Regarding David Wright's points: I don't necessarily disagree with the criteria he sets up (although I feel some of them strongly overlap and should have been split into sub-headings), but he is very inconsistent and wilful in their application. For instance, Wright seems unwilling to recognise meta-musical, ie emotional, as well as mere compositional-technical originality in the case of Schubert or Bach; but Mozart has 'an originality of charm and spontaneity seen in his best work coupled with a unique, mercurial elegance' which gives him the edge over Haydn and Bach. Haydn is demoted to 'famous' because 'some of his music is predictable and not strikingly original' but Mozart is judged great in the light of 'his best work' (now this would rightly be cannon-fodder for Bob Draper). W. is another one of those who claims to scrutinize 'famous names' afresh, but to my mind many of his criticisms are, quite frankly, old hat (Bach straight-jacketed by theory, Chopin only a pianist-composer, Schubert only 'pleasant' and really only worthwhile in his songs, which have a 'gem-like perfection'). And surprise surprise, 2 British composers (Walton and Vaughan Williams) are 'great', but Sibelius isn't - and here one ludicrous example is given: Some movements in a Sibelius symphony are designated 'allegro' but aren't lively and cheerful enough to justify that description - that's one mark already on Beckmesser's slate. We all have criteria by which we try to rank artists in our own minds in the course of our listening experience, and as I said, I don't even think W's criteria are too bad in themselves - but his article exposes that fundamentally our views on art are nakedly subjective, and this sort of pompous claim to objectivity and reason is in my view dishonest, not to mention bloody irritating. Felix Delbruck [log in to unmask]