[Dixielandjazz] On the validity of opinions

[Edgerton, Paul A]

Steve, you've said some things I question...

"Agreed, one has the right to say what one wants about a
player/performer.
However, when one walks out of a performance, not hearing most of it,
one's
views about the entire performance being good or bad, are invalid. The
LA
Time review of that particular performance should be proof enough of
that."

What percentage of a given concert must one hear to have "valid" views?
In what way does a newspaper review offer "proof" of anything?


"I can recall similar threads about Arturo Sandoval being terrible and
'nobody should go hear him,' and 'Pee Wee Russell can't play clarinet,'
Monk
sucks, Bird sucks, and on and on and on. Those opinions also are invalid
regarding what other people, potential ticket buyers or CD buyers think
about these musicians.

One's opinion could be well-informed, or not, and that may well affect
another's interpretation of that opinion. But what makes one opinion
more valid than another?


"Point is that what you, or I, or anybody else 'hears' or does not
'hear'
with regard to a particular musician or performance may be, and often
is,
completely at odds with what others will hear. Therefore we might
carefully
consider what our responsibility to others is regarding trashing
someone."

Elsewhere, you've said musicians shouldn't be openly critical of one
another--especially by name. That's probably a good rule of thumb, but
it is hardly a law. The original poster, Judi, was expressing her
opinion as a paying member of the audience. She voted with her feet and
let us know what she thought.  


"Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has one. And they are very
personal."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you mean that all opinions are
personal and invalid? Or does the fact that a newspaper published an
opinion make it somehow less personal or more valid? Or do you mean that
the opinion of some "expert" is valid while the opinion of a layman is
not?

In other threads, you've observed that the public expresses its opinion
by buying CDs. If they buy CDs, that implies they like the music. So is
that a valid opinion? What if they buy the CD but don't like the music
and never play it--is that a valid opinion? What if they pay for seat at
a concert, find the music irritating and leave--is that a valid opinion?


"Regarding the price, Tickets to see Woody Allen in concert range from
$35 to
$65. IMO, that is not a high price. Ken Peplowski tickets at Lincoln
Center
in NYC run as high as $137.50. Allen is no Peplowski, and the difference
in
pricing reflects that, even though many may go just to see Allen up
close
and personal and not particularly to hear him play."

The price of a ticket is dependant on several factors. The cost of the
venue (Lincoln Center is an expensive place to give a concert), the cost
of the performer (which may or may not correlate to the performer's
skill), the usual and customary fees paid for tickets to similar shows,
the number of hands in the pot and, of course, greed. I don't have the
figures handy, but I'll wager that it costs no more to hear Ken at one
of his NYC club gigs than it does to get into one of Woody's.

Steve, sometimes it seems you've absorbed the lessons (follow the money)
from your business career so well that you may forget people are
motivated by many factors. Money is not always the number one factor
driving the things people do. It's certainly not the only thing they
value or talk about.

I think some people here are hearing your message like this: "If you
like something, buy the CD and tell everybody. If you didn't like it,
shut up and your opinion is invalid." I don't think that's what you
really meant. Can you help me to understand?

-- Paul Edgerton