I have been enjoying this thread -- especially Joseph Sowa's
thought-provoking piece.  Whilst I agree with him in many of the points
he makes to negate Horsley's original thesis, I can't agree with him that
Horsley is an incompetent critic.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't know Horsley and apart from the original
posting have never read anything of his, as far as I am aware.  I come
here not to defend him -- but certainly not to bury him.

I don't believe any critic is incompetent unless he/she has no ability
to describe in words his/her impression of the music or performance in
question.  Horsley's view of the world of classical music may be biased and
may be light years away from my own, equally prejudiced view.  But it is a
valid viewpoint, well articulated and in public view for further debate and
consideration.

Those responsible for my musical education (and much of my other education)
took great pains to explain that multiple viewpoints and opinions were the
answer to generating a balanced view of a subject in which I was not then
expert.  It is a principle I try to adhere to today and I am grateful to
the Horsleys and Sowas of this world for giving me more material to get my
teeth into.

This is in no way a criticism of Joseph Sowa's excellent piece -- it's
merely an attempt to point out that I find it much more enlightening to
have access to multiple opinions on a subject whilst I formulate my own,
unique viewpoint.

But how do I tell critics apart and take their individual preferences
into account when making my own decision? I know which newspapers I prefer
to read because I have grown up over years understanding their particular
political or social agendae.  To my mind the only answer is to continue to
read and solicit as widely diverging a set of opinions as possible -- hence
my fascination in this list!

Tim Mahon
[log in to unmask]