My point was you can’t compare the two groups objectively if you only like one of them.
I feel like this almost makes sense but doesn’t. You’re making it sound like if you don’t like a band you have a bias against them, but that’s not necessarily the case. There are different levels of liking. What if I don’t like Green Day and only kind of like The Cars? Does that make me unobjective? Or can’t I say The Cars are objectively more worth liking than Green Day? What if I don’t like either of them? Does that mean I can’t compare objectively? Or maybe I can because they’re on the same level for me? But they can’t be on the same level or I wouldn’t be saying one is better than the other, right?
Music is simply too subjective - there’s no right or wrong here. And comparing too fairly different bands means even more cause for subjectivity.
To clarify, if you hate one band, you’re gonna think the other is better whether you think the other band is great or you don’t care either way.
When I hear someone say “the title track is obnoxious” I wonder if that’s someone who can’t think objectively about that band.
To Dek’s point, I’m not a fan of The Beatles, but I can admit from an objective standpoint that they were talented and influential.
If you don’t think Green Day is talented or influential, I don’t know what else to say to you.