I've noticed a tendency writers for a certain printed record guide,
published bi-monthly, to concentrate their observations on the quality
of the compositions instead of the quality of the performance and/or
recording.  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'm not saying I don't want the reviewer to give me a description
of the music - I definitely do, especially if the composer is particularly
obscure.  I just wonder where the balance of a review should be,
approximately.  For my taste, I'd prefer 20% critique of the music and
80% commentary on the performance/recording.  But many reviews these
days seem skewed the opposite direction.  Is this a recent phenomenon,
or am I just recently sensitized? Or am I just misreading things.

By way of disclaimer I should say I'm just curious about this; I'm not
trying to send a message to anyone nor am I complaining in particular.
But I am a little frustrated about this for my own purposes - being
something of a CD collector myself.  As I often buy obscure music no
matter what, I'm not looking for a buy/no buy decision from the review,
but sometimes I find reviews almost completely useless in terms of
deciding if a recording and performance is worth my money/time.

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