A matter of taste

Everyone knows music is a matter of personal taste (although, if you're talking about commercial success, that's debatable. But obviously that's not what I'm talking about), and that's how it should be. Lots of different people like lots of different kinds of music. Simple as that. Now why is there always someone who's trying to convince everyone else that he or she is right about everything and knows what's 'good' music and what isn't? There's not much point in trying to convince, say, a UK garage fan that guitarpop was the future, is there? Same goes for bands of the same 'genre'. There are no good bands and no bad bands, as there will always be someone who likes or dislikes that band. And how would you define a 'good' band in the first place? Musical ability? Bollocks to that! Who cares? If you think something sounds good, it sounds good. And it doesn't matter if it's made up from, like, three powerchords. Lyrics? Aha aha aha. Most lyrics are about fuck all. What I'm trying to say is: if you like a band, you like a band. No one should have to justify why they like whatever they like. And no one should walk around thinking their personal opinion was some kind of universal truth either.

Obviously the same has to apply to people's different approaches to writing reviews (be it gig reviews or singles or whatever). People should write what they want to write. How they go about it is their personal choice. Arguments along the lines of 'your review sucks and I know why' are pointless. So what's the point in bickering about what should go into a review and what shouldn't. I have to admit, that I find some of the reviews up here pretty atrocious. But then, someone else thinks they're really good. That's how it is. Take it or leave it, but, for God's sake, stop trying to tell people how to write.