For a lot of people, there’s a strange reverence for having what they deem a “diverse” taste in music. In my small world, this is best exemplified by a particular application that analyzes one's statistics on Last FM in order to measure such a thing. I can’t specify how it actually works, but it calculates the number of similar artists in one’s music library. The “similar artists” feature on Last FM itself is not necessarily a foolproof, definitive determination, but it’s also surprisingly adequate. If, on a large scale, users tend to listen to band X along with band Y, then band Y is categorized as a similar artist of band X, and vice versa. Sure, the similarity of users is more closely examined than the similarity of the bands themselves, but is the idea of a feature analyzing and comparing specific musical characteristics actually plausible? I don’t think that it is, and further, it isn’t necessary. The current feature is helpful, regardless.
There exist groups of Last FM users who proudly boast of their eclectic tendencies, but I don’t feel that they are somehow more enlightened or more open-minded than the rest of us. That being said, I would certainly describe my own personal taste as “diverse,” but I don’t view that as some indicator of my musical know-how, hipness, or creativity. The listeners who comprise the aforementioned groups often display or express a hubristic sense of pride, a sentiment that’s reaffirmed by a brainless and flawed application that plainly tells them something along the lines of “Congratulations! Your music taste is EXTREMELY DIVERSE. Keep discovering new bands!”
What, then, does it actually mean to have “diverse” taste? If I listened to Toby Keith, Brokencyde, and some foreign electro-pop band that I discovered in a Japanese anime, I’d have diverse taste. If all of my favorite bands occupied a single scene or sub-genre, I wouldn’t. The former, however, is not more virtuous than the latter. It’s probably fair to assume that the one who trumpets Toby Keith, Brokencyde, and the electro-pop band is actually flat-out clueless.
A “narrow-minded” taste doesn’t at all speak of a listener’s musical exploration. In fact, it may do the opposite. If I listen to Elliott Smith, for example, it’s only logical that I seek out Bright Eyes. I don’t have to like Bright Eyes, but there’s no harm in at least looking into him. I should look into him. I’ve never quite understood people who resent a particular artist for sounding too similar to an artist they already like. I don’t expect new artists to top or match the artists they’re often trying to emulate, but that doesn’t mean that the supposed subpar versions are completely devoid of merit or potential. This might technically be a "narrow-minded" approach, but so what? I enjoy discovering bands whose characteristics make them reminiscent of bands I already listen to, but that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to everything outside of that particular frame.
Now, I’m not in any way implying that a rigid musical focus is somehow superior. To be fair, I enjoy Converge, Tegan and Sara, and Matt and Kim, none of whom sound anything alike, and I’d like to think that that’s a more respectable selection than one consisting of Escape the Fate, Avenged Sevenfold, and that wave of cheesy hair-metal revival (But to each his own. That’s hardly the extreme when it comes to awful trends). In this example, diversity trumps consistency, but that’s never an unwavering rule.
The conclusion I’ve reached is that diversity is essentially irrelevant to “good” or “bad” taste. Rather, it’s completely neutral. It is simply the bands themselves that determine those qualitative decisions, and even then, there’s the whole aspect of subjectivity that comes into play, as painful as it is to admit that Insane Clown Posse has appeal. Not to me, obviously.