This talk compares simple predicates of personal taste (PPTs) such as tasty and beautiful with their complex counterparts (eg tastes good, looks beautiful). I argue that the former differ from the latter along two dimensions. Firstly, simple PPTs are individual-level predicates, whereas complex ones are stage-level. Secondly, covert Experiencer arguments of simple PPTs obligatorily receive a generic interpretation; by contrast, the covert Experiencer of a complex PPT can have a generic, bound variable or referential interpretation. I provide an analysis of these facts based on a novel proposal about the licensing of individual-level predicates (the ‘ILP Licensing Condition’). This condition states that all covert pronominal arguments of an individual-level predicate – and not merely the situation argument - must be bound by the generic operator. This proposal is in the tradition of the analysis of individual-level predicates in Chierchia (1995), but it imposes a stronger constraint on the licensing of ILPs than previously observed. I consider the implications of this view for debates concerning the proper analysis of the individual-level/stage-level distinction. Finally, I show that generic construal of the Experiencer is a necessary condition for so-called ‘faultless disagreement’ with PPTs. This is evidence in favour of treatments of subjective meaning that appeal to genericity, and against relativism about predicates of personal taste.