Quite so, Member Iron. Member Grew and his pseudo-objectivity are once more hoist by his own Litolff.

I would not dispute with Mr Grew that Bach and Mozart (not heard any Litolff sorry) are great masters but despite this derive greater pleasure from listening to the great masters of the romantic and 20TH century - this is why i say music appreciation is subjective and any Bach and Mozart fans are  too !!!!!!!

 
I cannot of course speak for Member Grew's intentions or presume to fathom what truly goes on within the Grew breast but, intended or not, his mention of Litolff in this context always has the effect of provoking a response of 'Oh no he's not! Litolff manifestly isn't nearly as good as Bach and Mozart!', thereby confirming that Mr Grew's supposed disputants do, in practice, hold to the same belief as Mr Grew himself that such judgements are not merely subjective. One can be mistaken about them. Which one cannot be about subjective reports of likes and dislikes.

I sense a cunning rhetorical trap on Mr Grew's part in which the Scotch Alsatian Mr Litolff is but the hapless bait, the empty Hunny Pot to the Heffalump of Unacknowledged Objectivism. 

I completely agree with this, and I think it's applicable to art too.  I can talk myself around in circles about this issue (which perhaps suggests that I'm about to be ripped to pieces) but I generally settle with the idea that value is indeed in the eye or ear of the recipent rather than the creator.  Art isn't science; there may well be generally accepted methods, but there is no right or wrong in results - hence it's subjective.   As a creator of whatever art form, you have to be prepared to let go of the work when it's done and let people take what they want from it.  You can't tell someone whether they ought to love a piece of music or a piece of art any more than you can tell them what their favourite colour should be.

Ok so a bit of knowledge goes a long way, but knowing what's behind Picasso's work, why it was special and knowing how groundbreaking it was will allow me to write an essay about it and pass an exam, but it isn't going to make me put it on my wall and stare at it day in day out, because it just doesn't appeal to me.  Equally, I think that what speaks to us in a piece of music and what makes us listen to it until it's engraved in our memory is something deeper than theoretical "appreciation". 

I've come to the conclusion that I'm a musical snake - I listen to something over and over until it's fully digested - during this process I find that different parts of it stand up to be examined and adulated, then they sit down and allow other parts to come to the fore.  Only when I feel as though there are no new bits "standing up", I get tired of it for the moment and move on.  I had thought that was a bit stange until I read this thread, so thanks for that!

Well.  The vast majority of those pieces that I discard at some point for something new, I will later return to.  It's just that "later" could be a few months or 10 years. I suppose the pieces that I will most thoroughly return to are those that you're describing - the ones that are never stale.  I certainly find new things to enjoy in many pieces if the interval is a long one as I think our tastes often shift subtly as we get older.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean though.  I suspect that there simply may not be an "enigmatic" in the way I listen to music, really, maybe I'm just sacreligiously simplistic about the whole thing.  If I'm applying the admiration/apathy sort of binary, then anything enigmatic just isn't going to register - and if it's due to register at some point but hasn't yet, I won't be aware of it.

I'm just not sure whether my enjoyment on return to a piece is that of familiarity or of finding new enjoyment in previously glossed-over parts. Maybe I need to pay closer attention.