One sentence in Dave Lampson's much longer posting triggered my interest:

>There is no objective truth about the quality of music because it's all
>based on subjective perception.

I find this too categorical.  Yes, I'm afraid you're right about it.
But at least there is a certain extent to which it can be objectively
determined.  The "craftsman" quality of the music can be judged
objectively.  I am by no means an expert on this, and know only very
little.  But pointing out parallel fifths or octaves in a fugue is
something objective.  The music may be "effective", but it's badly
written.  Usually it therefore is very "ineffective", too.  I think
the problem of objectivity lies more in the arbitrary choice of criteria
than the subjective perception.  Parallel octaves are forbidden in strict
contrapuntal writing - but if a composer neglects to title his work 'fugue'
or anything of that effect, and just calls it 'piece for instruments'; how
can we criticse him? Judging the quality of "old" music (i.e.  everything
written before 1850 or so) may be easier, since these rules apparently were
generally accepted.  But judging modern music? Now I sound as if I repeat
Dave!  I don't mean that.  I believe there is a considerable difference
between 'music can't be judged since it's something subjective' and 'there
are no generally accepted objective criteria, but they exist'.  However, if
you deny the existance of these criteria, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Jan