Thread: Plea to classical music reviewers

Posts: 63
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Post by Polly Nomial October 27, 2004 (1 of 63)
The below only applies (to the best of my knowledge) to the classical reviews posted here. (I am not able to comment on the other genre reviews as I have not looked at these - yet.) Hopefully it will not sound too dogmatic - it is not meant to be.

It may be I am the only one who feels this but could reviewers who are not familiar with the music they are reviewing, please refrain from judging the quality of the performance? The reason I ask is that in some reviews of classical music you see a post along the lines of: "I don't know this composer's music but I think it's a great performance."

I think that's fantastic for a poster to have enjoyed the music so much & I strongly support exploration of (all) music. I would say however, that it is hard sometimes to make the "great performance" judgement without a wider exposure to the ways the particular piece/composer can be performed. I believe that it is possible to greatly enjoy a "bad" performance because the music is such that any limitations of the recording (sonic, intonation, tone quality, interpretations etc) are overcome because of the greatness of the piece.

For me it's like saying that a particular restaurant is great at cooking Italian food when one has never experienced Italian food before. One may have (greatly) enjoyed it but is it really possible to apply a comparator when one has nothing to compare it against?

I do not wish to deter others from listening to (and commenting on the sonic qualities of) new recordings. Just please do not rate the performance(s) if one is not familiar with the music/composer. [This is of course hard to do when a premiere recording is made (such as the Telarc Popov disc) but if one is familiar with the genre from which the piece comes, there is at least a chance to form such an opinion.]

Best wishes

Post by pann October 27, 2004 (2 of 63)
There are at least two ways to listen to a music; intellectual or/and intuitive. I do both and review as such. since I was 12 years old I've been doing this either in my mind or posting it. The owner of this forum has laid down the rules. So far this forum is open to all. You take your pick but I have to respectfully reject your "Plea". My two cents.

Post by tream October 27, 2004 (3 of 63)
Polly Nomial said:

The below only applies (to the best of my knowledge) to the classical reviews posted here. (I am not able to comment on the other genre reviews as I have not looked at these - yet.) Hopefully it will not sound too dogmatic - it is not meant to be.

It may be I am the only one who feels this but could reviewers who are not familiar with the music they are reviewing, please refrain from judging the quality of the performance? The reason I ask is that in some reviews of classical music you see a post along the lines of: "I don't know this composer's music but I think it's a great performance."

I think that's fantastic for a poster to have enjoyed the music so much & I strongly support exploration of (all) music. I would say however, that it is hard sometimes to make the "great performance" judgement without a wider exposure to the ways the particular piece/composer can be performed. I believe that it is possible to greatly enjoy a "bad" performance because the music is such that any limitations of the recording (sonic, intonation, tone quality, interpretations etc) are overcome because of the greatness of the piece.

For me it's like saying that a particular restaurant is great at cooking Italian food when one has never experienced Italian food before. One may have (greatly) enjoyed it but is it really possible to apply a comparator when one has nothing to compare it against?

I do not wish to deter others from listening to (and commenting on the sonic qualities of) new recordings. Just please do not rate the performance(s) if one is not familiar with the music/composer. [This is of course hard to do when a premiere recording is made (such as the Telarc Popov disc) but if one is familiar with the genre from which the piece comes, there is at least a chance to form such an opinion.]

Best wishes

This discussion has come up in the forum before. I'm on record as disagreeing with your opinion (others agree), so we can leave it at that. But, when can we see your first review?
Well, actually, I do want to say one thing. Just because a reviewer has vast experience doesn't mean they have anything meaningful to say. I have gone into combat with an allegedly knowledgable member of the Fanfare staff who clearly has listened to many recordings, but first, he has a habit of writing opinions about issues of which he has first hand knowledge, and secondly, even when he has, he does not explain why he has made certain judgement. The first part is intellectual dishonesty and the second is bad writing. I'd rather see a passionate amateur (in the true sense of the word) review where it is clear the reviewer has limited experience than a BS professional review.
I have been guilty of posting a few reviews to this site. I don't know if anyone has read them (well, I know of one, where someone posted a review to counter mine-we heard different things, but that's life) or have gotten any value out of them. As a musical amateur (I did receive pay for newspaper reviews of live concerts in 1975, but that hardly counts) I do it because I feel like I have something to contribute, I value the community aspect of this site, as well as those professionals who have weighed in (Pentatone, LSO Live and Channel Classics-it feels like these companies care), and some recordings just deserve to be noticed. I do try to pick recordings where I have domain knowledge-one day I hope to get around to a comparative review of Beethoven symphony SACD's, and you are not going to see a review from me on the MLP Starker Bach suites-(I think it is great, but I don't have 6 recordings to compare it to)-but this is my own standard, not one I advocate for the site.

Post by DrOctodivx October 27, 2004 (4 of 63)
For me it's like saying that a particular restaurant is great at cooking Italian food when one has never experienced Italian food before. One may have (greatly) enjoyed it but is it really possible to apply a comparator when one has nothing to compare it against?
That is simply way too broad of an analogy. I would say that since the reviewer has probably been exposed to other related or otherwise similar classical works, it is more like saying one should not be able to review Fettucine Alfredo, since they have only eaten other Italian dishes.

I find value in as many diverse opinions from their various viewpoints on a work. Even I would say that it helps me broaden my taste since I can see what a reviewer who has similar taste in music to me feels about certain works, even if he/she is not intimately familiar with that work...

Post by Polly Nomial October 27, 2004 (5 of 63)
tream said:

This discussion has come up in the forum before. I'm on record as disagreeing with your opinion (others agree), so we can leave it at that. But, when can we see your first review?
Well, actually, I do want to say one thing. Just because a reviewer has vast experience doesn't mean they have anything meaningful to say. I have gone into combat with an allegedly knowledgable member of the Fanfare staff who clearly has listened to many recordings, but first, he has a habit of writing opinions about issues of which he has first hand knowledge, and secondly, even when he has, he does not explain why he has made certain judgement. The first part is intellectual dishonesty and the second is bad writing. I'd rather see a passionate amateur (in the true sense of the word) review where it is clear the reviewer has limited experience than a BS professional review.
I have been guilty of posting a few reviews to this site. I don't know if anyone has read them (well, I know of one, where someone posted a review to counter mine-we heard different things, but that's life) or have gotten any value out of them. As a musical amateur (I did receive pay for newspaper reviews of live concerts in 1975, but that hardly counts) I do it because I feel like I have something to contribute, I value the community aspect of this site, as well as those professionals who have weighed in (Pentatone, LSO Live and Channel Classics-it feels like these companies care), and some recordings just deserve to be noticed. I do try to pick recordings where I have domain knowledge-one day I hope to get around to a comparative review of Beethoven symphony SACD's, and you are not going to see a review from me on the MLP Starker Bach suites-(I think it is great, but I don't have 6 recordings to compare it to)-but this is my own standard, not one I advocate for the site.

Tream

When can you & others see my first review? Well, for the moment, I'm following the guidelines and trying to experience several recordings on SACD before coming to any conclusions about the sonics. I could jump in with comments about some performances I own but I'm waiting until I can give comments on both parts.

I wasn't intending to argue for "professionalism" in the reviewing as like you, I've found that some have either nothing to say, or an agenda to promote/denigrate someone. I also find it interesting to find out what everyone thinks of a particular recording (especially passionate amateurs as they are often more knowledge & interested than the so-called professionals).

However, I find it frustrating to be told one minute that someone doesn't know the music & then in the next sentence to be told that it is a great/average/awful performance. How does one know if it's a great/average/awful performance if one doesn't know the music? (By this I don't mean that someone should be able to compare the performance to Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan, Abbado etc.)

Regards

Post by Polly Nomial October 27, 2004 (6 of 63)
DrOctodivx said:

That is simply way too broad of an analogy. I would say that since the reviewer has probably been exposed to other related or otherwise similar classical works, it is more like saying one should not be able to review Fettucine Alfredo, since they have only eaten other Italian dishes.

I find value in as many diverse opinions from their various viewpoints on a work. Even I would say that it helps me broaden my taste since I can see what a reviewer who has similar taste in music to me feels about certain works, even if he/she is not intimately familiar with that work...

DrOctodivx

I would agree that my analogy may have been too broad but I maintain that the general thrust of my argument is valid.

I would also agree it is valuable, interesting & informative to get as wide a range of viewpoints as possible. It is also fascinating to hear what people think of music as they discover it. (I sometimes wish I had listened less when I was at school so I still had many great masterpieces to discover but I got away with not needing to study a lot so now I mainly have just new interpretations to discover.)

Regards

Post by peteyspambucket October 27, 2004 (7 of 63)
I've actually led a thread or two to remark about the kind of reviews that POLLY is talking about. While I really agree with Polly's feelings about those kinds of reviews, I don't fully agree with the suppression of their reviews. I think they should be able to rate however they want as long as they state their level of experience with the music implicitly or explicitly. While their opinions may not be as learned or experienced, they still have some value when they talk about the sound quality or the kind of impression the recordings leave on them and sometimes even the packaging or the efforts that it takes to get a certain SACD.

Finally, I don't find these kinds of reviews all that common, and I think it's just fun to hear from people about what they think about stuff.

Post by seth October 27, 2004 (8 of 63)
While I agree that it's ridiculous when a reviewer admits to having never heard the music before, only to go on to proclaim "best recording ever," these are consumer reviews after all. It's not like any of what people write is printed in a newspaper or magazine.

Post by Dan Popp October 27, 2004 (9 of 63)
Polly Nomial said:

However, I find it frustrating to be told one minute that someone doesn't know the music & then in the next sentence to be told that it is a great/average/awful performance.

Polly,
I think this is exactly what we should expect and encourage: a reviewer stating the limits of his experience (which I often do) and then telling us how he enjoyed the piece within those limits. I find critiques made by others who, like me, have not memorized every note of the score, to be interesting and informative for the most part.

Obviously there is more general value to a comparison of one recording to others, especially when the others are widely known. But what I would rather discourage is not the _admittedly_ naive review, but the review that fails to disclose the writer's inexperience.

If you want to skip over those reviews done by newbies, you can - no harm no foul... as long as they come clean.

Post by jdaniel@jps.net October 27, 2004 (10 of 63)
It's all part of the 'wild west' nature of the web (and may it never change)--it's up to you to sort thru the good, bad and ugly. I humbly asked though, and I've humbly asked before, for a *detailed* review of the Susskind "Planets."

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next

Closed