Jon Gallant writes concerning reviews of recordings:

>Note that the List depends upon voluntary cooperative activity, in
>contrast to the magazines, which depend upon market transactions plus
>advertising revenue.  The latter cannot fail to compromise the magazines'
>integrity (as some on this List have pointed out).

I find the above view to be speculative.  To assume that reviewers
for periodicals write reviews which 'compromise' their real opinions of
recordings is to at least partially discredit the reviewer without any
evidence at all that the reviewer actually compromises integrity.  My
opinion is that this "guilty before being proven innocent" premise turns
fair play and faith in humans upside down.

Jon is correct that other list members have brought up this subject before,
but none of them has provided any evidence to back up their claims.  My
assumption is that every reviewer is delivering honest evaluations unless
I become aware of proof of the opposite.  If there is proof, let's hear
about it instead of simply assuming that commercial activity requires it.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]