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.