|
|
|
Harnoncourt has his Bruckner 9th out and the Ma Vlast was on the cover. Could it be this will be released in SACD?
|
|
|
Post by nucaleena November 27, 2003 (2 of 10)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Harnoncourt has his Bruckner 9th out and the Ma Vlast was on the cover. Could it be this will be released in SACD?
dear dutchman, apparently, but caveat emptor, - the Gramophone review of the Smetana was very unflattering.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn November 29, 2003 (3 of 10)
|
|
nucaleena said:
- the Gramophone review of the Smetana was very unflattering.
Then maybe Gramophone won't buy a copy. For me, it's the only possibility of hearing a Ma Vlast in well-recorded MC sound. I find magazine reviews are from people who are way too smart for themselves, and unfortunately, influence others to miss out on wonderful experiences. I hope it is released soon.
Tom
|
|
|
Post by nucaleena November 29, 2003 (4 of 10)
|
|
tailspn said:
Then maybe Gramophone won't buy a copy. For me, it's the only possibility of hearing a Ma Vlast in well-recorded MC sound. I find magazine reviews are from people who are way too smart for themselves, and unfortunately, influence others to miss out on wonderful experiences. I hope it is released soon.
Tom
dear tailspn, I don't feel that way about Gramophone at all. Apart from little spells when a pro-Universal bias was detectable and the permanent anglocentricity, I find it's the most reliable and informed of all the record review journals.
yeah, sometimes a few of the reviewers sound a bit up themselves, but only a few of them and only now and again. Generally, they go out of their way to avoid being "too smart" for themselves or their readers, but nor do they insult their readers intelligence the way Classics and (sometimes) BBC Music do.
They were very positive about Harnoncourt's Bruckner 9th and about his Schumann recordings of a couple of years back, so they don't have an anti-Harnoncourt agenda. Their critique of the Smetana cd was well thought out and well presented, from a reviewer who loves Ma Vlast and who's choice of benchmark performances I thought very sound and fair.
For me, they provide an indispensable service. Think of them as a friendly guide to saving you money by listening to every available version and comparing all new recordings against each other. They've certainly saved me some ££$$ over the years. There have been a few reviews (over the years) that i've wildly disagreed with, but well over 90 and up to 95% are spot on (for me, anyway). I just wish they'd do more up to the minute SACD reviews and give a better coverage of the differences in sound between SACD and redbook releases. I thought they were getting better at it last issue but that seems to have been a one off.
|
|
|
Post by tailspn November 29, 2003 (5 of 10)
|
|
Dear Paul, I'm an odd duck. I have no musical education, outside of what I read in CD jewelcase booklets. I'm a real classical music basket case. It either moves me, or it doesn't. I'm a pure technician when it comes to audio, and am primarily interested in the recording accuracy and fidelity, over the musical interpretation. The fact that I have access to a major symphony orchestra several times a week only heightens my sonic fidelity quest.
My point is that I feel there are a lot of people in this interest, like me, which some music reviewers may steer away from perfectly beautiful interpretations, fantastically recorded, in the interest of the artist not meeting their subjective interpretation criteria. The Ma Vlast is a gorgeous piece of music, which more importantly, is going to be issued in a hopefully well-recorded multichannel SACD. To me, a five-year-old non-prodigy could conduct it, and it would be better than no multichannel Ma Vlast at all. I just hate to think the likes of me being dissuaded from purchasing this for whatever Gramophone’s learned reasons.
And I love your equipment setup! That is a very high-resolution system you have there, and hopefully gives you many hours of enjoyment.
Thanks,
Tom
|
|
|
Post by zeus November 30, 2003 (6 of 10)
|
|
tailspn said:
I just hate to think the likes of me being dissuaded from purchasing this for whatever Gramophone’s learned reasons.
Reviews ... here, in Gramophone, or wherever ... are just information. I wouldn't necessarily be dissuaded by a negative review and I'm sure I have quite a few discs that haven't met with critical acclaim but I enjoy nonetheless. Every reviewer has their likes/dislikes and subjectivity plays a large part in the "tone" of a review. A good review goes further to provide insights into the music and/or interpretation to help you appreciate it more ... or be aware of its failings even while you're enjoying it! I tend to read around and use my own value judgements (based on previous experiences) in deciding whether to purchase a recording or not. Having insightful reviews here is great (I use them a lot) but the end decision resides with the individual.
|
|
|
Post by beardawgs November 30, 2003 (7 of 10)
|
|
Although I don’t always agree with what’s in Gramophone, it is still the best magazine of its sort. Reviews are always a personal affair, however hard the reviewer is trying to be ‘objective’. Especially in classical music.
I learned in years how to read the Gramophone reviews, they change their bias on a regular basis, probably depending on the amount of advertising or number of free tickets to Salzburg and Glyndebourne :o). But I highly appreciate the fact that they are trying hard to justify their views, and they are frank enough to print conflicting views from different reviewers. Like everybody else, they also have their own agenda, but they are keeping (most of the time) a lid on it. True, they praised H’s Bruckner, but it didn’t make it in the ‘editor’s choice’ and the review was cramped with another recording, without giving any conclusive judgement. In December issue they are having problems with Kaplan’s Mahler, rather unconvincingly praising his first recording. Then, they hate Karajan (unless they have to agree with the rest of the world, like with his Mahler’s ninth), won’t take Celibidache seriously and would ever so slightly prefer British performers. And they finally gave Gardiner long overdue recognition for his Messiah, after cavorting for years with some mediocre, but fashionable recordings. We should now all expect high praise for everything under Harmonia Mundi umbrella (hmmm) and long features about Perahia (rightly so!).
What they do forget on a regular basis is that music is not recorded for professionals and musicians, but for music lovers. One doesn’t need to know to read the score or conduct to enjoy the performance. I’ve been working with professional orchestral musicians for many years, and to be honest most of them don’t even listen to their own recordings, let alone to other orchestras.
As Stephen said, reviews are useful just as guidelines, they shouldn’t be taken for granted. They can be a great help in focusing on what to listen to in a particular recording, but the overall impression and verdict is always a personal one. If you don’t like it - it’s bad, whatever Gramophone or anyone else say.
|
|
|
Post by tream December 10, 2003 (8 of 10)
|
|
nucaleena said:
dear tailspn, I don't feel that way about Gramophone at all. Apart from little spells when a pro-Universal bias was detectable and the permanent anglocentricity, I find it's the most reliable and informed of all the record review journals.
yeah, sometimes a few of the reviewers sound a bit up themselves, but only a few of them and only now and again. Generally, they go out of their way to avoid being "too smart" for themselves or their readers, but nor do they insult their readers intelligence the way Classics and (sometimes) BBC Music do.
They were very positive about Harnoncourt's Bruckner 9th and about his Schumann recordings of a couple of years back, so they don't have an anti-Harnoncourt agenda. Their critique of the Smetana cd was well thought out and well presented, from a reviewer who loves Ma Vlast and who's choice of benchmark performances I thought very sound and fair.
For me, they provide an indispensable service. Think of them as a friendly guide to saving you money by listening to every available version and comparing all new recordings against each other. They've certainly saved me some ££$$ over the years. There have been a few reviews (over the years) that i've wildly disagreed with, but well over 90 and up to 95% are spot on (for me, anyway). I just wish they'd do more up to the minute SACD reviews and give a better coverage of the differences in sound between SACD and redbook releases. I thought they were getting better at it last issue but that seems to have been a one off.
While I'm an American, I also suscribe to Gramophone, and would second Nucaleena's comment about anglocentricity. The American section that is added for the US market is frankly puzzling-random releases and news. Good magazine, however.
I also commend Fanfare to all of you-possibly more of a "yankocentric" publication, although several reviewers are British - Bernard Jacobson and Martin Anderson, and possibly others. Jacobson, who has lived in the US for a long time and has written for other US magazines as well, has some interesting biases, e.g., Elgar is a greater composer than Mahler (while I like Elgar, that is going way far) and The Lindsays are simply wonderful-I think we know better. His writing ability and Handel reviews make me a fan, even though I have quite different tastes in performance than he.
Several of the reviewers have become real advocates of SACD-including Jacobson, and Andrew Quint (who also writes for The Absolute Sound) and Fanfare is doing a reasonable job covering SACD. Virtually no coverage of DVD-A.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno December 15, 2003 (9 of 10)
|
|
I've been a reader of "Gramophone" for more years than I care to remember (a reflection on my age, not the merits or otherwise of the magazine) and still rate it as the best. I currently subscribe to it. Over the years I've got to know the style of the reviewers who discuss "my" type of music and have noted general agreement with most of their recommendations when I've purchased them so believe most of them to be reliable guides.
I'm still hoping for a regular section on SACD/DVD-A reviews, when ALL such recordings will be commented on -- with emphasis on a technical comparison between them and the standard CDs. At the moment, such a section only seems to be appearing occasionally.
The Audio section's attitude to SACD and DVD-A can sometimes seem indifferent, however, which I find disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by zeus December 15, 2003 (10 of 10)
|
|
Johnno said:
I'm still hoping for a regular section on SACD/DVD-A reviews, when ALL such recordings will be commented on -- with emphasis on a technical comparison between them and the standard CDs. At the moment, such a section only seems to be appearing occasionally.
Six SACDs over the last two month's Editor's Choice, two of which actually reference the SACD version. (It would have been four this month but Harmonia Mundi's "Wolcum Yule" doesn't look as though it's going to make it for this Xmas.) Details here:
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/edschoice.asp?edsdate=01/12/2003
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/edschoice.asp?edsdate=01/01/2004
|
|
