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]