Donald Satz wrote:

>As I move further along into reviews of recordings, it increasingly
>interests me how we find adjectives and other terms to describe what we
>like and don't like.  I thought it might be fun to come with some terms
>and then apply their relative opposites.

Funny Don, I read your list and I thought the first terms on each line were
euphemisms for what they REALLY described (your second terms).

>If you like, please provide some of your own.

Well, I've often wondered if the classical music world could take a cue or
two from the wine tasting press as far as reviewing performances and
recordings.  (Note that my view of the wine-tasting reviews is more colored
by the old "Shoe" comic strip than by any serious journal on the subject)
Thus one could possibly imagine:

   "Herr von Eselscheisser's Mozart had an impudent quality, with a
   rather fruity bouquet in the Allegro that was quite perspicacious"

   "this vintage 1937 recording of Ms. Grossenradkappe's full-bodied
   Brunnhilde left an aftertaste of burnt oak in her Immolation Scene"

   "The 1989 Festival season was blessed by timely soaking rains, which
   gave its product of that year a rather acidic, but strangely dry
   aspect in the Glass..."

   "A rather astringent performance, with occasional herbal notes and
   an weedy finish to the Tchaikovsky that left one wondering if it had
   been properly aged."

   "Her 'Salome' was distinctly immature, lacking body in a non-racy
   frame.  However, it's lack of ripeness does well with various other
   spicy dishes...."

   "His histrionics with the bow showed a strong tannin backbone with
   varietal, jammy notes in the finale that rewarded the im-Biber..."

or simply: "Maestro Pinot Grigio's Vivaldi was corked...."

Bill H.