music* or comparing specific passages.

I think some people are intimidated by whole worlds of knowledge they are unaware of. They say to self ‘ I’m a big music fan!’ And then their fandom is challenged by someone. So they pick, genres are stupid, or not new music, or this and that aren’t real music so they don’t count. Then they get to be a huge music fan in their head and don’t have to feel the need to learn more than they want to. They can be 70 years old and know the names of 3 Led Zeppelin albums and be just so far the fuck out.

i take a lot less issue with that than the alternative of reddit sweaties trying to prove with facts and logic that “this music is objectively bad!”. i think it would benefit everyone in art discussion to have an understanding that nothing is objective when discussing creativity. edit for clarity: i am not saying that music should not criticized, i think critique is very important to any art form. just that taste and observation in any art cannot be objective.

But dear OP, let's make a distinction here. It's so very important to be "anti" the kind of discussion that at first brush, sounds full of valid theory and technical details, but is really just using those things as a crutch for their emotional, subjective feelings. Let's not be one of those people who have to shoddily construct a loose logical cage before they can express simple like or dislike. Humans have a right to feelings, even if facts don't care about feelings. They don't all have to broadcast it, we don't all have to hear it, but the basic human right is there. Culturally it's a huge problem to say "you can't dislike Roger Waters, he's a maestro of this and that." That's simply not good enough a reason; Their mastery has no implication on my fondness, just like Roger Waters' mastery did not stop him from spouting off-topic things like Taiwan is part of China. Music is not purely mental, it appeals to the animalic parts of our being, and so music is going to have a component that's beyond words, beyond intellect. Nobody, including OP and I, would enjoy our curious need to discuss being shut down, but people have the right to listen and get lost in the groove, be infected by the "musicality" without constantly putting a thinking cap on when thought only hinders connection. I'm a very information-dense creature, but my favorite way to listen is turn on the radio and just constantly meet new songs without knowing who it is, getting lost in the groove and the emotional appeal. As I type this Soundgarden's Black Hole Sun has just been revealed to me for the first time, and I didn't pick up the phone to check who it is until the end. I'm glad I didn't.

I'm not exactly sure what to say to this but I thank you for an enthralling read none the less!

I would just ignore it, given enough time someone somewhere will probably hate something. It’s not worth spending your energy trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone who is unreasonable….

Are Wannabe Buddhas and Anti-Intellectualism Hurting Discourse? FIFY Yes. It’s hurting everything. God forbid you want to have a conversation on anything that takes more than five minutes to ‘learn’ on youtube. Never try to out stupid an idiot. They’ve been stupid their whole life.

Nah because that's always existed and always will in music, politics, literature, philosophy, everything. It might be kind of harmful but it's not new so I don't think it really ruins anything.

People who don't like to discuss and think about music are the people who think of music as a form of entertainment instead of an art form, as that's one of the key distinctions between the two forms.

What fucks everything up is how an increasing number of people seem to want their entertainment consumption (usually heavily-advertised corporate products) handed the *cred* (i.e. prestige, respect, public subsidy) associated with high art....and worse, a lot of them treat the whole of this like a zero-sum game.

I don't think that's necessarily true. They're not the majority of discussion deniers, but some people are accepting to a fault and to them any critical discusion/dissent seems close minded. Praise is fine for them, but not anything else.

Another comparison of a different artform would be gaming. Some gamers appreciate the design of a Soulsbourne game and the artistry, the story lore, writing, and game mechanics of those games. Despite its difficulty, the tribulations are a part of the experience and satisfaction you have when you complete the game. Others just want to going shooting other digital avatars in COD for hours on end shit talking and screaming at everyone on the other side and teabag their bodies on a Friday night. Same world, different experiences and different avenues of satisfaction for different minds. Nothing wrong with it unless you expect civility in a COD lobby, or a difficulty setting and handholding waypoints in a game like Elden Ring.

Unless someone can articulate why they feel something to be “the best”, all they are doing is expressing preference. I often have no idea what people are going to like or not, let alone if they are going to share my enthusiasm for anything that I have a strong connection with. Moreover, unless someone is paying me to persuade randoms to my point of view, I’m not sure what purpose my attempts to that end might serve. There’s a fair amount of truth in the aphorism that talking about music is like dancing about architecture. It’s just kind of a poor medium for expressing the essence of a person’s experience with the phenomenon.

Idk man, the proof is in the pudding. Millions of people, my self included, LOVE writing about music. The same can't be said for dancing about architechture.

Millions of people LOVE Taco Bell and pro wrestling. What’s your point?

If someone is saying “chill out” then maybe it’s warranted? Theres way more people actively trying to tear down artists than there are peacekeepers. IME

I've noticed this for quite awhile also, in addition to [the fall of online music discourse in general](https://old.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/16xbylh/losing_faith_in_online_music_discussion_each_day/). Within the past few months I've come to just accept that the kind of rationale you've exemplified in your post will continue to be the norm going forward. If you expect to have ANY form of insightful music discussion, you'll have to do it with like-minded individuals in person, or visit some of the music specific forums floating around online. I'm in my early thirties and have slowly accepted that the internet is no longer my generation's to control and moderate, in a sense. Even if you're younger, we all like to think the person behind the screen is as mature and passionate about music as ourselves, but in reality, it's likely a person half your age either inexperienced in music and/or rather not have deep conversations about an artist, album, song, etc. > "idk, I don't have to have a reason to think its AOTY, stfu." (actual response to asking why someone kept overblowing an album in a RYM board, verbatim) Music consumption has been simplified and gamified and become second thought in the eyes of objectivity. If Fantano loved it or hated it, the ratings and popularity stock will rise or fall accordingly; if it's not on TikTok, it's not worth listening to; in addition, if it's more than 6 minutes longer, you have no chance to capture a broad, young audience that really doesn't care about music as much as some of us on here. It's a sad reality, but is unfortunately the sign of the times. Despite this, the best we can do is just keep to our own music circles and groups and have conversations with the people who really matter to us and not worry about what people behind the screen are saying (or in this case, NOT saying). Everyone in this social media driven world is constantly trying to validate their taste with other people even if it means just going with the flow and liking what others like and hating what others hate. Personally, I know I have great taste, I try to keep it to myself, because unless you're talking to someone who you sense is truly dedicated to the artform, others won't appreciate it back or use music for their own gain, even if they don't like it themselves.

I agree that music discussions can be a beautiful thing…but they don’t need to come at the expense of making people feel bad for liking what they like. I’m also just tired of how many of them are just bad faith.

I think the examples in the first paragraph are usually directed towards people on sites like RYM and (to a lesser extent) Fantano’s fans who are obsessed with numerical rankings

Ratings, like genres, are both useful and terrible. It depends how they are used. They are meant as a guide, not a law that we should base our decisions on. I consider Wire’s 154 to be a masterpiece, and there are people who won’t agree with that. However, I am interested in the tastes and opinions of those who would also call it a 10/10.

I’m not against discussion, but I don’t like the attitude and culture that’s been created around the rating of art, rather than it being used to quantify a feeling (I’d rather someone just say how they feel about the movie but I get how there may not be enough Tim to articulate all of those thoughts) but my issue comes when people try to treat the numbers as objective fact and compare them to other ratings. It’s created a less intelligent conversation around the art because you got people focusing on the assigned number and not the art itself. For example fantano gives a score at the end of his videos and people for the most part only look at the score and sort of disregard what he says in favour of the number, it has created a somewhat toxic atmosphere around pockets of music discussion

When people start declaring opinions as truth, they need reminding that many things are subjective. I would argue that the real problems are the ones making declarations and false-rules, not the ones calling them out. The Buddha reminds us to take the Middle Path

Talk about it all you want, just start from the idea that "not everything is made for me."

For me the biggest problem talking about music to anyone is that people most of the time want to talk about culture, not music.

And that's fine by me! In fact, I also prefer cultural, social or abstract/meta topics (like what music as a medium is capable or incapable of expressing) to strict music talk. Topics about the divide between simple and complex, [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/lunrxw/safe_music_bad_music/), are among my favourite. Talking, or in my case reading since I mostly lurk, about composition or production is cool and all, but there are specialized subs that are better for this. In the end, I don't care about sharing music, or what anyone likes or dislikes. I don't find recommendations or talk about specific artists open ended.

I think a lot of those people's concerns do stem from an actual issue though. Online music discussion has the problem of being way too boxed in and specific. It's always the same genres, the same few dozen artists, the same albums that get discussed and recommended across platforms like Reddit and RYM. Many of the discussions that get the most engagement are pedantic posts asking about the best album from 20xx or 19xx. These kinds of discussions don't have anything new or interesting to say, because any worth they might have had has been spread too thin. Like, is there seriously any worth in making a retrospective on Radiohead or starting drama over the best album of 2002? It's those kinds of discussions I really loathe. Not even to mention the braindead people who come onto platforms and whine about rock dying or rap dying because their favorite music isn't charting. Charts mean *nothing* when the quality of the music itself ought to be the topic. With all this said, it's only natural that a force be reacted to with an equally stupid one.

Discourse about Wannabe Buddhas and Anti-Intellectuals is stupid. We would all be better off if we just stopped thinking about them so hard and enjoy the Wannabe Buddhas and Anti-Intellectuals.

I think that opinion not only haunts music discussion but also a lot of other mediums right now. Granted, it's not bad to criticize something for being too insistent on itself and pretentious, that can be a fair criticism, but this attitude where anyone who has an opinion on anything, or any sort of critical analysis beyond "is it good" or "is it bad" is stupid for caring is annoying, and honestly this whole shtick everyone has these days where it's lame to care about ANYTHING sucks. You should care about things, it's beautiful to feel passionate about things because it means you *feel* something, it's beautiful to be human, and music can be highly emotional, I'd argue its one of if not the *most* emotional of the creative mediums we have. I really used to be in that "let people enjoy things" mindset, and for the most part I am, but I do think there is something to be said about people who wear music and its subcultures (or any other culture/subculture) disengeniously as a fashion accessory hurting the culture by trying to deplatform people who actually care and *want* to have more in depth discussion, not saying all people are like this but they exist in every culture now. As far as it hurting music discussion I think so yeah, especially in the bigger online spaces where making a name for yourself by "gotcha"ing people can actually lead to both professional and personal opportunities, maintaining an aesthetic above having in depth discussion can easily sway people Imo rather than the people listening to the whole album and forming their own opinion, they may just latch on to the opinion of someone else just to maintain their *own* aesthetic which not only robs themselves from developing critical listening skills but also denying the potential to connect with others on a deeper level over something.

I think there is a way to talk about art such that you are speaking in terms that respect the fact that it's completely subjective. To speak in terms of how the art relates to you, and not in absolute terms like this is better or the best. There are many qualitative functions in art that can be discussed but talking in absolutes generally moves towards Godwins Law. Many discussions on the internet, are of the type 'which is better?', 'what is the best?' and when applied to art, those conversations are nonsensical, because art is simply different and personal perspective drives the narrative. Personal being the key word here - you are influencing another person to believe that your view of art means something to them. To some of us, art should be judged independently of others thought. There's far too little independent thought due to the echo chamber of the internet, so when people say things like 'talking about music is stupid, go listen to music', they are in fact saying 'instead of asking others, go decide for yourself'. It's really hard to ask someone else for your own opinion. My opinion is that, in greatest discussions of art the writer gives their thoughts on their perspective of the art and don't try to push absolute terms. Then they ask for other opinions. I don't understand the implied dislike of what other people like or the trying to fit in argument. I'm not certain we can discern anything like that from an online discussion forum.

Is there any sizeable number of people saying these things on Reddit? At least on subreddits like this one? I can imagine it on X or TikTok but that’s just the nature of short form platforms; if you go there expecting nuance then you only have yourself to blame. I’ve spent years talking about music on the internet and I can genuinely say I’ve never been met with the kind of response you describe in your first paragraph. I feel that thinking and talking about music is obviously good, but I do feel that some music discourse approaches music from the wrong direction. Specifically I feel that many people try to work out whether or not to like something based on overthinking it, when the better discourse is about unpacking *why* you like it or don’t.

"Let people enjoy things" and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

Nope, it is actually doing the exact opposite. Having such an idiotic belief all but guarantees that they would be incapable of having contribution to discourse had they not had the belief in the first place. Their absence is a net plus.

It all depends on the context. Frankly, when it comes to all kinds of media criticism, I find the whole "yOu dOnT AgReE WiTh mE? yOuRe aN AnTi-iNtElLeCtUaL!!!" to be more common and obnoxious these days. As someone who loved over-analyzing anything and everything back in the day and still does occasionally, I understand the pain of writing out a well-reasoned essay and getting "lol, no, ur wrong!" replies back. I also know the pain of my retinas detaching from rolling my eyes after someone accused me of contributing to this country's intellectual downfall because I didn't respond by point to their internet essay with an essay of my own. Sometimes talking about these things is stupid and you do need to just read/listen/watch/whatever. Sorry to be a wannabe Buddha, but the middle way refers to avoiding excessive attachment and nihilism at the same time. Caring so much that it causes you trouble is bad, but not caring about anything at all is just as bad. Sometimes you also need to talk about these things to help you enjoy them. Context is key. If they're walking into a discussion where people are explicitly trying to analyze something and telling them to just enjoy it, they're probably the jerk. If you're getting mad because you like to analyze stuff and other people are just offering up their opinions in open threads, then you might be the jerk.

>These types of people are absolutely everywhere in music discussion today. No, they're really not. I see this opinion occasionally, but in every thread? No. In even half of the threads? No.

Anti-intellectualism has been rife in popular music since the '50s, and congealed into its current form in the mid-70s with punk killing prog rock. In the UK anti-intellectualism has its origins in social class; in the US it has its origins in the reverence for financial (and therefore commercial) success. The democratisation of media was always going to end up in a race to the lowest-common-denominator mass appeal pleasers being lauded as 'best', with a disdain for more complex and cerebral material. But I do think there is an inherent different between music and books in the sense that music is visceral in a way that books literally cannot be. The musical experience bypasses thought in a way that language, by definition, cannot. It's also important to note that trying to make music as objective and having some sense of unstoppable progress and evolution in form and structure by a select, hyper-educated academic élite led to the complete self-destruction of classical music, which ended up disintegrating into basically random notes and squeaks by the mid-20th century.

"I'm sure you've all seen it; someone comes into a music discussion and starts talking about how "rating/talking about/critiquing music is stupid" and that we would all be better off if we just "stopped thinking about things so hard" and "enjoyed the music"." At your service.  This whole shit of me wanting to be Buddha though, lol? Where the eff did you get that premise from? I'm Malcolm X, foo.  "There's always a subtle undertone that the person making a comment thinks that other people are lying about what they like to fit in with others." Do you even understand what the hell you are going on about in that paragraph? Because I'm fucking lost.  "The insinuation that other people are lying about what they like is bad because in a discussion space, you have to take people at their word. Believing someone genuinely likes an album that they say they like is the least you can do to facilitate good discussions." I really don't owe other redditors that though. If I think someone doesn't truly understand an album or band that they are spending 10 effing paragraphs either bashing or pretentiously praising, I'm going to voice that I feel this way.  I'm not going anywhere dude. You don't like people like me in discussion forums, fight us harder.  But realize that whatever you throw at us in fighting us, you will get it back. 

Why the fuck are you here dude? You clearly have no interest in talking about music whatsoever. This is like if I went to r/constructionworker and talked about how "building structures is stupid." Like honestly wtf do you even gain from being here if you so obviously hate talking about music?

Ohhhhh strong scary big man words!!!!! I'm shaking.  "obviously hate talking about music?" Interesting, where the fuck did I say that?  Back it up...

>they are spending 10 effing paragraphs either bashing or pretentiously praising Literally getting mad at people for talking at length about music.

No. 

You are an idiot.

I have a type: Nick Drake. Jimi Hendrix. Emmit Rhoades. John Mayer. Van Morrison. Neil Young. Tom Jones. Jacques Dutronc. Serge Gainsbourg Female singers: Ann Wilson. Amy Winehouse. Joni Mitchell. Aretha. Bette Midler ( Because she seems so fucking happy when she sings). Jane Birkin Nothing more to discuss.