# Safe Critic for a New-ish Listener?



## Savrael Melauch (Nov 11, 2021)

Hi, first time poster. 

I've been listening to whatever popular classical is on the radio and now YouTube since I was a child. 

I'm finding now that it's the main genre of music I listen to now, but I'd like to expand my horizons. Due to working so much and having kids etc., I like the idea of watching a critic here and there to get an idea of the culture in general. However, after reading a thread here about David Hurwitz, I don't want to be turned off to potentially good recordings / composers due to an overly biased person. Of course I can come to my own concludions, but since I have so little time, I was hoping someone here could recommend a critic / journalist that's not as biased and has a well rounded and extensive range they report on? Podcast / Youtube / other

Thanks, and SUPER excited to be here, I could read this forum all day for years.

- SM


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Probably not possible. I see several options; either just ignore critics and pick yourself stuff on youtube etc. The huge difference to almost any other age is that one can listen to a lot (almost) for free. In the 1980s one hoped for some radio broadcasts to compare or play recordings one was interested in buying or one bought a magazine (that costed about a fourth of a CD or more) to get reviews and had still the problem of critic's bias. 

Or read/listen to several critics with rather different views, check out the cross section or their respective favorites.

Or just go with one critic for a while, being aware that you might inherit a specific bias and later branch out.

TBH I think with a few exceptions the obsession of many music collectors with interpretations is grossly exaggerated. Sure, there are some cases where one might not "get" a piece in a certain interpretation and there are also some areas where the differences are huge, e.g. baroque music in "minimalist" vs. "romantic" interpretations. 
But in most cases it hardly matters for a newbie. Thousands of us got into classical pieces with whatever cheap LP or CD they got their hands on first.
And nowadays you can easily try 3 or more different interpretations on youtube to hear what you prefer

Finally, I think most of Hurwitz' biases are rather harmless. As a newbie I would not have listened to Furtwängler anyway because of historical sound. And nobody will miss that according to received wisdom the St Matthew is a huge, major work even if Hurwitz doesn't care for it.
I actually think that the "bad influence" could be less his biases but rather that one could get the idea one had to listen to dozens of recordings of the same piece to find "the best" or some other weird obsession with comparing recordings.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

You should also consider some series products. The RCA Living Stereo recordings are usually great  The Mercury Living Presence recordings are also superb. A critic is not required with these


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Listen to works from this site's Top Reccommended lists on Youtube, and then get CDs or LPs of the interpretations you like (because Youtube sound quality is generally mediocre). And for baroque pieces, make sure to listen to both modern and HIP interpretations of each work you like.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

All critics are biased. Comes with the territory. Each critic (and listener) will have their own set of aesthetic values. But Hurwitz is the only well-known one that I've heard that would write-off certain composers. But enough of that guy.

What I always recommend. It also gives some pretty safe recommendations (which may or may not be the best if there is such a thing, but always conveys the music well in my opinion).

http://www.classical.net/music/rep/lists/mod.php

I think listen to as much different styles and composers as you can, and come to your own judgement. If you don't like a certain style or well-known composer you can always revisit them later, and don't need to jump to conclusions.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I think it helps to read criticism but not to pay too much attention to it. Everyone's ear and sensibilities are different and, becasue someone recommends or dislikes a recording, their opinion has little influence on how well you will enjoy something.

There are four publications that still review a lot of recordings -- Gramophone, BBC Music Magazine, Fanfare and American Record Guide. They have all been in business at least 40 years and offer a selection of new releases and re-releases for review by their critics each month.

I read them all but rarely buy something because a critic likes it. But I find these better bets than the freebies offered on the Internet including former Fanfare critics Hurwitz.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Phil loves classical said:


> All critics are biased. Comes with the territory. Each critic (and listener) will have their own set of aesthetic values. But Hurwitz is the only well-known one that I've heard that would write-off certain composers.


Other critics would just keep silent about certain composers and ignore them instead of raving against them.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

As others have noted, there are no "safe" critics. They all have their biases - the better ones admit them.

Two suggestions -

1) Subscribe to Fanfare Magazine. Their reviewers are mostly very good, and the publication gives them sufficient space to provide enough detail in their reviews to tell where they're coming from.

2) Subscribe to a music streaming service. That way, you can listen to whatever you like and see what suits your taste - because the sooner you are able to form your own tastes, the less you'll need to rely on critics. I still rely on them to point out artists and recordings about which I'm not aware, that I *might* like.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Have you read Peter Guntmann's site? He has histories of a lot of the standard repertoire (and some interesting bits of extended rep) which contain a survey of recommended recordings on the bottom.

http://www.classicalnotes.net/contents.html


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

also regarding bias: I like bias- or rather, I like it when critics are *open* about their bias. It makes it easier how to gauge whether or not you are likely to agree with their aesthetic judgement on certain styles or works.



Kreisler jr said:


> Other critics would just keep silent about certain composers and ignore them instead of raving against them.


now historically this just isn't true


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Read reviews on Amazon. They seem to be more accurate, honest and fair than most "experts".


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> Read reviews on Amazon. They seem to be more accurate, honest and fair than most "experts".


Assuming, of course, that Amazon links the review to the correct recording. That's why I always make sure to indicate in my reviews exactly what I'm reviewing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Try many critics to see who works for your taste ... but avoid Hurwitz like the plague.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

My favourites are Tom Service - who is more an enthusiast and broadcaster - and Alex Ross.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

wkasimer said:


> Assuming, of course, that Amazon links the review to the correct recording. That's why I always make sure to indicate in my reviews exactly what I'm reviewing.


Knock, knock! You're on the Talk Classical Forum.

Yeah, skip Amazon. It's very confusing and slipshod. Why not just use this forum? There are literally thousand of threads on hundreds of composers and recordings. Use the advanced search engine to look up anything on your mind. There are loads of informative threads in the memory banks here. I used it all the time when I get on a new composer or genre kick and I'm looking for suggestions for recordings or works to explore. Just start reading right here. It's far superior to Amazon, or some magazine praising every release out there.

Caveat: Just keep in my that members here can be hyper critical so don't let every criticism turn you off to recordings. Get some ideas and go listen for yourself.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I don't know what kind of arrangement they made but Amazon agreed to publish critical reviews from Fanfare magazine in the last year or so. I don't agree with the earlier person who lauded their critics. Their reviews are long, I agree, and many of their critics use that freedom to talk more about themselves than the music at hand.

One critic in particular, named Jerry Dubins, is very divisive with both great supporters and detractors. I would say read any of his reviews and count the paragraphs where he is either talking about himself, showing off his knowledge of music, and/or talking about the item at hand and his average two-page review might include one paragraph about the recording. 

I still subscribe, mostly because it gives me access to their online backlog of reviews that go back to 1989, but I have taken to skipping everything their critics say that isn't directly related to the recording under review. I find I am less offended less often that way.

The magazine is also full of PR fluff known as "interviews" where either composers or players are asked to describe in detail how great they are. There is more than 100 pages on this nonsense in each issue. 

The reason is because Fanfare guarantees a positive review if you advertise your product. They do this via the "interviews" and by having as many as 4 different reviews of a new recording in the issue. I have had several of their former reviewers tell me it is commonplace for the editor to ship them a "priority" recording like this with directions to only submit the review if it is positive.

I see bias all over the place in American Record Guide but I never have my time wasted by someone telling me about him or her and his or her knowledge. The review might be a laugh but at least they get to it.

The main problem with BBC Music and Gramophone is their reviews are in the main summaries and don't say much. But at least you know where the critic stands.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

wkasimer said:


> Assuming, of course, that Amazon links the review to the correct recording. That's why I always make sure to indicate in my reviews exactly what I'm reviewing.


Quite. You read a review and then find it's for a totally different recording from the one listed.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

starthrower said:


> Knock, knock! You're on the Talk Classical Forum.
> 
> Yeah, skip Amazon. It's very confusing and slipshod. Why not just use this forum? There are literally thousand of threads on hundreds of composers and recordings. Use the advanced search engine to look up anything on your mind. There are loads of informative threads in the memory banks here. I used it all the time when I get on a new composer or genre kick and I'm looking for suggestions for recordings or works to explore. Just start reading right here. It's far superior to Amazon, or some magazine praising every release out there.
> 
> Caveat: Just keep in my that members here can be hyper critical so don't let every criticism turn you off to recordings. Get some ideas and go listen for yourself.


I agree with starthrower, here. Read a few threads and find someone you tend to agree with, your tastes may align.

But beyond that, I think David Johnson's suggestion above is a great one - find a box set with a ton of repertoire in it. The Decca Sound, Living Stereo, Solti Chicago, Gardiner Complete DG/Archiv, and Karajan 1960s/1970s/1980s (one box per decade) are examples of sets with a wide range of material performed and recorded well. It's through listening that you figure out what does it _for you_. A streaming service might also do this, but I don't have experience with them so I can't say with certainty.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Savrael Melauch said:


> Hi, first time poster.
> 
> I've been listening to whatever popular classical is on the radio and now YouTube since I was a child.
> 
> ...


I stay away from the big 'corporate' reviewers. This site is fantastic, check it out: MusicWeb


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> 1) Subscribe to Fanfare Magazine. Their reviewers are mostly very good, and the publication gives them sufficient space to provide enough detail in their reviews to tell where they're coming from.
> 
> 2) Subscribe to a music streaming service. That way, you can listen to whatever you like and see what suits your taste - because the sooner you are able to form your own tastes, the less you'll need to rely on critics. I still rely on them to point out artists and recordings about which I'm not aware, that I *might* like.


Right, I like Fanfare, not so much because of the different critics, but because it alerts me to what's new, what's been reissued, what's available...for a newbie to classical music, Youtube, online services have tons of selections available, but your local library might also have a decent collection as well...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Another good source is Arkivmusic. For many (most?) works they will have one or two Recommended recordings which are generally accurate.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

fbjim said:


> now historically this just isn't true


No, historically they raved at least as passionate as Hurwitz against stuff they didn't like, that's probably his ambition. But in more recent times one will rather keep quiet than get notorious for cheap shots at music he does not care for.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Forster said:


> My favourites are Tom Service - who is more an enthusiast and broadcaster - and Alex Ross.


I would add Jim Svejda to that list.

But I, too, caution about critics. Why trust my opinion, or anyone else's opinion? Critics are like acquaintances. You have to get to know them fairly well before you can accept them as "friends" who will be truthful to you.

Even when a critic is truthful (from his or her side of the bench), if you know the critic well you will also know his or her biases. If those biases do not match your own, you at least have some marker for making further decisions.

I mentioned Jim Svejda above. He was a radio host of a popular classical music show called "The Record Shelf". He wrote a couple of books on the same topic (critiquing classical music recordings), with titles like "The Record Shelf Guide to the Classical Repertoire". His book blurbs state this: "...a Highly Opinionated, Irreverent, and Selective Guide to What's Good and What's Not."
Indeed, Svejda is opinionated, but I've come to know what his quirks are: he doesn't like Baroque music, he doesn't like most modern or contemporary music..." I have come to trust him about 80% of the time because over the years he helped steer me towards a great many great sounding (and well-performed) recordings of the standard repetoire. On the other hand, I totally disagree with his opinion of, say, Gorecki's Third Symphony and Penderecki's _Threnody_, both of which he loathes but which I love. Still, I like Svejda. He's fun to read and well-informed, especially on certain topics in music. But you only know that after years of experience with the man and his opinions.

So, that's why you don't just come out and put your trust in a critic or in someone you don't know recommending a critic. It takes time to become acquainted. But when you do, you'll definitely have a friend.

I read several "stereo/hi-fi/record review" magazines each month, and have done so for decades. Through their pages I have come to find critics I like and generally can find agreement with and critics I don't like and whose opinions I generally avoid. There is also the critic whom I enjoy reading (because the person is a great writer) and because of the quality of the writing have purchased discs on which the music was not quite what I expected; so, such writers I still read with relish, but I don't buy the recordings they recommend, having learned my lesson.

So, it's complicated out there.

This comment springs from Forster's recommendations of Tom Service and Alex Ross. Those guys are heavies and know a lot and can generally be trusted. But that's an opinion of mine, and of Forster's. I suspect we'd both like you to believe us right off the bat, but critics are a personal thing. You're going to have to find your own, and it will take many hit and miss opportunities (and probably some wasted expense) before you can settle in. After all, only _you _ really know what you want in music -- what you like to hear or are comfortable in listening to.

A credible critic can tell me that a certain Beethoven sonata is well-played in great sound on a fortepiano, but I would likely prefer the work, even if of a lesser quality, on a modern grand piano. My biases coming into play.

So, be careful out there.

Meanwhile, welcome to the Forum.

Perhaps if you let us know a few of the works you really enjoy and who did the performances, we could better assist with recommendations of our own. None of us will admit it, but ... each of us thinks of ourselves as a viable critic worthy of respect in our opinions, which are always the right ones. (But please, don't tell the other fellows and gals here that I said that.)

All the best to you.


----------



## Ulfilas (Mar 5, 2020)

One reviewer I tend to find very reliable, at least with regard to piano and opera recordings, is Jed Distler. 

That is to say, I generally agree with him!

I've got a lot from Jens Laurson's Ionarts reviews as well. and Tim Ashley in The Guardian.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

There's lists, recommended recordings, Top 250s, Top 100s and the like on on Building a Library on BBC Radio 3's Record Review, Gramophone, large classical stations.
Where their opinions converge is usually a good indication of one of the the best recordings.
I used to like the Hi Fi Magazines' reviews as they write about what's most important to me - the sound quality, soundstage, imaging, detail, timbre. 
I've bought a few recordings on classical media reviewers' recommendation over the years and ended up with recordings with no depth, where are the instruments borg into a single mush and I can't follow one particular line, even in smaller ensembles.
Don't forget this forum. Plenty threads on 'favourite recording of X', 'Top Y of composername's work' etc.


----------



## Savrael Melauch (Nov 11, 2021)

Um holy CRAP.

I've been online since it's creation. All corners of it. And I think this is one of the most engaging and active forums I';ve seen.

Thank you all very much! So much to chew on. Will respond after some time.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

david johnson said:


> You should also consider some series products. The RCA Living Stereo recordings are usually great  The Mercury Living Presence recordings are also superb. A critic is not required with these


Absolutely! I go back to the 80's, when I was a new listener, and I would buy from an ultra-cheap series of recordings by CBS/Columbia called Great Performances. My priority was the repertoire (and saving money!), not attaining the greatest recorded performance of this or that, because I wouldn't have known the difference between a good and great performance. The series was focused on "great performances" of the standard repertoire. Perhaps it was a marketing gimmick, but I was able to purchase much of the standard repertoire, and, in hindsight, they really did provide great performances. The conductors they featured most were Szell, Bernstein, Ormandy and Walter. Isaac Stern and Rudolph Serkin were the soloists that they probably featured the most. The orchestras? New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland and the Columbia Symphony, all at their peak. Not too shabby. Many of those recordings remain in my desert island/favorites stack after over 30 years!

I don't know what would be a comparable series these days. I don't think DG Originals would really fit the bill because there's some stuff they release which I wouldn't necessarily consider basic repertoire or Music 101 stuff. As for critics, I've never really got much out of them. I read Gramophone for decades and perused the Penguin Guide frequently, however, nearly all my recordings, especially the best stuff, were not purchased because of a professional critic's recommendation. Sometimes I bought what the critics lauded, but it was usually for other reasons. For example, I didn't buy Rostropovich's recording of Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, featuring his talented wife, because of the Penguin Guide's recommendation; I bought it because I was able to find a recording of the opera, and that happened to be the only one available in the record store.

For newer listeners, I believe it's important to just start hearing the music. One of the greatest musical experiences I've had was listening to a $1.99 cassette of Brahms' 1st and 4th Symphonies. Obscure label. No name orchestra and conductor. It was a life-changing experience. Many years later, I listened to the same recording and thought the performances and interpretations were horrible, however, they seemed like gold in those halcyon days.

To cut to the chase (too late for that), I would follow David Johnson's advice. He's smart and a really good running back.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> I would add Jim Svejda to that list.


I like him even though he hates Messiaen and thinks his music is for hippies! He's entertaining and fun to read. And he likes Schoenberg!


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

FWIW I disagree with the recommendations for labels or "Label-Boxes". 
First of all, the sound of Living Presence/Stereo is not as great as it was 60 years ago. But more importantly, I think these are often strange selections, usually too much focussed on "orchestral spectacular" with very little vocal, chamber, solo or in general pre-Beethoven music. And any huge box will saddle one with a lot of stuff one might not care for at all. Disagree even more with the Karajan rec, at least with the label boxes one gets a bunch of different artists.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

If you want a critic that posts on youtube, the best one I know of is Rob Cowan (works for Gramophone music magazine): https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rob+Cowan

He's not as funny and high energy as Hurwitz, but he's also significantly more thoughtful. It's also not a bad thing to watch Hurwitz. Generally speaking, if you click on a video surveying the recordings of a piece he'll mostly choose well known recordings that most anyone would recommend. He'll normally pick a few "personal choices" and I would avoid these like the plague (at least this has been my experience), and sometimes he'll say "I think this ones bad, but the critical consensus is it's good", which is a sure sign that that's a truly great recording.

Anyhow, keep on listening .

Edit: also, if no one's mentioned this yet, there was a TC member who developed an interesting method of surveying general opinion of recordings and compiled the results into a blog of recommended recordings work by work. It is very helpful, and, in my experience, always recommends great recordings: https://www.talkclassical.com/blogs/trout/1624-recommended-recordings-intro.html


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've been to every website and have read every magazine that publishes reviews. The most reliable reviewers I know (not necessarily that I agree with them or find their taste same as mine) are the most knowledgeable who have the greatest understanding of the history of recorded music -- and who have heard the most recordings going back to the 78 era and dawn of the LP.

The all work for American Record Guide: Paul Althouse (not the late singer,) Roger Hecht, Bill Gatens and Gil French (also writes for Fanfare) though French is too often given to over the top or dismissive reviews. I don't trust any reviewer that often either loves or hates something. That tells me they haven't heard many recordings of that music.

There are a couple reviewers I trust at Fanfare -- James North, Henry Fogel, James Miller and Phillip Scott -- but the magazine's policy of guaranteeing a good review to any company that advertises in it negates any authority their reviewers have. The magazine is simply too much in bed with the recording industry to trust it as a reliable source. 

I have similar misgivings about Gramophone and BBC Music across the pond ... or any other magazine whose pages are full of ads for the recordings they are reviewing. The same holds true for websites that "review" the recordings they are also advertising.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

larold said:


> The all work for American Record Guide:


I have two issues with ARG. First, their reviews are generally too brief for my taste. I like to read more expansive reviews that provide some idea about a reviewer's biases and especially their experience with the music in question.

The more serious issue is that ARG isn't available online.

I agree about BBC Music and Gramophone - I find them increasingly useless.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

wkasimer said:


> Assuming, of course, that Amazon links the review to the correct recording. That's why I always make sure to indicate in my reviews exactly what I'm reviewing.


Yes and as the number of reviewers increases, you are more likley to avoid biased reviews. If a work has two reviews it can be a potshot. But if there are 30 or so reviews and it is between 4 and 5 stars that is a good sign.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Get an old used copy of the Penguin Guide to Classical Music. Sadly the last edition was published in 2010, and except for one of the editors, all of it's editors/authors are dead. However that book gave an excellent overview of the classical music market at the time of it's writing and I think it is still quite relevant. The book plus a subscription to your favorite streaming music service and you are all set. There are many streaming services, I am partial to Qobuz because it does not treat classical as a second class citizen, but they all have a deep library of classical music, although some have a better organized classical music library than others. I prefer the streaming services to Youtube but that can also be a viable option, the musicians however do not see a penny from Youtube, not that they get much from the streaming services.

This is the book I am referring to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Penguin_Guide_to_Recorded_Classical_Music

I would suggest the 2009 or earlier edition. The last one or two editions cut too many corners.

Pretty soon you will figure out what your personal preferences regarding composers, performers, performance style (e.g. HIP vs "modern") etc. is. The critics are only a rough guide.

BTW nothing wrong with following David Hurwitz. Yes, he can come across as a bit opinionated, but that is part of his "schtick". Most of his recommendations are fairly middle of the road and reasonable. All critics will have some bias of their own; no major surprise there.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Don’t listen to the Hurwitz haters here. Look at his videos and search for more info.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

If you're interested in string quartets, take at look at TC's own Merl. He writes an excellent blog, with recommendations grouped into tiers. He also provides concise reasons for his recommendations, which is always good to know.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

FrankinUsa said:


> Don't listen to the Hurwitz haters here. Look at his videos and search for more info.


He is really down on the Dutoit Rachmaninoff symphony recordings, but I like them. Nonetheless, i would hear what Hurwitz has to say on other recordings.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I think one of the best things you can do is use your own ears and judge for yourself. Your knowledge will only expand once you get more listening under your belt. You need experience and you can only get it from listening. That's all. My opinion and anyone else's is only as valid as your own. Dive in and explore!


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

SixFootScowl said:


> He is really down on the Dutoit Rachmaninoff symphony recordings, but I like them. Nonetheless, i would hear what Hurwitz has to say on other recordings.


He also said the Previn recordings were good but not great, so his tastes are de facto questionable at that point .


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

One, "shortcut", that has worked for me on occasions is to go to Presto Music Classical, type in the piece you're interested to listen to, and click, "Award Winners". It'll give you some perspective based on the awards and accolades each recording has gained. 

Sometimes you'll find there's a clear groundswell towards a particular recording. Other times. you'll end up with a kind of shortlist of options.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_The more serious issue is that ARG isn't available online._

Not true -- American Record Guide is available via PDF if you subscribe.

http://argsubsonline.com/subscribers/ARG2111.pdf


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Chilham said:


> One, "shortcut", that has worked for me on occasions is to go to Presto Music Classical, type in the piece you're interested to listen to, and click, "Award Winners". It'll give you some perspective based on the awards and accolades each recording has gained.
> 
> Sometimes you'll find there's a clear groundswell towards a particular recording. Other times. you'll end up with a kind of shortlist of options.


I was unaware of the Award Winners click and will use it next time I am looking up a work.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Savrael Melauch said:


> Hi, first time poster.
> 
> I've been listening to whatever popular classical is on the radio and now YouTube since I was a child.
> 
> ...


You own ears are the best critics.


----------

