Quality

[bigshot]

What seems self-evident is that you equate your personal taste with quality.

Yep. Why would I judge by anyone else's standards? Do you trust other people to tell you what is quality?

[bigshot]

So you do not think it is possible to acknowledge quality, even if it is not to one´s own taste?

I can judge something to be of high quality, but still not personally like it, if that's what you mean. I can discern the difference between good caviar and bad caviar, but I don't particularly like caviar.

[some guy]

It's surely true that life's too short to spend time listening to 2nd-rate music badly played.

One question for me is "How did you get to '2nd-rate' in the first place?" It seems like magic. You make a category and treat it as if it had content and "hey presto" it has content? Hmmm.

To get to any rating, someone has to listen to the music. Who is that going to be? Either you or someone else. You cannot, logically, start with "1st rate" or "2nd rate," you have to go through some process to get there. If you do not go through the process for yourself, then you might think you're starting with the ratings as givens. But they're not. What you're really doing is following someone else's determinations. Let's imagine a group of someones who do not particularly care for Berlioz. So you, following them, start from the idea that Berlioz is not for you and so you never listen to him. Keep imagining. You're now at a concert, and one of the pieces is Romeo et Juliette, and you love it.

Following others is not going to lead you to discover what you like for yourself. I remember when I was just starting out listening to classical music. It was an enormous thrill and a thrilling adventure. (Still is, come to think of it.) And I devoured everything I could get my ears on. I cannot imagine giving over that adventure to someone else to experience for me.

Another question is "What is the utility of rating?" I have consistently positive experiences which Xenakis' Persepolis. How is that piece rated by other classical listeners? I have no idea. When I'm listening to music, there are only two ears. Mine. I'm fine with suggestions for other things by others. I probably cannot discover everything that I might like for myself. I'm not fine with suggestions for what to avoid, though. I don't want to cut myself off from anything. I certainly don't want to let someone else do the cutting for me. And once I've engaged with a piece, what does it matter to me how it rates? Do I even need to rate it myself, placing it above or below other pieces I like? Not at all. My enjoyment of a piece never includes the "information" that it is "1st rate" or "2nd rate." That's just impertinent. Besides, each piece is itself and nothing else. Bokanowski's L'etoile absinthe is 1st rate and Saint-Saens' Requiem is 2nd rate is absurd. They're different. They have quite literally nothing in common except for they both sound and I like both of them.

You'll have noticed that I haven't addressed "badly played." I think that it's probably easier to rate performances, but even there.... A friend of mine recommended to me a recording of Bruckner's fifth as the greatest performance of that piece, ever. I hated it. I thought it was clumsy and brutal. So it's not really any different with performances--you either rely on others (and maybe get some things you'll like) or you rely on yourself (by listening with your ears).

Because truly, when you sit down to listen to a piece, the only ears that matter are your ears. Those are truly the only ears you can listen with. You have only yourself to please.

LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO LET OTHER PEOPLE LIVE IT FOR YOU.

[Elgarian]

I'm fine with suggestions for other things by others. I probably cannot discover everything that I might like for myself. I'm not fine with suggestions for what to avoid, though. I don't want to cut myself off from anything. I certainly don't want to let someone else do the cutting for me. And once I've engaged with a piece, what does it matter to me how it rates? Do I even need to rate it myself, placing it above or below other pieces I like? Not at all. My enjoyment of a piece never includes the "information" that it is "1st rate" or "2nd rate." That's just impertinent. Besides, each piece is itself and nothing else.

Oh yes. Merry Christmas, Michael. Yes, yes, and yes again. My only observation is that when Bob Dylan reached a similar conclusion (admittedly in a somewhat different context - see above), he was slightly funnier, and didn't need to take a breath in the middle.


Footnote:
"Dogs are second rate."
"Why?"
"Because they're not cats."

[Karl Henning]

It was a cat said so, I am guessing.

[some guy]

Some guy seems to be really bothered that someone somewhere might not listen to something because he was told it was crap.

Best perversion of any point I've ever made, ever.

Top notch!

First rate!!!

[aukhawk]

One question for me is "How did you get to '2nd-rate' in the first place?" It seems like magic.
...
Because truly, when you sit down to listen to a piece, the only ears that matter are your ears.
...
LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO LET OTHER PEOPLE LIVE IT FOR YOU.

Well, this forum is largely driven by recorded music.  So I can listen to something once, and then decide not to re-visit it.

FWIW, even though, say, Sibelius and Shostakovich are two of my very favourite composers, I'd still categorise about 80% of the output of each of them as '2nd-rate'.