musicianiship--when is it bad or good ?

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?

A good review might make me more likely to attend a live concert,but a bad one may not.

I play a tiny bit of piano,and if a performer uses more rubato or a different articulation that I might,I figure no two performaces are the same.

I prefer ensemblesthat have been together long enough for them to understand how something will come out.

The cliche says a string quartet needs a decade to get good and I suspect that is true.

My pet peeve is a producer who puts together well known names to sell something.

There is a performance of Bach's Musical Offering that was put together with famous names,and it sounds like they rehearsed it once and then recorded it.

For me,musicianship improves the more the ensemble is together.