Dave Lampson <[log in to unmask]>writes:

>...  It seems a little odd to devote 80% of a review to criticizing
>the music of a long-dead composer... 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.

Not taking account of the reviews on this list, I like the way way Andrew
Porter does it.  He mixes, just right, a cocktail of the history of the
piece, including model performances of it in the past, some musicology
concerning the composition and the composer's thinking that's imbued in it;
then a _reasoned_ crtitique of the perfomance itself, and information about
the principals involved (as well as comment on their contributions).  Oh,
and a word about audience reaction--as you know he generally reviews live
performances, not recordings.

Denis Fodor