Bernard Chasan <[log in to unmask]> wrote, in response to my not-so-top
ratings of Mozart works:

>It is all there to be enjoyed- The rewards of a late Beethoven quartet
>are not the same in kind as the rewards of the Mozart Viola Quintet K 515,
>or for that matter, Das Lied von der Erde.  We don't have to hold up rating
>numbers like judges at a figure skating competition, ....
>
>I just don't see why we need to rate composers like sports writers rate
>basketball teams.  It is a mildly amusing parlor game - nothing more.

Of course no one *has to* rate anything, but I find it useful to do so.
I don't rate composers but works; a rating of composers follows naturally
once you have a rating for the works.

The main usefulness of "ratings" for me is as a book-keeping device in
my head: my ratings at any given time, although fuzzy and variable, give
me a convenient way to remember how I react to a certain work in relation
to other works.  When my reactions change (a quite frequent occurence),
I never fail to notice (few things are more noticeable than overturned
preconceptions).  If I listened without some vague system of preconceived
ratings in my mind I'm afraid many such subtle shifts of appreciation would
go unnoticed.  It's just a personal habit...

Ulvi
[log in to unmask]