Len Fehskens writes in response to me:

>>I much prefer when a reviewer openly states his/her view or bias, then
>>moves on to judge the recording based on those views.
>
>So "good" or "bad" really means "I like" or "I don't like"?  Again,
>regardless of how one labels the categorization, we're talking about
>differentiation.

Any "bozo" can listen to a piece of music and state a liking or dislike for
it.  Hopefully, reviewers do some lengthy research in terms of listening
alternatives and/or reading material before the reviewer's opinions are
finalized and presented to the reader of the review.  In effect, the
so-called subjective preference of the reviewer is actually an informed
preference.

Of course, since music is subjective in terms of preferences, the
reviewer's preferences will also have subjective elements.  This is why
Fanfare Magazine sometimes offers two reviews of the same recordings, and
the two reviewers are often miles apart.

My bottom line is that the reviewer does something the typical reader
does not do - compare the reviewed recording to alternative versions of
the work.  I'm not talking about some reference to an alternative which
the reviewer last heard a few years ago, but a 'fresh' and extensive
listening experience.  The reviewer spends many hours on the review
process; the reader potentially reaps the benefits of the effort.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]