Roger Hecht <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Well, I've been writing for ARG since last year and I've been called a lot
>of things, but snooty is not one of them.  Pedantic, maybe, overbearing,
>certainly, gross (occasionally), a chronic griper (all the time) but how
>snooty can an ex-jock, bass trombonist who lives in a two-flat, drives a 13
>year old car (very rarely at that, and I hate SUVs), owns a 15 year old TV,
>has two "mongrel" cats (sorry, guys--all right, I did name them Alice and
>Edward after the Elgars) and works in a city library be? Not to mention one
>who has as many typos in his posts as I do.  I've never heard ARG called
>that either.  (I have heard other journals, including some named by Mr.
>Heersink, called that--unfairly, I might add, and I have never called them
>that myself.)

Roger Hecht is right to correct me for the faulty grammar in my post
criticizing ARG.  And, the current issue of American Record Guide does
have many more than usual number of Naxos recordings reviewed.  Oh, that
it were always so.  But on these two fronts, I stand corrected.  Yet, Mr.
Hecht claims that no one has labeled ARG "snooty," which means "haughty"
or "disdain for the usual." Here, I must beg to differ.  I think ARG is
snooty.  And I don't just mean to suggest that only ARG's editor Donald
Vroon is snooty for his contentious "Critical Convictions," which, I
daresay, nearly costed ARG its advertizing revenue about a year ago!
Vroon is an elitist, and he makes no apologies for it.

My concern was not limited to Mr Vroon's truculent haughtiness.  It was
that Naxos recordings by-and-large get short shrift in ARG, are almost
always tagged only as "recommendable at its bargain price," and are almost
always deemed inferior to some such recording (ancient and modern) gem.
Sure, Naxos's budget price is certainly a feature, helping to explain in
part its popularity and sales.  No one denies the obvious.  But, I maintain
that its popularity and financial success are no less dependent than on the
general excellence of the performances and sonics of its releases.  After
all, that's what this heading has been addressing.  But that's not what ARG
seems to address.  By-and-large, Naxos' performances and sonics are rarely
deemed competitive in ARG's reviewers' eyes.  There are exceptions, but
Hecht, the reviewer, was not one of them (see below).

Here are some examples culled alphabetically:

Haller on Alvfin:  "Naxos survey may be warmly recommended at the cost."

Later, again, Haller's lengthy traversal of the MHS re-release of the
Chandos Bax Complete Symphonies makes no mention of the highly-acclaimed
Naxos series already underway.  Indeed, it's rare if Naxos gets unqualified
praise, and it's even rarer if Naxos is used for comparison to any new or
re-released material.

Mr Fine writes of Brahms' Quartets 1 & 2 on Naxos:  "Lovely romantic
readings.  Though I prefer more "classical" interpretations like those of
the Colorado Quartet on Parnassus." Could anything more remote be worth the
effort? Mail Order? Was Brahms a classicist or a romanticist; I can't
remember?

Linkowski writes of Casella's Paganiniana, et alia:  "AT Naxos's
super-budget price, it is irresistible." What about at any cost?

Kudos for Carter's excellent review of Crusell's Clarinet Concertos, daring
to compare them to the unsurpassable Thea King's cycle on Hyperion, and
observes, "Naxos does not flinch in the face of either the King or the Pay;
Billman's playing is confident, adept, and effortless . . . .  the Uppsala
CO is tonally strong, poised, and plows ahead with all of the confidence of
some of their front-line competition." No mention of Naxos' price, and no
condescending "almost as good" attitude we so often find.

Carter also reviews Finzi's Clarinet Concerto, et alia, and once again
demonstrates thoroughness, intellectual impartiality, and strong narrative,
ignoring price altogether.  Along with Haller's similarly-oriented review
of Glazunov's "Finnish Fantasy," et alia, price doesn't "equalize" a
mediocre performance.

Barker's review of Handel's "Saul," while not very informative, raves about
the Naxos recording, but makes a slap-in-the-face that nothing compares to
the Gardiner and Neumann.  Of course, not one word about THEM, just that
they're better than the Naxos.  And "for all that, this Naxos release is an
undisputable BARGAIN" (emphasis mine).  Another BARGAIN, BUT.  Seems to be
an ARG template.

Then there's editor Vroon's review of Dvorak's Trios 3 & 4 on Naxos.  This
is classic ARG:  "My preference for Fontenay is not something I can argue
conclusively; nor does it matter to most readers.  They want to know if
they have to accept an inferior performance or recording to save money with
Naxos.  In this case the answer is surely 'No'." Now THAT'S an informative
review, isn't it? We spend $32/year to read such enlightenment.

Hecht's own review of Elgar's "Falstaff," et alia shows he's an excellent
narrator, in many ways superior to Carter. After a healthy description of
the performances (not always a feature in ARG's reviews), Hecht observes,
"I like Adrian Boult's ability to fill out textures and structures without
heaviness (EMI). . . . I enjoyed this clean, gentle, and intimate reading;
but I slightly prefer the fuller, deeper accounts of Davis, Boult, ETC"
(emphasis mine). Fine, but to whom does this ETC apply? Other than "Bryden
Thomson's detached, dallying account," Hecht makes no mention of who these
"others" are!  He only mentions Thomson, Davis, Boult, and the conductor
under review! Who are the "others" of the "etc" that surpass the Naxos'
release? Are they hidden from view, locked in vaults, or don't these
"others" see the light of day? The "etc." notwithstanding, we're told,
"this is an outstanding BARGAIN" (emphasis again mine). If it didn't cost
so little, would or would not this CD be recommended? I never know.

It's not my intent to lampoon individual reviewers.  Each approaches
his/her art in a distinctive way.  Experience has taught me that magazines
and periodicals often take on a culture that imbues the product and output.
That Vroon has considerable influence on the culture at ARG is something
only guessed at, but it seems that Vroon's self-professed elitism (his
review above so typifying) filters through to the other reviewers.  Some
are brave to go against the grain.  Carter is clearly one of them.  But for
too many reviewers, Naxos is just a budget label, not a value.  Now there's
an idea!  Value in classical music.

[log in to unmask] (D. Stephen Heersink)