Vivian Liff writes:

>Most of the reviewers sit on the fence and it is necessary to try and
>read between the lines to find out the truth.

I don't feel that most of the reviews 'sit on the fence'.  With little
exception, I find that I get a good idea of the reviewer's general opinion
of the disc being reviewed.  Granted, the Gramophone reviewers are a
polite group, and they tend to like 'cultured' performances.  They also
do show a preference for British sources.  However, the American review
periodicals show a preference for American sources.  It's the nature of
being a citizen of a particular country.

Although I do prefer American Record Guide and Fanfare Magazine,
Gramophone gives me a different slant particularly in terms of the
movement to 'expand' the umbrella of what constitutes classical music.
It has more 'glitz'?  So what's so bad about that approach?  There's
plenty of room for a varied set of periodicals.

>One invariably reads that each new version of a piece is the best ever?

That's quite an exaggeration as a sampling of any Gramophone issue would
reveal.  Yes, the reviewers are not as discriminating as in some other
periodicals, but one certainly becomes aware of these tendencies quickly
in order to get the most insight from the reviews.

It benefits me to acquire each issue of the three magazines mentioned
above, and I accept each one for what it offers and leaves out.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]