No, you simply assume I am dismissing all critical studies by saying what I’m saying, but I don’t.
People’s learned opinions have a place in the discussion on music and depending on their studies they are likely to have a better understanding of what they talk about, a greater ability to verbalise their thoughts and a wider experience to draw those thoughts from… my point is that even someone who knows every note of every song, who has spent a lifetime studying all forms of music and can discuss any aspect of it at any length cannot say someone else is wrong. They can disagree, of course. I’d never suggest otherwise but if someone says ‘I don’t like music by artist x’, they cannot be made to like it and they cannot be called wrong for giving an opinion, as uneducated as that may be.

That’s just silly. ‘The Ticket’ is one example of a group of critics who are able to articulate WHY they think something is good or bad,and who can make a convincing argument based on that ability to articulate their opinion. They don’t just say ‘Casino Royale is great. That’s just my personality.’ Or ’such-and-such made a terrible album. That just my personality, so it is.’

You see now you’re confusing what a critic is with what demands are created by the creation of a “professional” critic.
People read magazines and newspapers for learned and varied opinions; the critic is never right or wrong in what they say and they’d be pretentious to assume they were; they’re just offering their own opinions.
Are the critics in The Ticket right when they say an album is good or bad? Well they might be for 100 people, but there are 100 more that disagree… they might simply disagree because they think the music is ‘deadly’ or they might have a more eloquent way of putting it, but that’s their opinion, and they’re not wrong in it.

Have a read of Aristotle’s Poetics before you make making personality statements about artistic appreciation, or indeed whether it is possible to make an INTELLIGENT argument as to why something stinks.

I don’t see why I need to read that, thanks. Artistic appreciation at any level doesn’t make anyone right or wrong in their personal tastes. As I said; all the learning in the world doesn’t give you any answers because there are none.
Just because one person doesn’t know music (or a particular artist) to the same depths as you doesn’t make them wrong when they form an opinion.

I don’t expect you to agree with this, but that’s because you are wrong. It’s a free country. Knock yourself out with your wrongality.

Thanks for that.

I never said intelligence and insight have no role. When it comes to art, intelligence and insight can be tools used in forming an opinion, but they don’t make anyone else wrong or you right.
Intelligence and insight might make you more able to verbalise or explain your opinion, or they might make you more aware of music but they don’t give you any answers, because there are none.
I don’t see what effect this has on The Ticket; as long as that doesn’t start telling people they’re wrong for thinking a certain way about a certain act and continues to simply voice it’s (as in the reviewers/critics) opinions on the arts then things will be well.

How can you back up an opinion that comes down to personality? This type of music appeals to me, this type doesn’t. Is it going to be the same for you? Hell no.
The difference in politics is that opinions are formed on the cause and effect of policies etc.; so to say that socialism is right for this country because it appeals to you personally isn’t enough, you have to show it’s plausibility in action.
I can’t prove to anyone that my favourite artist is any good, they either agree or they don’t.

What you usually find is that when someone does not have ANYTHING TO BACK UP their opinion they cite the opinion as justification for the opinion. In other words, my reasons for holding an opinion is the opinion itself. It’s a tautology. Useless logic.

But when something has no right answer you cannot back it up with proof. There is no perfect song, genre, artist and there is no artist better than another beyond what I think is good and bad (which differs from what others think).
Leonard Cohen makes great music because his lyrics are xyz won’t make him more liked by those who just have no stomach for it.

If you think something is shit, you have got to explain WHY you think something is shit. If you think something is good you have to explain WHY something is good.

No; you can if you want to but you most certainly don’t have to.

Does it appeal to your intellect or to your emotions, or both? Does it show skill, innovation, daring? What about its structure? What about its content?

What does it matter if it appeals to me in all of the above ways, if it doesn’t appeal to you that way, you won’t agree with my opinion anyway.

A good critic can explain why they think something is good or bad. A useless critic spouts tautologies. You’ve got your right to hold an opinion. Fucking use it.

I do, and I don’t try to be a critic, I’m just a fan of music.
What’s funny about this whole thing is that Damien gave his reasons for not liking the artist in question; he obviously thought she couldn’t sing or lacked vocal talent… the problem being that he was called ignorant for having that opinion, because he didn’t get it.
Do we have to go into long-winded explanations every time we talk about bands/artists we love/hate?
Sounds like a pretty joyless way to do things.

What you usually find is that when someone does not have ANYTHING TO BACK UP their opinion they cite the opinion as justification for the opinion. In other words, my reasons for holding an opinion is the opinion itself. It’s a tautology. Useless logic.

If you think something is shit, you have got to explain WHY you think something is shit. If you think something is good you have to explain WHY something is good.

Does it appeal to your intellect or to your emotions, or both? Does it show skill, innovation, daring? What about its structure? What about its content? Has the artist used traditional structure but daring and skilful content (Leonard Cohen)? Or has the artist gone for experimental structure AND content (Captain Beefheart)? Similarly, has the artist used traditional form AND content in a clichéd, hackneyed, way (James Blunt), or is the artist’s appeal completely divorced from the work of art (Westlife).

A good critic can explain why they think something is good or bad. A useless critic spouts tautologies. You’ve got your right to hold an opinion. Fucking use it.

It is also the case that we are calling “opinion” what is in fact simply reactionary.

I’ve made it as clear as I can that when I say all opinions are valid, I’m not talking generally but about the arts.
Opinion on what is good or bad art is complete subjective and objective, and even people with comparable artistic education and training will differ in their opinions. There is no right or wrong answer on what makes good or bad art.
Of course politically, for example, people can be completely wrong in their opinions because they’re mis-educated etc. At the same time there is still no room, in my opinion, for personal insults or attacks (and I’m straying way off topic here).
Basically I think someone can disagree with anothers opinion in both cases (I, unlike you don’t like band xyz, nor do I subscribe to the same political ideology), in both cases disagreeing with the others opinion should be, for your own arguments sake, attacked rationally and not personally (at least in my opinion), but in only one case can someone actually be called wrong for thinking a certain way.

Some people’s opinions are ill-informed bollocks and not worthy of respect. And, contrary to your point, it may well be that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they aren’t sufficiently educated, either by themselves or a university somewhere or by cracking open the odd book, or whatever.

It is also the case that we are calling “opinion” what is in fact simply reactionary.

Oh, I agree completely; hence me making the analogy rather than comparison… Myers knew what he was saying would provoke a reaction and used the term bastard for that very reason; I appreciate that it was not you attention at all to provoke a reaction out of Damien of anyone else

But the likening is not completely out of line. We both used language unwisely. For Myers it’s his bread and butter and he chooses his offending words carefully. In my case I was using language in the way someone in a private conversation would. While I agree with Copernicus that it’s wrong to get too precious about it, I still think I was guilty of playing the man rather than the ball, as politician and pundits are fond of saying these days.

Well this is my point; It’s not that you both used loaded terms for the same goals, but that you both used the excuse that you didn’t understand the full impact of the word before using them.
I’m not saying you’re lying as Myers did, not at all, what I’m saying is that when you posted your blog you used the word ‘ingorant’ somewhat in jest or ironically, and in doing so did not consider the potential the word would have when read without the correct tone.

The analogy comes into effect in the sense that your intentions were completely different, I believe, it was simply your defence (and perhaps carelessness) that was similar.

But again, forgetting that sarcasm and irony don’t often communicate well in text is something we all (or at least I) have felt the brunt of to some degree, and it’s understandable in that sense.