This uses 'less than'/'greater than'

Subjectivity is a huge part of the question. Whether people percieve things to be 'good' or 'bad', be it the performance or the music itself, can't be anything other than subjective.

For example. I wouldn't go to a Kate Rusby gig if you paid me. I can't stand her voice and I dislike a lot of the material she does. Now, that does not make her a bad singer. From a strictly technical point of view she is patently a good singer. I just don't like her voice. And just because I tend to dislike what material she chooses to perform, does not make it 'crap' music. In fact with some of the tradtional stuff I've been impressed with the arrangements she's performed them in. Kate Rusby is a good performer and musician. She's just not to my taste.

But an awful lot of people do equate whether they personally enjoy something with whether it's 'good' or not.

On the other hand, I think it has to be taken into account, that professional performers do large numbers of gigs over the course of a career. Any one gig can only be a snapshot of that performer. A performance of any standard - no matter how good or bad, in that time and in that place. But it's also a snapshot of the person watching them.

I've seen bands that I know I like and have come away feeling almost cheated at how uninspiring or unentertaining that band has been at that performance. But how much was it them having an off day and much much was it me having a bad day?

How many acts have I seen that were pretty dire, but I've no desire to rubbish them in the least? Happy to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they might improve, that they were having a bad day. Because I was in a good mood.

There's an interaction between audience and performer, that gives live music that buzz we all look for. Otherwise why would we bother? But it's not an exact science (thank goodness) and both performer and audience has to take their chances. Which is part of the frission that we want. If this is not what you want, why would you bother going to live performaces?

A certain level of objectivity is necessary when discussing performances and music. Realising that, although you may not have enjoyed what the person was performing or how they were doing it, does not automatically make that performance/performer 'bad'.

If a professional performer has performed poorly, an objective look at past performance (and the meer fact that they appear to earning a living must count for something...) would be the obvious comparison to make, before making a critisism.

Just declaring that someone is 'crap' because they didn't perform to your expectations (whatever they were) is not critisism. There's no reasoned observation and comparison to put a case as to why you thought the performance poor. It's just slagging someone off because you were dissapointed. Which is, frankly, childish.

And as for singarounds and open mike nights, getting performances that vary from appalling to rough around the edges to brilliant is part of the charm, you take the rough with the smooth. If you can't, don't go!

Stu