Re: What is the reason for this piano duo layout?

It should be noted that ppeso Never attacked Dan here personally, he was
very reasonable.
I disagree with his nonsense about „de gustibus non est disputandum“
though as I’ve Made clear earlier in this group..
There is a difference between Mozart and Michael Jackson — there
actually is good and Bad taste. Ofc people Are free to enjoy shitty
music ;)
Adorno in Minima Moralia:
„ De gustibus est disputandum – Even those who are convinced of the
incomparability of works of art, find themselves continually entangled
in debates where works of art, and precisely those of the highest and
for that reason incomparable rank, are compared with and evaluated
against each other. The objection invariably raised during such
considerations, that it is all just a matter of collectors’ instincts,
of measuring by ells, usually means only that the good citizens, to whom
art can never be irrational enough, wish to keep the inner constitution
and claim of truth distant from the works. The compulsion of the
consideration is however located in the work of art itself. So much is
true, that they do not allow themselves to be compared. Rather, they
want to annihilate each other. It is not for nothing that the ancients
[i.e. Greeks] reserved the pantheon of that which is compatible to the
gods or to ideas, but required works of art to enter the agon [Greek:
contest, conflict, struggle], each one the mortal enemy of the other.
The depiction of a “pantheon of classicism,” which Kierkegaard still
clung to, is a fiction of neutralized upbringing. For if the idea of the
beautiful is portrayed as merely divided up into many works, each
individual one nevertheless reckons on an inalienable claim to the
whole, claiming the beautiful for itself out of its uniqueness and can
never admit its segmentation, without annulling itself. The beautiful,
as something unitary, true and appearanceless [scheinlos], emancipated
from such individuation, is not represented by the synthesis of all
works, by the unity of arts and of art, but solely corporeally and
actually: in the downfall of art itself. Every work of art aims at such
a downfall, by seeking the death of all the others. That all art reckons
on its own end, is another way of stating the same state of affairs. It
is out of such a compulsion towards self-annihilation in works of art,
from their innermost concern, that drives towards the appearanceless
[scheinlos] picture of what is beautiful, which stirs up seemingly
useless aesthetic disputes over and over again. While they stubbornly
and obstinately wish to find what is aesthetically correct [Recht] and
precisely thereby fall victim to an unquenchable dialectic, they are
more correct than they can know; by delimiting each art-work, whose
energy they take into themselves and raise to a concept, they work
towards the destruction of art, which is its salvation. The aesthetic
tolerance, which validates works of art in their immediate narrowness,
without breaking this last, yields only the wrong downfall, that of the
juxtaposition, which denies the claim of the unitary truth.“