I was reading ARG the other day and came across a review of the third
volume in the Hummel/Chandos piano concerto series.  This volume contains
Hummel's fourth piano concerto in E and the violin & piano concerto.  The
reviewer lambasted the music and the sound quality, using words such as
"garbage, waste, stupidly four-square, incredibly congested and unbalanced,
and insipid." Doesn't sound so good.

After reading the review, I refreshed my knowledge of the recording and
works.  I found the music enjoyable, loaded with attractive melodies, and
typical of Hummel's output.  As for the sound, it is a little congested
at low volume levels.  But, it improves and widens greatly with a volume
boost(make that loud).  The reviewer must have declined to raise the
volume, or his sound system is deficient.

This particular review also got me thinking about musical expectations
when one listens to a particular composer and composition.  I honestly
can't imagine anyone familiar with and appreciative of Hummel feeling
that this third Chandos disc has bad music.  This is the type of music
that Hummel gives us, whether it's a concerto, piano sonata, chamber work,
or sacred piece.  There's nothing profound, significantly innovative,
or thought provoking.  What Hummel can provide is great pleasure, great
melodies, and a musical link between Mozart and Beethoven.  Accept Hummel
for who he is, and the level of appreciation can increase greatly.

This "acceptance" also applies to "modernist" composers.  Sometimes
I get the feeling that folks listen to composers such as Cage, Carter,
and Varese, expecting to hear some good old-fashioned melodies and musical
development of a work.  But, it's not there.  What replaces those features
might please or displease a listener, but I think it's illogical to rail
against these composers for not giving you what you want.  They give us
what they want, and I would hope that all listeners appreciate their
integrity to their art.

Your Humble Hummel Advocate,

Don Satz