Mimi responds to me:

>Dave Lampson wrote:
>
>>....  It seems a little odd to devote 80% of a review to criticizing
>>the music of a long-dead composer.  Certainly that artist won't be
>>re-evaluating their approach based on what's being written about their
>>music.  And since some reviewers of CDs of music by obscure composers have
>>little or no experience with the composer in question, so how much weight
>>are we to give their judgements based on often superficial exposure in any
>>case?
>>
>>This may be my unique peeve, but I'm curious how others feel about
>>this.
>
>I feel quite differently about this.  I'd like to read something about
>the composition (is it unusual? Is there something that stands out?)
>and composer (especially one who is not well known to me), perhaps
>something about the performer because the liner notes are getting
>skimpier and skimpier.

I must have been more than a little unclear as I think I feel almost
exactly the same as you on this.  I do want to hear what the reviewer
thinks of the music/composer and about their previous exposures if the
music is obscure.  For one thing, if a review starts off with saying they
have always disliked the music, that tells me a lot about where the review
might be coming from.  Some history about the pieces or composer is great,
especially if it puts the music in context.  I want to hear about the
performers too, once again especially if they are not well known.

I guess what I'm talking about is a review that does little more than
belittle the compositions and or the composer.  For example, I just read a
review that literally dissed the music for four paragraphs and then in the
concluding paragraph wrapped up saying effectively that "if you like this
composer you'll probably buy this disc no matter what I write" - which, if
you think about it a little, disses the reader too.  (That review was not
by anyone reading this list, by the way.)

This sort of thing has been around as long as I've been reading reviews,
and I've seen it in many publications, from many sources, and so don't
think it's just about one reviewer or editor.  It just seems that I'm
reading a lot more of it these days, especially in print.  It's as if the
reviewers are being forced to review music they would rather avoid, or at
least just don't feel they have time for.  Perhaps it's a symptom of the
shift, however slight and indeed perhaps altogether imperceptible, away
from releasing the 150th Beethoven cycle and towards less well-known
repertoire.  Perhaps that's where electronic publishers have the major
edge:  we don't have to feel obliged to reach a certain page count.
Reviewers can write about what turns them on.

>...  I am interested in quality of sound (especially on re-issues) and I'm
>hardly interested at all in what the reviewer thinks of the particular
>performance, because that's just a matter of personal taste.  ...

But some of the best reviews I've ever read were highly detailed personal
reactions to the performance, so I suppose I feel a little differently
about that - it seems I do want to hear about how that particular
performance affected the reviewer.  If done right, and the writing has
to be good as well, these personal reactions can have great resonance.
I think this is especially true if reviewers try to anchor their opinions
by comparing and contrasting a particular performance to others.  But there
are many, many valid approaches to reviewing.  I want to say I think a
formula would not be anything other than a mistake.  And good reviewing
is anything but easy; that's why I don't do it myself.

>I am very picky when it comes to violin sound, for instance, and
>hardly any reviewers even touch on that.  ...

Assuming you don't mean the way the violin is miked, which may be a bad
assumption, then I would consider the violinists tone to be part of the
performance and certainly worthy of detailed comment.

>I have many more times than a few been disappointed hearing certain
>'prize-winning" performances, and I have also been delighted with
>performers that few reviewers even care about.

Me too.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/