Dave Lampson wrote:

>I've noticed a tendency writers for a certain printed record guide,
>published bi-monthly, to concentrate their observations on the quality
>of the compositions instead of the quality of the performance and/or
>recording.  It seems a little odd to devote 80% of a review to criticizing
>the music of a long-dead composer.  Certainly that artist won't be
>re-evaluating their approach based on what's being written about their
>music.  And since some reviewers of CDs of music by obscure composers have
>little or no experience with the composer in question, so how much weight
>are we to give their judgements based on often superficial exposure in any
>case?
>
>This may be my unique peeve, but I'm curious how others feel about
>this.

I feel quite differently about this.  I'd like to read something about
the composition (is it unusual? Is there something that stands out?)
and composer (especially one who is not well known to me), perhaps
something about the performer because the liner notes are getting
skimpier and skimpier.  I am interested in quality of sound (especially
on re-issues) and I'm hardly interested at all in what the reviewer thinks
of the particular performance, because that's just a matter of personal
taste.  I am very picky when it comes to violin sound, for instance, and
hardly any reviewers even touch on that.  I have many more times than a few
been disappointed hearing certain 'prize-winning" performances, and I have
also been delighted with performers that few reviewers even care about.

Mimi Ezust