I offered to sort out some music for some awards at work (I defy anyone who reads Word to refuse this opportunity). We had a bunch of catergories themed around music awards. It was only when I had to find best female artist that I realised very little of my cd and download collection was by female artists. A little Kate Bush, a few Kirsty MacColl cd's and the Adele album which was from eMusic (and I wouldn't have bought it at £8).

I agree with you - I'm narrower than I think.

I always used to think I had an eclectic taste, but actually it's pretty narrow.

Most of my listening gets recorded on my last.fm page and I added a little widget that works out how 'open' or 'closed' your music tastes are, based on the tags assigned to your listened artists.

OK, so I'm not totally closed, but a little over 50% can be put into 4 categories: singer-songwriter, indie, female vocalist and folk.

And I know I don't listen to full-on dance, hip-hop, heavy metal so I'm not kidding myself, but it's still an eye-opener.

The most tediously irritating musical opinion is the one that begins, 'I've got really eclectic tastes, I listen to...' followed by a tediously predictable list of bands and artists.
No one can be genuinely eclectic, simply because it's not possible to listen to all the music there is and even if you try you're never going to have more than a cursory and flitting relationship with it.
Boasting about eclectisism is wankery of the highest order.

when people ( usually music quiz contestants on the radio)say things like, " I like everything from Beethoven to Amy Winehouse" as if this makes them more interesting.
And I think, no you don't. You can possibly hum part of Beethoven's 5th and can sing the chorus of Valerie but what tracks do you like by Caravan or Capt Beefheart or Sly and Family Stone or Stackridge or Josh Rouse or......and why are there all those Queen CD's in your collection.
I know the opening line of The Sound Of Music and the last line of Enter Sandman. I like everything from Julie Andrews to Metallica.

Level 1: I like having some knowledge of and exposure to all kinds of music, precisely because I like to broaden my horizons.

Level 2: I like listening properly to a fairly specific range of music, because life is too short to try to listen to (not play in the background while shovelling Shiraz) all of the available riches.

Level 3: I actually purchase a fairly narrow range of music, because I am not overly loaded with disposable income.

I own music by Psychic TV, Frank Sinatra, Kylie, Chet Baker, Black Sabbath, Dion, Alphabeat, The Pixies, Mozart and Philip Glass - but only because I want to demonstrate my eclectic tastes.

Sometimes it's hard, when you hear somebody praising an artist you really despise as a vacuous, talentless airhead, not to grab one of your favourite CDs, thrust it at them and shout: "Hear, listen to this. THIS is music!"

The problem is that everybody believes their musical taste is perfect. And obviously they are right. If they want to listen to, off the top of my head, Westlife, fair enough. But if I want to enjoy, say, Qntal singing a 13th Century German song over a combined synth/medieval backing, then I don't see why I should have to explain or defend myself.

For me, the important thing is being open to the idea of new music, of spotting something you've never heard before and giving it a try. Every day I discover groups on the net I've never heard of, let alone listened to (my beloved is often heard to say "Why are you playing that? Nobody's heard of them so it must be rubbish")

But I'm proud to say that I'm out there, exploring the musical wilderness, giving non-mainstream music a chance and broadening my horizons. If that makes me sound like a musical snob, fair enough. But sometimes, don't you just wish the mainstream could be just a little wider in scope, and more interesting artists could get prime-time exposure?

I do like examples of pretty much all genres of music EXCEPT wry white dudes with guitars.

I am reminded of...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33708
and
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/open_minded_music_lover

It's a sad state of affairs when someone can be accused of being a snob just because they listen to a wide variety of music.

As has already been said on this thread, taste in music is obviously subjective. But I think that many music-lovers would genuinely find something to enjoy in all styles of music if they were willing to give them more than just a cursory listen. I used to dismiss jazz as a type of music I would just never "get", but now I'm discovering more and more music from that particular genre that I enjoy immensely. And though I listen to multiple variations of classical, rock, metal, jazz, electronica and folk music I've met people who have a much more varied taste than I.

That said, people who boast about their supposedly eclectic musical taste do generally seem to be posers of the highest order. And when people are buying music purely for their image, there's something fundamentally wrong there.

I'm quite happy to spend more time reading about Frank Zappa instead of listening to him.

Rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, in order to provide articles for people who can't read.

One of these qotes is of Frank Zappa.

and lack of time prevent me from becoming the truly eclectic listener I aspire to be, but it's good to have the aspiration nevertheless.

My philosophy is that it's a good tune that counts, regardless of which of the sufficiently myriad genres of popular music (rock, folk, soul etc etc) a song is regarded as belonging to, even though it may not really fit there. Then again special treasures can be found by foraging in the world of the not apparently tuneful that can sometimes turn out to be highly tuneful, albeit in a more mysterious way, after some time and worthwhile effort. And I believe you don't have to own stuff or have it on your MP3 player to say you like it. There's so much I'd like to have if I could, or have had and no longer own, or have heard that belonged to a friend or partner. There's bands out there I don't have music by that could have been or could be one of my favourite bands. It's actually quite distressing and mind blowing!

Mostly popular music is a big enough world to live in for me, but the odd visit beyond it's boundaries may be undertaken and found pleasurable, even though one may be left with a sense of ignorance of that area - eg jazz - but you can't specialise in all music or it wouldn't be specialisation, clearly. The familiar phrase - if you like that you might like this - comes to mind, and that approach leads most of us I dare say. We can't chance ending up spending our hard earned on too many things we then don't want to play after the first few listens (I get enough of these as it is). Of course I'd hate to be thought conservative, though am more so than I would like to think, no doubt.