Don Satz (quoted by Joel Hill--can't find the original post, maybe because
the volume has been overwhelming lately) wrote:
>A recent posting raised in my mind the subject of what list members would
>like to see in a post recommending/reviewing a particular recording so that
>maximum benefit can be derived from the posting.
Here are just a few dos and don'ts from my view, dont's first:
Don't assume we know or share all your basic tastes and predilections.
If we do we can sometimes rush out to get what you like--or dislike in
some cases--but not always. Some of us have gotten to know some of our
fellow-posters, but not all, and not everyone is an open book anyway.
Therefore, if you possibly can, avoid saying simply, "I like this
performance better than that," or "this performance is better than that"
without saying why you find it such. Ditto for, "too fast," "too slow." If
it is so fast it gets muddy, so fast that slow music changes its character;
or so slow that the line sags, say that. If it is faster than usual but
holds together excitingly; or slower than usual, but controlled enough, and
you find you can really savor it this way, point that out.
If the musical work(s) can be assumed to be unfamiliar to the intended
reader, try to describe what the music is like in terms of the basics
of music: theme, developmental complexity, melodic appeal; harmonic
characteristics, use of dissonance or atonality, etc.; counterpoint if
applicable; rhythmic character, even if only to find it exciting or not;
instrumentation, etc. If this is beyond your ability, say what other works
it might resemble; that helps.
Jim Tobin
|