Richard Tsuyuki writes:

>Being a relative novice in comparative listening, I sometimes read
>reviews critcizing recordings as being "too slick", "too polished",
>"shiny", or even "self-serving" (!).

I'm not sure if Richard is referring to sound quality or performances,
but his posting is timely for me.  I've been listening to a couple of
BIS recordings performed by the Kontra Quartet.  One is a 2-cd set of
the Nielsen String Quartets, the other a Svendsen disc of his String
Quartet and Octet.  If "slick" is applicable to any recording, it fully
applies to the Kontra discs.  The soundstage is rather wet and overly
resonant, as if the sound is coming from Carlsbad Caverns during flood
season.  The performances sound similar to skimming over a slippery
surface.  When reviewers use terms such as "slick" or "shiny", I think
they are conveying the message that there is a lack of depth and detail
to the sound and/or performances.

>....I tend to associate "slickness" with clarity.

Don't make that association in the future, because it could mislead the
reader.  I don't think that slick recordings are clear at all; they have
an aural glaze and thickness that hangs in the air and damages clarity.
Actually, a dry and clinical sound likely results in the greatest clarity
such as in the Rosalyn Tureck BBC recordings of Bach's Well Tempered
Clavier.  Of course, the performing artist plays a strong role in the
presentation of details.

We could start calling these slick productions "slick discs".  If you
can cleary enunciate this term by repeating it quickly five times, I'll
send you an unopened box of tissue paper covered with aloe.  I hate this
type of tissue, because it never gets my eye glasses clean.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]