Sounds like the story of the blind men and the elephant -- every one described it differently, depending on which part of the elephant they came in contact with.

In the other thread with the same name as this one (what happened here?), there was a lot of dismissive talk about "opinions," which implied that they are inherently less valid than "facts". I don't see it that way. Many of the "facts" that we are discussing may just be opinions that were expressed with conviction, and/or that were supported by significant numbers of other people who shared those opinions. In my experience, "facts" are often just expressions of partial truths, where the whole truth is whittled down to some non-controversial or verifiable aspect that will survive challenges, but doesn't tell the whole story. The concert-goers cited above, like the blind men with the elephant, were relating "facts" that were true (the sound was muddy vs. the sound was clear), but didn't tell the whole story, because they didn't accept the fact that there may be many truths that apply to a given situation.

One of the other contributors to this discussion cited the example of "the 1960s," and how difficult it is for a young person to get the real story. But consider the question: the 1960s were ten long, tumultuous years in the lives of literally billions of people. How far would we have to go in simplifying and reducing the 1960s before we could come up with a condensed version of "the real story" that all of us who were there would agree with?

My suggestion would be to stop putting artificial limits on the validity of others' opinions, and stop being so dismissive of opinions in general. Facts and opinions are the same thing -- it is often only our perceptions that distinguish them.