Wrong. Here's the thing: opinions can be wrong. That's one of the problems with people. "Oh, I can't be wrong, because it's my opinion!" No. Wrong. You. Are. Wrong. If someone said, say, a 3 year old's finger painting and Van Gogh were of the same quality, they would be wrong. If someone said a five star restaurants burger and McDonalds' were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Too Human and Batman: Arkham City were of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Twilight and Frankenstein are of the same quality, they are wrong. If someone says Justin Bieber and The Beetles or Nine Inch Nails or Adele or Rammstein or anyone else that is not autotuned is of the same quality, they are wrong. People who know more about a subject are more correct than those who know less. You know more than them. It is your place to tell them their tastes suck and explain why, based on effort, skill, the revolting revolving cycle of pop stars, his complete non-personality, no meaning at all outside of making money off them and his ego (autobiographies should be illegal before 30).
Not quite. Objective opinions can be wrong. Stuff like "Obama's not an American" or "occupying the entire Middle East is a good idea" are both wrong, because they make objective claims that can be definitively proven to be false. Subjective opinions, not so much. If someone says they like a Big Mac better than a five star burger, well, there's no objective claim in there to prove wrong, it's all just personal tastes. This applies to musical tastes just as much as culinary tastes. You want to compare the quality (which ultimately boils down to how enjoyable it is to the listener) of Beiber to anyone else, it's simply a matter of personal tastes. The details of how his music was created or the motivations behind it are irrelevant. Simply, if someone gets greater enjoyment listening to Beiber than they would any of your favourite musicians, then from their perspective, Beiber's music is better. End of story. Whine about it all you want, but the only opinion you'll end up changing is "Posthumanheresy is not an pretentious, annoying, elitist hipster" or "Posthumanheresy doesn't sorely need to get a life".
I'll gladly accept the labels of pretentious and elitist, but hipster? Hardly. Sure, I dislike mainstream pop. That said, my favorites in other genres I like are often extremely mainstream. Manson seems to have a guest appearance (both in song and TV) fetish, Nine Inch Nails is one of the biggest names in industrial metal, Rammstein is pretty damn big everywhere, Lordi might be little known in America, but in Europe they're much bigger, and Kiss? They're fucking Kiss. I love it when my favorite artists get accepted into the mainstream, and the wording is important. If they change themselves to become mainstream, that's bad. If they're accepted into the mainstream, like Manson, that's good, because they just altered what is mainstream. A man who rips apart Bibles on stage is considered mainstream. How cool is that?
Back to why I like being called pretentious and elitist. Quite simply, because nobody has the balls to tell anyone their shit stinks and they should either quit shitting or make it stink less. Fred, the annoying as fuck Youtube kid with a helium voice, has three fucking movies, that people had to pay money for. Three. There's a market for this. Baby Geniuses has three fucking movies. Who the hell is inflicting this on their kids? Who spent money on this? How does it make enough to have sequels? "Musicians" like Justin Bieber are rich as fuck. I think that's part of the thing that people forget that really pisses me off. If he were just a Youtube star, I'd not give a flying fuck. Hell, if he was a Youtube star who sold his stuff via his own website, I'd even applaud him for that. That's cool. He's not. He's richer than every teacher you ever had. He's richer than the hardest working people you know. He's richer than some of your idols. He's richer than every single mom that slaves away at three jobs just to keep her kids alive. He's richer than every father paying child support to a mother who is an abusive psycho, but has better lawyers. He's richer than every person fighting to keep their family's home. He's richer than people who have been abused and raped by our police officers. He's richer than the people this nation relies on to work.
He is richer than them, and he did not get their via his own talent. He got there because executives carried him there on the backs of autotune and other computer programs. He got there because of marketing campaigns. He got there because talent is no longer required for success, only a pretty face. He got there because he happened to have the right genes. He does not deserve his fame. He did not earn it. He didn't fight his way there. He didn't revolutionize a genre. He didn't play for years in shitty little places. He didn't spend thousands of his own dollars to self-promote to create his own reputation (to clarify, I'm talking about a lot of musicians and bands here). He got there via luck and insane amounts of help. And for that, he can go to hell, as well as everyone else like him. They did not earn their fame. They did not earn their money. They stole it from people who didn't know better, via marketing and computer programs. So yes, I'm an elitist. Because I think that if someone's going to be famous and rich, they should do it via their own skill.
You can't force people to enjoy a particular type of music (or food, or game, etc.) because it's all about personal taste. You may think Manson sounds great, but others may dislike his music because it doesn't suit their tastes. I don't really listen to his stuff. Why? Because it's not pleasing to my ears. Am I wrong for that? What about people who don't listen to The Beatles (which I don't, minus a couple songs) but do enjoy folks like Lady Gaga and Rihanna? If someone likes a particular type of music more, then how are they supposed to admit that it's low quality when quality is measured by their enjoyment?
Hopefully my above post explains well enough. I don't listen to the Beatles. I respect them, though. I don't listen to a lot of bands that I respect. You may not enjoy Manson, but how he got to fame, by spending thousands in his own money to promote the band, building his own army of fans complete with a signature look all before a record deal, by fighting his way to the top with his money and his time and his efforts, is something to respect. And, afterwards, what he did also gains him respect. The band had constant death threats. Twiggy described it by saying you didn't even bat an eye at bomb threats, because they were so common. They believe in what they are doing, and feel it has meaning. Would any of these computer altered pop stars ever believe in what they have to say like that?