How all of us connect with different things very strongly is of more interest to me these days than debating who is universally acclaimed.
I'm with you there. With some things, I'm very "meat and potatoes" with what I listen to. There are some types of jazz that would clear me out of the room after three notes. Yet others hate a lot of the jazz I listen to and, at this point in life, I don't really care. It's too "popular?" So what? Some of the artists I've followed for decades, and I'm not giving them up because others don't like them. Yet I don't have tunnelvision. As one of my audio-community friends once said to me, if he wanted to clear out a demo room, he'd put on a Nik Bärtsch recording; I'm the one listening to three of Bärtsch's recordings in a row. And might follow it up with Art Blakey, or George Duke...or hey, I haven't listened to Styx in ages...
I'm TOTGAF...too old to give a faff. I like what I like. And as much as I like returning to favorites, I'm not in a rut--I'm always looking at new (to me) music. I haven't, and won't, explore everything, but I have a huge backlog of different things I want to explore.
As for Sheryl.. I like plenty of people who have a questionable grasp of pitch and an odd if not grating timbre. But not her. Why? I have no idea but I'm actually quite interested in pondering the reasons. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint.
Maybe it's the
range of her voice?
I like lower female voices, more in the alto range. Anyone higher pitched, I'd really have to stretch it and say I could enjoy listening to them. The rare exception is someone like Annie Ross, but her range dipped into the cellar and up into the stratosphere, and she used her voice to serve the music (especially in Lambert, Hendricks & Ross). Even a few favorites I used to like, I can barely tolerate anymore since they sing in higher octaves, or there is a stridency to their voices that puts me on edge.
And sometimes it's just hard to put a finger on it...