"D. Stephen Heersink" wrote:

>I don't mind reviewers mentioning that a recording matches, if not
>surpasses, the higher-cost recording, but I do resent very competitive
>recordings being reviewed in the context of its cost, e.g., "this is worth
>the low cost for sampling the repertoire." Actually, I don't object to the
>latter, except that it is almost universally used leaving this reader
>uncertain whether the recording merits a place in my library or whether
>this is junk, but good junk for the price.  Sadly, the latter is too often
>the case.

Junk is a subjective term.

In the UK where I live full price CDs now cost $26.  I simply cannot
afford to pay this if I am going to purchase a significant number of CDs.

I now have over 4000 cds in my collection which means that each gets
played only once in a blue moon.  So I would rather have a CD on the
shelf of slightly below the very best than an empty space.

Take the Prokofiev piano concertos on Naxos for example.  These sound
great too me.  But, a major Prokofiev fan would probably be able to point
to several full price versions that are better.

So, major works and Haydn excepted, I'll continue to buy to a budget and
that means due consideration to Naxos.

I believe that a CD price war is coming and the majors will be forced
to reduce there prices soon.  But without the budget labels they would
continue ripping us off.

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]