>Why all this emphasis on blaming reviewers?
Quote from an "expert" reviewer in Gramophone Liszt solo CDs:
"Recorded between 1990 and 2004, these performances are reissued
in brilliantly refurbished and clarified sound, forming part of
a 100-CD discography. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that
no other pianist, male or female, would even have considered
such a comprehensive undertaking.
Even in the most daunting repertoire, her poise in the face of
one pianistic storm after another is a source of astonishment.
Her warmth, affection, ease and humanity strike you at every
turn, her scale and command without a hint of superficial or
hard-nosed virtuosity. Here, Liszt's occasional histrionics and
theatricality are tempered with the most aristocratic quality."
Again, I wonder how this well regarded critic did not pick up on the
scam? It is a fair question. Consider the non-existent conuctor &
orchestra in the later Rach and Lizst pc CDs too. Shouldn't someone
have twigged earlier? Gramophone make great play of the breath and depth
of their knowledge, the world's leading CM mag etc. Most importantly,
why with so many different piansts/orchestras/conductors ripped-off
didn't someone spot the stylistic differences earlier? Did it really
need a computer to spot this?
There are important questions for reviewers and those who read reviews
here. It is interesting to read the classicstoday discussion of these
issues but I do not feel these issues were covered sufficiently (did
anyone see them discuss such issues at all?)in Gramophone and several
other review sites/mags.
I am questioning with an open mind.
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery. For more information,
go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html