It takes an audience some time, (maybe experience) to recognize the beauty of some of the more subtle musicianship, such as Maybelle Carter ... and even when they understand and appreciate its beauty in during a performance, they still may not know how to address it when they walk away from the concert hall. That is they understand that what they heard Maybells play was beautiful but they understand that the musicianship talk is focused on speed, flash, etc ... and that is the language they have for expression. I'll bet Maybelle wouldn;t have cared - as long as her audience 'felt' what she was trying to deliver through her instrument.

The 'quality' of musicianship, as in the rankings we attribute to it, (like good, better, best) is an excercise that we humans like to entertain ... but I think it may be innocent enough ... we may just like to carry on the joy our favorite artist makes us feel by discussing his/her attributes. In the 'who's the best Mudcat musician' thread I thought about posting thoughts on something I've observed along muscianship. I have been to jam sessions with some great musicians ... I have seen two or three top shelf performers play their tunes beautifully, get the rest of the circle involved, and the whole room sets sail on the wings of their performance. Then the next performer, is an inexperienced teen ager, with a low budget guitar, and a hand that struggles to form the three chords required to accompay the song, (and maybe there even should have been four) - but that youngster will play his/her chords as well as required, and sing the song from the heart - and the whole room sails the same journey - and the result is often as powerful for the particpants as was the performance of the experts. At some level, especially in participatory music - there is true parity among all players ... in music, like in love, intent, purpose, ineterest is everything ... the rest is packaging!