Exists the so-called "definitive" versions??

Eyresist, if I can make myself as clear as possible, I don't disagree with you as for the relativity of the existence of "definitive" recordings or performances. The point of disagreement lies on the reason(s) of that. You think it is mere opinions of anyone who may happen to listen to a Classical recording that may define the "greatness" of it. I claim that, apart from the general public's view, performances and recordings are considered by experts, fellow musicians, professionals who give some extra validity to the general view. In some case, with almost unknown works or recordings, it is only the views (or reviews) of those experts which count more than anything else. Still, this does not produce "definitive" recordings, but, at least, great ones.

About Boult's Elgar, I never meant it is "definitely" great. I just said that, if it is acknowledged as such, it is not by a mere majority of individuals here and there. I personally am not that thrilled with Boult's Elgar, but I recognise the verdict of experts, musicians and critics as something valid enough and I cannot ignore the authority of Boult on Elgar.

As for the works of Classical Music (let's not go that far to the broad issue of the "artistic works", in general) are precisely measured by their technical aspects (or better features) and by taste of the public (what one likes). As for the latter, I have no problem to accept the variability of taste and, therefore, even consensus cannot prove but only the popularity of a work or even a composer (based on how many of his works can be popular).

However, as for the "technical aspects" (the musical features), it is not up to the taste (what we like) but up to the actual characteristics of the identity of the work. Whether each of us, the listeners or audience, are in a position to identify them is a personal issue, but this does not affect the position Bach or Mozart or Beethoven has in Classical Music. It only affects our role in comprehending and the degree of listening to their music.

In sum: Performances may not be definitive, but there are great ones, particularly by performers with authority on certain composers. However, for the works themselves, there is no question of their technical quality and position, which does not come from "divine revelation" or "dogged insistence", but from the simple issue of knowing the subject : to know Music. This does not mean that these works have not been "assessed" by anyone. The issue is that their "assessment" has already been done by the composers themselves, the musicians/performers, the experts and other professionals of the time of their development and the development of Classical Music itself. Individual opinions of listeners of any kind cannot change the opus by the already established great composers.

I hope it is clear to you, eyeresist.

Parla

What will surely be clear to Eyeresist is that no one is more capable of assessing the greatness of a piece of music than Parla himself of course!

A work and its evaluation is a dialectic process: there is no disconnecting the sight from the viewer! If you classify the subject in two (common people and connoisseurs) or more categories do not change its inherent caracteristic: it is still ruled by subjectivity. Hence.....

The evaluation of the (artistic/musical) work is a "dialectic process" says 78RPM. There can not be disconnection of the "sight from the viewer".

First of all, I did not mention about an ongoing evaluation. I just said that the whatever you wish to call "assessment", "evaluation" has already been done. It is up to any listener to identify the qualities, features, technical mastery etc. existing in the work in question. A fugue by Bach is a "reference" composition in this genre. The dialectic process might apply not to whether the fugue is great as a technical/musical work, but how one perceives it, how he/she likes it. However, our limitations cannot diminish the technical value of it. To claim that a work that one does not like is rubbish, it is childish.

I am not supposed to declare any assessment after any listening of a work by let's say Beethoven. I will be greatly satisfied, if I manage to trace, much more to identify, a fraction of the features of great Music already existing there. The "dialectic process" is about deciphering the message the composer offer to us with his music. If we manage to succeed, we can identify the message. Whether we like it or not, it is up to us. However, we cannot claim the message was badly written. Unless we believe we know the language of the composer better than him!

Parla

Sound contributions eyeresist and others. But you have to question the wisdom of engaging in debate with someone who does not accept the concepts of 'subjectivity' or 'taste'. Except when they're his own, of course. Couple that with his declaration a couple of weeks back that he only posts infallible viewpoints, and you're banging your heads against a brick wall. 

Besides, as pointed out by Chris and Vic, this debate taken place at least once before and foundered on the same rock.

The best version usually changes every month. That's how the Gramophone like to fleece the mugs.

Do me a favour. You are beginning to sound like some old geezer at a footy match who swears  nobody could dribble the ball like Stanley Accrington from Barrow-up-the- furnace. Technically todays musicians are far better than the sentimental whiners of yesteryear.