# Reviewing My CD Collection



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

(I wasn't sure where to put this, so I apologize in advance if I made this thread in the wrong place.)

I've decided to try my hand at writing music reviews, and I figure the best way to start would be with all my CDs and vinyls, which I've listened to for years but which I have never really examined or thought about in a critical manner. I follow a few music reviewers on YouTube, in particular Anthony Fantano's channel The Needle Drop. He largely reviews alternative, experimental, and other less-mainstream genres of music (though I have yet to see him review any classical recordings), and I love his presentation. He's always very calm and level-headed, and he is very thorough and informative with regards to whatever album he is dissecting on any given day. 

I would love to start writing some reviews with this kind of style in mind. However, I want to take some advice or suggestions from my fellow classical fans on what I should take into consideration when reviewing a recording. 

And one final concern: should this become a series or a regular thing, where should I post my written reviews? I have a Wordpress blog where I post some of my short stories, poetry, and other musings; or I could post them on this site. Your advice would be much appreciated! 

Sincerely,
TennysonsHarp


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Is making a classical blog the vert best option, you can put the link in your signature .


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

This is a good idea and I look forward to reading your reviews.

Something that I enjoy in music reviews is a description of the overall style and aesthetic of the performance (such as fiery, or peaceful, or hypnotic). Of course, such words can be rather vague when used in isolation, so it's also useful to explain (in somewhat technical terms, if possible) how the performers create that effect through tempo, phrasing, dynamics, pedalling, etc.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

In Classical Music Reviews one issue unique to the genre is the presence of multiple versions of the same piece. For example, a given Beethoven Symphony will probably have been recorded 200 times. Some knowledge of alternative versions is helpful when reviewing a specific recording although being conversant with every recorded version of a standard repertoire work is an unreasonable expectation. In choosing a comparator it's best to pick a well known recording. For example, if you are reviewing a new recording of Beethoven's 5th Symphony it would be more helpful to compare it to Herbert Von Karajan and the Berlin PO than to an obscure version by Dieter Pickelpuss and The Borscht Philharmonia.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love Picklepuss's account of the Schnozzle Symphonies!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Recording review elements: brief history of composer, work, musicians; performance and performance comparisons; sound quality; recommended or not. :tiphat:


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

It might be good to review the accompanying booklet and overall presentation, especially if it's a box set.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I admire your openness to suggestions, and your appreciation for a "calm and level-headed" manner. As you gain more experience in this new endeavor, I hope you'll continue you to approach it in a spirit of some humility, as an ongoing exploration and, ultimately, one person's opinion.

In short, don't be a dick, and you'll be fine.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

> In Classical Music Reviews one issue unique to the genre is the presence of multiple versions of the same piece.


Another issue, not limited to classical music, is that some recordings are issued multiple times with different sonics, either by the same company or different companies. If possible, I find it helpful if a reviewer can comment on the sonic differences. Casals' Bach suites are a perfect example. There have been at least seven legitimate issues of these recordings, and at this point in time, any time a new issue comes out, the only real question worth answering regards the sound quality.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

One requirement - if you're posting your reviews in a public place, particularly one that allows comments, be sure that you possess a thick skin. I'm always amazed at the sort of vitriol that sometimes ensues from a review of a recording.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> One requirement - if you're posting your reviews in a public place, particularly one that allows comments, be sure that you possess a thick skin. I'm always amazed at the sort of vitriol that sometimes ensues from a review of a recording.


I agree. When I was reviewing recordings for Classical Net and MusicWeb International, I received plenty of vicious responses. One would think that I had murdered all family members.


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

I'll be sure to take all of your advice.  Plus, I'm going to put the reviews on my Wordpress blog.

I'm looking through my CD collection/all the music on my Google Drive, and I'm considering a few different choices.

1. Brahms' German Requiem (Maria Stader, Otto Weiner, Fritz Lehmann)/German Requiem
2. Beethoven's Complete String Quartets (Alban Berg Quartet)
3. Amadeus Soundtrack (Neville Mariner, St Martin-in-the-Fields)

As always, your feedback is appreciated. Which one would you guys suggest I cover first?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TennysonsHarp said:


> I'll be sure to take all of your advice.
> 
> I'm looking through my CD collection/all the music on my Google Drive, and I'm considering a few different choices.
> 
> ...


I would leave the last one out, that's more of a compilation disc and start with Brahms.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I agree with Pugg - the Brahms is a good starting point. The Beethoven set is a more ambitious project, so it's better to save that for later, after you've gotten some experience with writing reviews.


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

Reviews are always subjective, hence the 'flak' that you can receive if your views don't match someone elses. I've done a number of reviews of classical CDs but made sure that they were performances that I liked and more importantly, could say why I liked them. I avoided making comparisons with other recordings of the same work. In the preamble I stated what I was looking for in the music. (Any reader who wasn't looking for that could then look elsewhere if they wished). The preamble then determined how I wrote the review.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Holden4th said:


> Reviews are always subjective, hence the 'flak' that you can receive if your views don't match someone elses. I've done a number of reviews of classical CDs but made sure that they were performances that I liked and more importantly, could say why I liked them. I avoided making comparisons with other recordings of the same work. In the preamble I stated what I was looking for in the music. (Any reader who wasn't looking for that could then look elsewhere if they wished). The preamble then determined how I wrote the review.


You are always entitled to make your own rules, but as a reader I would find it helpful to make comparisons to benchmark recordings. Not as in "this new recording is better or worse than recording X", but "this new recording differs from well known recording(s) X or Y in the following ways". Describing music in prose is always difficult, but for a non musician such as myself, I tend to understand the concepts the reviwer is trying to convey when I have a point of reference


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> Reviews are always subjective, hence the 'flak' that you can receive if your views don't match someone elses. I've done a number of reviews of classical CDs but made sure that they were performances that I liked and more importantly, could say why I liked them. I avoided making comparisons with other recordings of the same work.


I didn't use your approach; it's too much the "playing it safe" methodology.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Holden4th said:


> Reviews are always subjective, hence the 'flak' that you can receive if your views don't match someone elses. I've done a number of reviews of classical CDs but made sure that they were performances that I liked and more importantly, could say why I liked them. I avoided making comparisons with other recordings of the same work. In the preamble I stated what I was looking for in the music. (Any reader who wasn't looking for that could then look elsewhere if they wished). The preamble then determined how I wrote the review.


Reading a review by someone who you know nothing about is essentially useless. What makes review usable is to build a mental picture of what the reviewer does and does not like, and how that matches to your own opinions, only then does a review become useful. One key way to do this is to choose other recordings for comparison, and not necessarily the most well known, or even the same ones each time. So long as you indicate why a comparison was chosen, the comparative observations can then be put into perspective.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

My goodness, O.P has to start yet but is criticised on forehand.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Go for it.

My reviews would go like this:
"Remember when the music sounded good in the one place? Yeah, that was cool."


----------



## Holden4th (Jul 14, 2017)

Becca said:


> Reading a review by someone who you know nothing about is essentially useless. What makes review usable is to build a mental picture of what the reviewer does and does not like, and how that matches to your own opinions, only then does a review become useful. One key way to do this is to choose other recordings for comparison, and not necessarily the most well known, or even the same ones each time. So long as you indicate why a comparison was chosen, the comparative observations can then be put into perspective.


I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent but the comparison game has it's issues. Take the LvB PS for example. Much was written about the Gulda Amadeo cycle to the point where I purchased it. I don't like it at all, yet many do. I like, very much, what Richter does in the sonatas but to others he doesn't cut the mustard. So if I compare a sonata recording to Gulda's, it's likely to come out as being better - but only as far as I'm concerned.

This brings us to belonging and participating on this and other forums. After a while you get in tune (pun intended) with certain posters and if they say they really like a certain performance then you start to think about it. The best advice I've ever had about getting a particular performance has inevitably come from classical music forums. Commercial reviewers have a living to make but also don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. The reviews that you'd read in the posts here are much more honest where the poster either does or doesn't like the recording and says so directly. YMMV of course.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Holden4th said:


> *Reviews are always subjective, hence the 'flak' that you can receive *if your views don't match someone elses. I've done a number of reviews of classical CDs but made sure that they were performances that I liked and more importantly, could say why I liked them. I avoided making comparisons with other recordings of the same work. In the preamble I stated what I was looking for in the music. (Any reader who wasn't looking for that could then look elsewhere if they wished). The preamble then determined how I wrote the review.


No! Folks here on TC disagreeing and giving one flak and misery due to disagreement over purely subjective opiñions?


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

I've given the album I've chosen a listen, and I'm going to start on the actual writing of the review today. You can expect it within the end of the week if I can manage to keep myself focused (I often have a hard time doing so when it's not a pressing concern.) I'll be posting it on my Wordpress blog: https://akingdomofdreamsandmadness.wordpress.com/ Feel free to check out what I already have written there, and give me some feedback if you wish!

Sincerely, 
TH


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TennysonsHarp said:


> I've given the album I've chosen a listen, and I'm going to start on the actual writing of the review today. You can expect it within the end of the week if I can manage to keep myself focused (I often have a hard time doing so when it's not a pressing concern.) I'll be posting it on my Wordpress blog: https://akingdomofdreamsandmadness.wordpress.com/ Feel free to check out what I already have written there, and give me some feedback if you wish!
> 
> Sincerely,
> TH


My compliments for using that font by writing, pleasant for the eye.


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

I have the first part of the review finished (there will be seven parts to it, since Brahms's German Requiem contains seven movements.) Should I post all of it, or would you like to see each part and critique it that way?

Sincerely,
TH


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

TennysonsHarp said:


> I have the first part of the review finished (there will be seven parts to it, since Brahms's German Requiem contains seven movements.) Should I post all of it, or would you like to see each part and critique it that way?


I'd like to see it when it's completed, and I have no interest in giving a critique. I'm confident you're a smart person whose reviews will keep getting better as you gain experience.


----------



## TennysonsHarp (Apr 30, 2017)

At last I finished the review. I was having trouble focusing, plus I had to finish some stuff for college, but here is my review of Brahms's German Requiem: https://akingdomofdreamsandmadness.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/ein-deutsches-requiem-review/ Feel free to leave comments or feedback.

Sincerely,
TH


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Did you ever consider adding a small picture on your site, like the composer or the cover from the CD?


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

First impression is that it is too wordy, states the obvious, and has some factual mistakes. For instance, you don't need to say, "Ein Deutsches Requiem is an interesting piece". Plus, is it *really* unique in combining his " orchestral writing as well as his superb vocal writing"? The Third Ear reviewer states, says he wrote "several other works for chorus and orchestra". Do you have the "Third Ear", "Penguin", "Gramophone", and "Rough" guides to classical music? I'd say you need to have these and study then closely every time you make a review, to see how the experts do it, and to keep your facts as comprehensive & straight as can be reasonably expected.

"The recording used for this review was one that I have had ever since I got my first MP3 player."

Do we really need to know your MP3 player buying history, especially when it's only a partial history! Did you buy it in 2000, last month? Then again, don't tell us, no one cares...

"It features Maria Stader as the soprano solo, Otto Wiener as the baritone solo, Fritz Lehmann as the conductor, and the Berlin Philharmonic accompanied by the Berlin Motet Choir and the Choir of St. Hedwig's Cathedral, Berlin. This recording is available from Deutsche Grammophon on CD."

CD guides usually give such information in a terse one liner: "Ein Deutsches Requiem" Deutsche Grammophon [CD ?? date??] Maria Stader: soprano , Otto Wiener: baritone solo, Fritz Lehmann: conductor, Berlin Philharmonic [Orchestra], Berlin Motet Choir, Choir of St. Hedwig's Cathedral, Berlin." Otherwise it gets too wordy and tedious.


----------

