Some folks might be skeptical when reviewers are very far apart concerning
their opinions of the worth of a particular performance, but I'm always
surprised when there appears to be a general consensus.  Music has a
huge emotional quotient which dwarfs mere technical considerations.
Also, each of us has our own ideas about sound quality, some preferring
rounded contours while others enjoy sharply etched readings, etc, etc,.

The best a reviewer can do is honestly describe the performance and lay
out some sort of reviewer preference base which will allow the reader
to have a decent idea of where the reviewer is coming from.  In my
reviews, I try to note the foundations I use to reach various conclusions
which usually emanate from my perception of the composer's psychology
and soundworld.

Reviewing isn't a science; it's emotionally charged all the way.  Often,
one reviewer isn't touched in the slightest by an interpretation, but
another reviewer feels pierced to the heart.

What can reviewers do about this?  Well, they could all join a United
Nations of Record Reviewers and just put out one review that averages
the conclusions of each member.  That sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, the burden is on the reader to try to get a handle on the
reviewer's range of preferences which isn't so hard if the particular
reviewer puts out a frequent stream of reviews from which the reader can
gain insight into the reviewer.

On another web-site discussion group, a member recently noted that reviews
say as much about the reviewer as the recorded performance.  I tend to
share that opinion and am confident that my reviews say much about my
personality and tendencies(good and bad).

Personally, I regularly read dozens of reviews every week and certainly
benefit from the experiece.  At the same time, reviews do not influence
my buying decisions - identification of a disc on the market is all I
need to shell out the money.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]