Mimi Ezust writes:

>...what do you look for in an excellent review, and who are some of
>your favorite reviewers(aside from those writing for the MCML?)

I suppose my favorite reviewer would be Don Vroon of American Record Guide.
Although I hardly ever agree with him, I like his no-nonsense approach to
reviewing, his definitive conclusions, and the clarity of his writing.  I
find him an interesting read.  Since I rarely use reviews to determine the
recordings I acquire, 'interesting reading' becomes the primary quality I
look for.  Vroon says to us, "Here I am, here's what I think, and the hell
with your opinions".

The reviewers I least like(names not identified)tend to have an aversion
to making any definitive statements about the recordings they review.
It's as if their basic view is, "Recordings are not good or bad, just
different".  I consider that premise of little use and merely a cop-out on
the reviewer's part.  I much prefer when a reviewer openly states his/her
view or bias, then moves on to judge the recording based on those views.

Another category of reviewer I don't care for are those who gush over any
recording which is "pretty".  Whether the performances dig into the music's
core matters not to these types of reviewers.  The result, often found in
Gramophone, are glowing tributes to the 'pretty boy' Bach performances of
Bernard Roberts on Nimbus or the relatively new Kyoko Tabe/Debussy disc
from Chandos awash in lovely sentiment.  I think that pretty music is a
shallow way of attracting listeners.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]