The 'if you don't like it, you don't understand real music' argument
I've noticed that whenever someone makes the slightest critical remark about Johnston's music, the general stock-response from the passionate fan is often of the "...go back to listening to [insert generic mainstream boy band here]" variety. Apparently, and I've read this on the board, if you don't like Daniel Johnston, you simply don't understand real music; you don't know what music sounds like when it's played with heart and soul.
I'm sorry, but this attitude is complete bull, and you know it.
One doesn't have to be a teenybopper to see that, through the childlike lyrics, the sloppy playing, the one-note melodies and the clunky rhythms, there is absolutely nothing here approaching talent or skill.
That isn't to say that an individual cannot find worth in this stuff. I understand that a lot of the appeal of this music is in the personal connection. People get wrapped up in the back-story, the personality and the purely tabloid stuff. They buy into the artist rather than the art (hence why most fans will refer to him as "Daniel", as if they're on a first name basis with the guy). However, a supportive parent will always praise their child's stick-figure drawing as if it were the work of Van Gogh... but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Most fans of Johnston freely admit that he "can't sing... he can't play the guitar" but will nonetheless proclaim him a musical genius with absolutely nothing to authenticate their claims. Again, it's one thing to like a musician, and to support them or promote them, but hailing Johnston as a genius without being sufficiently able to substantiate such a position only makes you look foolish, especially when you try to use that opinion to flaunt your own supposed superiority over those who disagree with you.
Just a thought.