Denis Fodor wrote:

>I think subjectively that Jim Tobin makes a great deal of sense
>objectively.  As I get him, he tends to believe rather more that there
>is such a thing as objective judgement in music, and that subjective
>judgement is less important.  I would hope so, anyway.  For if anyone
>claimed to have a taste all his/her own, and then ac t on the strength
>of that conviction, that person would surely figure as a candidate either
>for the insane asylum or jail.  One's judgements are mental processes that
>are bred and then developed by the teaching, or example, of others.  Great
>music is discovered by authorities in the field who also then cause it
>to fall out of fashion--meaning the current fashion of judgement.  Which
>doesn't dictate that one has to go with the newest fashion, but whatever
>one sticks with is a fashion to which one has assigned one's fancy.
>Music is wrought and enjoyed by social animals.

This is a literally authoritarian view of music.  We are back in the
wonderful world of inner circles and canons.  That music is wrought by
social animals is hardly in dispute, but that fact need hardly lead to
the lockstep implied by Denis' note I do not think that Denis, or anyone
else on this list would accept passively,nay, joyfully, the judgement of
authorities in matters of governance,or religious belief, or anything else.
Most people, at least in the West, accept the idea of an open society as
a great advance over other social organizations.  Why should music be
different?

I just acquired a cd of Ruders' Second Symphony because I heard it on the
radio (WHRB) and liked it very much.  I never consulted the authorities.
I suppose that makes me a candidate for the insane asylum.

Bernard Chasan who pleads with music lovers not to become- The Stepford
Listeners.