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