Mike Leghorn writes:

>>I know that I have a lot of CD's that I think are inferior, at least
>>in terms of sound.  I've actually found reviews of some of those CD's
>>and they've always been positive.  This has made me very suspicious of
>>critics' (in general) ability to distinguish between good recordings
>>and bad recordings.

Don Satz replies:

>My point is that sound quality is a subject so loaded with subjectivity
>that the reviewer's pronouncements about it could easily not be agreed to
>by the majority of readers.  This is especially applicable to historical
>recordings which are bound to have one or more sound-related problems.  I
>usually do say something about sound quality in my reviews, but I try to
>keep it to a minimum.  My main consideration is whether the sound damages
>my enjoyment of the performances; if it doesn't, there really isn't a heck
>of a lot to say about it.  Also, I find that the more I interact with
>historical recordings, the more easily I can tolerate and not even mind
>less than sterling sound. ...

The sound of a recording, as well as the performance, is big part of my
musical experience.  Sound is the medium in which music is conveyed, so
to me, if the recording sounds bad, then the music sounds bad.  However,
I should say that to some extent I can look past a bad recording and
appreciate the performance, but I would enjoy the performance much more
if it were recorded well.  Similarly, I enjoy art reproductions of such
artists as Van Gough and Monet much more when they're in color and of good
quality.

I get more upset about engineering blunders than technological
limitations inherant in the time of the recording.  For example, I really
enjoy listening to Fritz Reiner recordings, made in the 50's and early
60's, partly because they were so well recorded, even if they do sound
dated in some ways.  IMO, the good musical taste in which these recordings
were made helps bring out the special qualities in the performances.

Mike