I'd say theres a certain level between musically open-minded, elitist, and a platform of sheer pretention where you only listen to avant-jazz post-metal thats more a mathematical construct to be observed then crafted for listening pleasure.
The open-minded individual probably drifts around genres a lot, but largely will just pick up on some personal bit of taste that makes them dislike whichever particulars. The elitists tend to burrow into some niche, and attack other niches. Often these are the vague and indefinable genres like 'indie' or 'classic rock', where you can barely (if at all) even come up with a musical definition that doesn't degenerate into a list of the elitists favorite bands.
The other reason classic rock tends to command this sort of attitude is that its filtered. The Rolling Stones have north of 200 songs. You can find plenty of classic rock purists (and alleged Stones fans) who'd have trouble naming more then 10-20 that have survived the ages in the radio format. Or anything off of Jethro Tull's 22 albums that weren't Aqualung.
Comparing the lyrics is even sillier, I recall recently dissecting one of those image memes comparing 'Kashmir' to 'Friday' and stating the superiority of 70s music, by flipping the angle around to compare 'Musical Chair" (Fair to Midland) to 'Disco Duck' (by whoever it was), released in the same corresponding years.
People forget that these isolated snapshots (usually the best work of the band in question) of the 60s/70s that classic rock radio formats focus on are isolated snapshots, and usually didn't even correspond to the pop music of the day (you can go rehash the Billboard 100 through time on wikipedia. Barry Manilow was the most popular artist, churning out hits like Katy Perry during the heyday of Led Zeppelin).
Biebers music doesn't interest me at all, but I wouldn't go so far as to deem it an offense to anything. You could compare him easily enough to Donny Osmond, or even Michael Jackson's earliest appearances. He's also a kid, so I wouldn't expect him to churn out anything of particular interest to mature adults. Carly Rae, beloved of the internet churns out the same garbage, except shes near 30, which makes Bieber look like a prodigy in comparison. Taylor Swift's still churning out her stale high school romance grit at age 23. While I don't really foresee Bieber making any sort of transition into his own identity a la MJ, or even a Justin Timberlake, I'm not particularly bothered that some teenage kid is making teenage kid music for teenage kids, that doesn't even seem to show up on radio often and has to be sought out if you even want to hear it.
The open-minded individual probably drifts around genres a lot, but largely will just pick up on some personal bit of taste that makes them dislike whichever particulars. The elitists tend to burrow into some niche, and attack other niches. Often these are the vague and indefinable genres like 'indie' or 'classic rock', where you can barely (if at all) even come up with a musical definition that doesn't degenerate into a list of the elitists favorite bands.
The other reason classic rock tends to command this sort of attitude is that its filtered. The Rolling Stones have north of 200 songs. You can find plenty of classic rock purists (and alleged Stones fans) who'd have trouble naming more then 10-20 that have survived the ages in the radio format. Or anything off of Jethro Tull's 22 albums that weren't Aqualung.
Comparing the lyrics is even sillier, I recall recently dissecting one of those image memes comparing 'Kashmir' to 'Friday' and stating the superiority of 70s music, by flipping the angle around to compare 'Musical Chair" (Fair to Midland) to 'Disco Duck' (by whoever it was), released in the same corresponding years.
People forget that these isolated snapshots (usually the best work of the band in question) of the 60s/70s that classic rock radio formats focus on are isolated snapshots, and usually didn't even correspond to the pop music of the day (you can go rehash the Billboard 100 through time on wikipedia. Barry Manilow was the most popular artist, churning out hits like Katy Perry during the heyday of Led Zeppelin).
Biebers music doesn't interest me at all, but I wouldn't go so far as to deem it an offense to anything. You could compare him easily enough to Donny Osmond, or even Michael Jackson's earliest appearances. He's also a kid, so I wouldn't expect him to churn out anything of particular interest to mature adults. Carly Rae, beloved of the internet churns out the same garbage, except shes near 30, which makes Bieber look like a prodigy in comparison. Taylor Swift's still churning out her stale high school romance grit at age 23. While I don't really foresee Bieber making any sort of transition into his own identity a la MJ, or even a Justin Timberlake, I'm not particularly bothered that some teenage kid is making teenage kid music for teenage kids, that doesn't even seem to show up on radio often and has to be sought out if you even want to hear it.