Gregory Ginn wrote:

>We really need to appreciate Naxos for what it really is, an economical
>label for those who are just getting into classical music and for those
>who find themselves on a budget and cannot always get the Decca or the
>Deutsche Grammophon recordings.

There appears to be price elitism among those who disparage Naxos.  The
label charges only $5 per disc; therefore, it cannot be really good.  Oh,
the contrary.  Even the snooty American Record Guide must occasionally
break down and admit that Naxos recordings are very good (of course, they
are never deemed them the "standard" with Vroon at the helm, deprecating
almost everything post-1960).  Fanfare magazine and the Penguin Guide, on
the other hand, which much are much more proletariat in their thinking,
frequently heap praise for many of Naxos' fine recordings.  There are
numerous Penguin rosettes, and Fanfare isn't so class conscious as to
overlook Naxos' superior recordings in many areas of its releases.  Which,
brings us to an important point.  If all I wanted was Beethoven's, Brahms',
and Schumann symphonies, there's no question the Polygrams and EMIs of
this world beat Naxos much of the time.  But if I want a Bruckner, Dvorak,
Haydn, Prokofiev, Schubert, Sibelius, Telemann or Vivaldi, or Weber piece,
Naxos offers stellar performances with excellent sonics at one-third
Polygram's price, and even more economical when compared to ARG's recondite
labels.  If monk fish is the poor man's lobster, then Naxos is the poor
man's DG, Phillips, London, etc., and in many cases superior to
them.Finally, but by no means least, I have access to a number of wonderful
composers I never knew existed, much less ever having audited their
compositions, until the little train that could brought the
otherwise-obscure to us plebeians.  I am proud to posses in my paltry
library more than five hundred Naxos CDs, many of which I would gladly keep
if forced to choose between them and Polygram!

D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco, California
[log in to unmask]