Quote:
Originally Posted by
dkzzzz 
One does not have to be musically trained (as pianist or violinist) to appreciate the great performers.
The opinions of performances however are not absolute. They are (opinions) are matter of taste, just like in literature. Not liking someone's book does not necessarily mean that the writer is not worthy. It only means that his aesthetics or ideas are not congruent with mine.
In case with musical performers the categories in which they could be jugged are even more limited since they are not creators(composers) but merely interpreters of someone's ideas. Their ideas might appear foreign or not aesthetically pleasing to some.
Thus "intellectually advanced" audience feels no need to "pardon" anyone for their opinions, but merely consider them or remain convinced otherwise.
It is so obvious that I feel uncomfortable to verbalize this.
According to your theory, everything is subjective, then what accounts for the " great performers"
One does not have to be trained in any particular field in order to appreciate anything in particular.
The truly intelligent audience understands that opinions differ; therefore, would limit expression in opinions.
Being a "musical performer" takes great courage and devotion, sometimes more than any employment pursuit in any field. They are not merely interpreters.
The "intellectually advanced audience feels no need to pardon anyone's opinions, only when the opinion expressed is not intellectual then they shall be pardoned.
Even the intellectually advanced audience wouldn't mind be parson once in a while because they understand the differences.
