A good friend of mine is actually a food/wine critic. He has said (and I think this applies to all good critics) that there's nothing special about the tastes of a critic. Some people may be more sensitive than others but critics are pretty much in the same population as the rest of us. The difference between a good critic and someone flapping their gums on Yelp is the ability TO WRITE something worthwhile about the subject, be it wine or food.

Boiling what a critic says down to "good/bad" or "like/dislike" means the reader hasn't taken the time to really understand what was said-- or the critic wasn't very good.

I don't fully buy this. I expect my chosen jazz critic to be knowledgeable, like, a lot. Same for food and wine. I want to read the words of someone who has eaten on more places, more foods and more flavors than me, not less.

Your friend might be too humble.

I'm not saying that experience or background isn't important for a critic. I am just saying that they're NOT extraordinarily sensitive. They taste the same things we do, but they're able to pay attention and then put that experience into compelling words.

But even then, they're not any better at 'tasting well'. You don't have to care about the fancy properties of the wine, just whether it tastes good to you.

The same argument can be brought when comparing top 40 pop music and jazz, say. There isn't an objective truth to aesthetics, but that doesn't mean that everyone's opinions has equal depth or nuance.

Some things you get more out of if you choose to spend time with them, but will in turn change your own sense of it, and the experience you are having.

So in some sense you actually do become "better " at tasting/listening well - or at least you become more sophisticated. Which doesn't invalidate the enjoyment that someone else can get from a more superficial engagement, at all.

But who thinks they are better at tasting? If they had extra special tastebuds, that would only make their recommendations less relevant to the rest of us. I mean a dog might find a piece of music lovely for its ultrasonic components, but I won't.

I agree. To me, a good critic is not necessarily one with impeccable tastes, but one whose reviews give me all I need to know about whether I will like the subject in question.

I will say that some people's palate are quite limited. They only identify a few things as good. I've met people who basically wouldn't eat a green vegetable because it was yucky.

I'd expect critics to have eaten enough where they can judge many things.

I do agree putting it into words so someone else could have a sense of what it would taste like and possible be able to say if they would like it.

It's part of the fun, no? You read about five different wines, you select one after much consideration, you take it home and talk about the salient points -- good and bad -- of the reviews that you had read, and you uncork the bottle. Everyone takes a few sips to a concert of many "oohs," several "aahs," and a smattering of "this is really good" and "I like this pairing." Finally, after the guests have eaten and some are a little bit buzzed, they all go back to their boring realities. It's a more human form of dogs playing with a ball.

Personally I like it.

Very efficient decision-process, when you know that no one's opinions can be strong enough to overcome your preferences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch-Drunk_Love

I definitely enjoy video-game, and comic criticism from people I share opinions with, so I can see how someone would do the same thing with taste.

"This critic knows more than me, and tends to like merlots, maybe he'll suggest a reason why I like it, or a new wine that I'll like as well". Of course, taste is subjective, and that may never happen, but it tends to give people an idea of what wine/vidoe-game/comic they want to try next.

Exactly. And there are certain critics who happen to have the exact opposite taste of mine, which is also helpful if you just flip the recommendations.