Donald Satz wrote:

>Jon Gallant writes concerning reviews of recordings:
>
>>Note that the List depends upon voluntary cooperative activity, in
>>contrast to the magazines, which depend upon market transactions plus
>>advertising revenue.  The latter cannot fail to compromise the magazines'
>>integrity (as some on this List have pointed out).
>
>I find the above view to be speculative.  To assume that reviewers
>for periodicals write reviews which 'compromise' their real opinions of
>recordings is to at least partially discredit the reviewer without any
>evidence at all that the reviewer actually compromises integrity.  My
>opinion is that this "guilty before being proven innocent" premise turns
>fair play and faith in humans upside down.
>
>Jon is correct that other list members have brought up this subject before,
>but none of them has provided any evidence to back up their claims.  My
>assumption is that every reviewer is delivering honest evaluations unless
>I become aware of proof of the opposite.  If there is proof, let's hear
>about it instead of simply assuming that commercial activity requires it.

I know many reviewers and find them to be most honest.  I will also add
that in my ten years of writing for ARG, not once did I ever have anything
edited to the extent that it changed the meaning of what I wrote.  I wish
I could say the same for articles I wrote for our local paper!

On the other hand, I do have some concern over a periodical which won't
review a disc unless the label takes out an ad in the journal.  Yes, that
is the case...based on my own personal experience...straight from the
editor.

Karl