A few times on here and you know in real life where things actually happen i've had/seen arguments about music which end with one person saying "You know at the end of the day music is subjective isn't it so just let me like what I like".
This seems really thick to me. What do people mean when they say that? When I like some music or a band I can usually say why I like the band, give reasons or mention some of the ideas in the music i.e the arrangements, the playing, the lyrics, songwriting, context whatever. I think if there is some music that you don't like for certain reasons and you argue with somebody who does like that music, it is your mutual responsibility to revise your opinions depending on who has the strongest argument. Its not acceptable to pin the music down to "the sound of the music" and then say that its subjective as if the experience itself of the music doesn't appear to us all in and of itself. Its not acceptable to say "I just like this band alright I can't say why other than the experience of listening to it appeals to me". It's intersubjective anyway rigggggggght husserl?
Basically i've worked out that music, and i'd go as far to say ALL art forms - because I am a genius -, is "worth" only as much as you can argue it is. If someone provides a more convincing argument you must revise your opinion and i'd say you even have a responsibility to argue with others when you disagree with them. I feel with this post I have solved all discussion in the field of aesthetics. It allows for arts value to change over time and within different contexts and restarts debate.
I mean i'd appreciate your thoughts but as I said they'd be superfluous cos i done fixed it already thanks