I was talking with someone today and realized I did something I do quite often that might be a trait that gets me into trouble: I boldly state my preference for (or against) something.
In this case, it was being tired of classic rock from a lifetime of overexposure. I think I offended the person, but saved it by clarifying that I'm mostly tired that there is a play list of seemingly 100-songs that have been in continual rotation for 50 years.
Anyway, it occurs to me that I'm just stating my preferences and I personally thing that's fine and normal, but that people get personally offended if you don't like what they like; which makes no sense to me. It's like if you don't like bland food, I'm not going to get offended because I can't handle anything hotter than black pepper. It doesn't ultimately mean anything significant.
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
Conversation have a flow, and sequence of performances from each participant. Saying "I'm tired of classic rock" is a stop point for the conversation. If you use this wording you are not making a space for their next response.
Instead you could consider saying something more like "I'm not really into classic rock, do you have anything else?" Or even more directly just add "Do you have anything else?" to the end of your original statement. If you close the conversation around classic rock but open a new one about another genre or a request for their other preferences the conversation can go forward.
That said, this is all masking. If you are not interested in maintaining that relationship it may be more trouble than it is worth then ending things there may work for you. If someone required that level of emotional work from my end but did not reciprocate by adopting strategies that worked with me I would feel it was pretty unfair and not really worth my time. Being flexible and kind is something that should be reciprocal, not one sided. Masking costs you something and you not masking costs them something. Meeting them half way may make sense, but it may also be pointless if they won't actually meet you there.
Why is not liking something any more of a conversation stopper than liking something? I mean, if they don't like classic rock, they can talk about how they don't like classic rock, just as if they liked Charles Aznavour, we could talk about we like Charles Aznavour.
Like I have a story about getting SO sick of listening to classic rock at work and the same damn songs over and over again, that I went on Limewire or whatever it was and downloaded EVERY version of Bohemian Rhapsody I could find. I found a heavy metal version, I found an Australian Outback version, I found (of course) a bluegrass version, and (my favorite), a celtic version (Hibernian Rhapsody by De Dannan--go listen to it! It's amazing)!
I burnt them all onto a CD and casually popped it into the boom box that played the FM classic rock radio station all day. It started with the original Queen song so nobody suspected anything was amiss. Eventually, probably by the second cover version, people got upset (because they are boring as fuck) and so they went back to the radio.
Guess what the next song we had to listen to was.
I see a little siloheutto of a man!
Ever heard of "Yes, and" in the improv scene? Giving a negative without then giving an out to the other person to keep talking puts the responsibility of finding a different topic on them. Do that several times, and people get tired of finding new topics.
Often when people ask you if you like X music, you can say that no, but I like these other music styles. That opens the conversation so they can find songs in your style they like and keep the conversation flowing. If they then trash you that's not on you tho.
People have conversations to connect with others and gain comradery. Responding with a blanket "I don't like this" statement cuts off the conversation and can make the person feel like they are being belittled or ostracized. Basically its like you are taking the conversation and throwing it in the trash.
It's not just about your opinion, it's about the other person's opinion AS WELL. The goal of a conversation is not to just be direct, it's about gaining perspective and understanding.
For example, I fucking HATE country music. I've grown up in an area where 99% of the radio stations are country music. My entire life has been me trying to avoid hearing country music as it is EVERYWHERE around me. If someone starts a conversation with me about country the music, the first thing I want to say is I HATE IT! But, I've learned to avoid doing that. Instead I ask them what is about country music they like or how long have they been a fan of it or who their favorite artists are. Something that is in line with the conversation they are having so they feel that I am engaged and connecting with them. After that, then I tell them that I fucking HATE country music and provide a few details as to why I hate it. But I always ensure I am not belittling them or their opinion when I do that, I just share my personal experience and reinforce that I am happy they enjoy country music as much a they do.
It's not just about sharing your negative opinion on the matter, it's about understanding the other person's position or feelings on the matter. You can share your negative opinion, you just need to ensure you acknowledge the other person's opinion as well.
I will say that your explanation of the same 100 classic rock songs being the reason you hate it is 100% accurate and I totally agree with you. It is an excellent point and easy to prove. So sharing that opinion isn't a bad thing at all. But it's really easy to derail a conversation if your response is just a negative without having engaged with the person first. Try engaging with them first so they feel like you've listened to their point and then gently bring your opinion into the conversation.