Jim Tobin wrote in response to me:

>>A "consensus" can not prove greatness, it can only confer greatness.
>
>What it shows is that many listeners agree that they intensely
>admire a work or a composer and are willing to say so in the  highest
>terms.

Granted

>Perhaps this is sufficient for someone or some work to be called
>great.  Maybe this is mainly what "greatness" means.

Through consensus, Mahler's symhonies were not considered great in the
first half of this century; now, consensus tells us they are great.  Did
Mahler revise his symphonies in the interim? No. Popular opinion changed,
the symphonies remained the same.  Would you really want greatness defined
by the "crowd" with all its capacity for the herd instinct? Does greatness
have no permanency? Is it just a fad of the moment? Maybe, but I'll stick
with saying that greatness is defined by the individual while the group
measures popularity.  "Greatness" means something to me, and I decide who
and what is in that category.  You make your own decisions for yourself.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]