Stephen Heersink wrote:

>I don't mind reviewers mentioning that a recording matches, if not
>surpasses, the higher-cost recording, but I do resent very competitive
>recordings being reviewed in the context of its cost, e.g., "this is worth
>the low cost for sampling the repertoire." Actually, I don't object to the
>latter, except that it is almost universally used leaving this reader
>uncertain whether the recording merits a place in my library or whether
>this is junk, but good junk for the price.  Sadly, the latter is too often
>the case.

I'm not sure what "good junk" is, but why not accept such judgements at
face value? If I see a recommendation along the lines of "this is worth
the low cost for sampling the repertoire", I expect a stop-gap performance
which would mainly be of interest as a cheap way to sample the repertoire.
I see nothing wrong with such recommendations and have made many such
purchases.

Roger Hecht wrote:

>2) These
>orchestras are cheap to record.  Obviously, when you can produce a fine
>recording at a fraction of the price of one put out by the London Symphony,
>or more so, moneywise, Berlin or a major American orchestra, you'll do it.

Aren't all American orchestras paid the same union scale for recording? If
so, what other costs make it more expensive to record the majors?

>This of course opens up a huge can of worms and I'm not taking the time
>here to argue the case of whether this is good or bad overall.  It's
>probably both, and lord knows, I'm like any other consumer.  Presented with
>good recordings on Naxos I'm going to buy them.  And I buy a lot of used,
>too.  So don't think I'm putting myself above the fray.

To put more worms in the open can, in Naxos' price range the competition is
often reissues of the same major orchestras, thus compounding the negative
impact on new recordings.

Tim Dickinson
[log in to unmask]
http://www.tdware.com