Determining with whom the music is resonating is. . . kind of the way how we determine the greatness of music. The Great American Songbook is determined by being positively received in clubs, dancefloors and theatres and that an expectation that a musician should learn these tunes for steady work. . .
Sure, popularity has had an inescapable influence on the world-- one that has created certain expectations that we all go along with and couldn't overcome even if we wanted to. But for the reasons I've given, I don't agree with its actual correlation to greatness, effectiveness, potential, and possible satisfaction. This connection people draw between the two doesn't make any sense to me when I go through the logic of it.
Your current knowledgeable impression of what you think is good does not have exactly the same validity as your past clueless impression of what the eight year old version of you thought was good. It has more validity because your preferences have become more developed since then. If that's obvious and agreeable, then I don't see why this wouldn't be.
You like what you like. Performing the act to suggest that your opinion or taste is useful in determining for others what is tasteful isn't helpful.
I didn't suggest that my taste is useful in determining what other people's tastes are. I just think that how much interest and initiative you show in exploring music correlates with how meaningful your current impressions can actually be (whatever they may be). It's illogical to think that the average person that represents the masses shows enough interest/initiative for their opinion to have much merit at all. You can't just barely pay attention and still have your opinions weighted equally, and that's basically what an appeal to popularity implies.
I disagree. You don't just like what you like, because tastes are malleable and positively develops with exposure. The Everyday People band are wrong, dammit!
