musicianiship--when is it bad or good ?


i have been attending concerts for the last 50 years. very often, i find it it interesting to read a music critic's "opinion" of the performance i have attended. invariably, a performer is taken to task for a poor performance or is praised for an "excellent" one.

why is one performance better than another if it is a matter of opinion ?

for example, if a pianist distorts the tempo by playing too slow or too fast, or with too much stacatto, or in general, takes liberties with the score, why is that necessarily bad ?
mrtennis
why is one performance better than another if it is a matter of opinion ?
Same with all criticism -- art, music, film, theatre, literature, take your pick.
If this 'pianist' empties the hall its bad. If he fill the hall its good, if your gauge for good, better or best is attendance.

Personally I set my own standards for good, better and best, so for you to gain value from my comments about what is 'best' you must know my standards.

Do you know this 'reviewers' standards? If you don't why would you bother to read his critique in the first place?

Not much different than reading your critiques of audio equipment. Just imagine how confusing it would be for the majority of audiophiles if we didn't have an understanding of your 'standards' which are, I think you must admit if you are observant at all, quite a bit different than most audiophiles. Probably create a run on CJ 125's.
When is a performance good and when is it bad?

When is a thread an actual question and when is it just a troll to get a rise out of people when the original poster already has his answer in mind?