# Why reviews should be taken with a pinch of salt.



## SAKO (Jul 27, 2012)

This is just me having a rant.

Democracy is often considered the least of many evils. Yes it gives people the vote, it does not however measure their ability to vote.

Nor does Amazon.

I was looking at the following box set of Shubert's symphonies.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schubert-Nikolaus-Harnoncourt-Concertgebouw-Orchestra/dp/B000AGL1A2/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1345632813&sr=8-15

I like Schubert, I like Harnoncourt and I like the Concertgebouw.

So why only a four star rating? 5 reviewers leave 5 stars. This seems ok. 1 leaves 4 stars and gives a genuine reason for doing so. This is therefore a good, genuine reviewer.

But then;

1 leaves 3 stars because the set is incomplete; there is no 7th Symphony included. 

2 people leave 1 star; 1 because he cannot play the CD on his computer (which must obviously be the fault of Harnoncourt) and the other because reading his other reviews he doesn't appear to have a good word to say about anything, and even has a little sarcasm because some people prefer the Kate Moss approach to Hattie Jacques.

Democracy.

Okay, I'll shut up now. I'm writing to DG to vent my disgust they have never released a CD of Beethoven's 10th Symphony in Z minor, 'Le Invisible'.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

You should never go with the average of review ratings on Amazon. Find reviewers whose opinions you can trust and stick with them; that's a much more reliable policy IMO. 

Lord knows, there are plenty of cases where people review Amazon's service rather than the product so you get people giving one star because it took a long time for the item to arrive!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

It's not democracy it is a shopping website.

I don't know why people care so much about amazon reviews, a group of self-selected people so impressed with their own taste and sense of discernment that they inflict it upon everyone. I'm not sure what is wrong with reviewing the packaging, delivery or function of the item rather than the artistry if that is what interests or motivates you. It is the people who I find more unpleasant are those that craft carefully studied insults or worse, bloated purple prose of praise, trying to outdo the previous reviewer over their love of a work.

The comments section of reviews is particularly nauseous with every kind of bullying and insult from the cadre of elite reviewers. Any attempt to have a view that differs from the conformity of received opinion is severely punished because Beethoven's place in art may be sullied by a few lines on a website.

And no, this wasn't written due to sour grapes because of my treatment there, as I have never contributed to amazon, just my opinion on reading the reviews there.


----------



## SAKO (Jul 27, 2012)

quack said:


> It's not democracy it is a shopping website.
> 
> I don't know why people care so much about amazon reviews, a group of self-selected people so impressed with their own taste and sense of discernment that they inflict it upon everyone. I'm not sure what is wrong with reviewing the packaging, delivery or function of the item rather than the artistry if that is what interests or motivates you. It is the people who I find more unpleasant are those that craft carefully studied insults or worse, bloated purple prose of praise, trying to outdo the previous reviewer over their love of a work.
> 
> ...


Precisely.

If they were 'Joe's Records' on the corner of the main street, it wouldn't get my back up. Unfortunately, given how many people purchase through Amazon, and how many people are new to Classical Music, but terrified by its vastness, an awful lot must rely on the trust and experience of others. If I suddenly developed an interest in Death Metal, I'd have to rely on others to point me in the right direction. If I see an orchestral work I'm not sure about I'll come on the forum and ask, "hey folks, what do you think?", as somebody is bound to own it.

When a reviewer drags down a CD because it's missing a piece of music that doesn't actually exist, it's banging head against the wall time.

A much simpler voting system keeping the delivery/service/packing far removed from the music would be better.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I use Amazon a lot for purchases and although I often read reviews they are not the only factor I take into consideration. The one and two star reviews are almost always throw away posts. I look for reviewers that can give some analysis of the works with some intelligence. There are many people willing to take their time to post thoughtful and considerate reviews. Those are the ones I want.

I also read and consider the opinions of members I respect here at Talk Classical because there is a great bunch of experienced listeners here who have a lot to offer and even when I disagree with some I still value and even take into consideration their viewpoints. I have enough intelligence to acknowledge the expertise of others and use that to develop my own knowledge base of classical music. And besides that without this site I would not have anyone else to talk about music with except my wife and although she appreciates classical music she won't even give some composers (like Shostakovitch) a chance. No matter how much I rave about him! I do give her some credit though in that she loves Sibelius! 

Kevin


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree amazon has its limitations, but so does the work of some 'professional' reviewers. Everything has its limitations.

But as with many other things, I look out for any consensus, if there is any. A good example just happened recently. I am trying to replace aged tapes with cd's, and I found this cd of a favourite Khatchaturian recording I have on tape:
http://www.amazon.com/Khachaturian-...-4&keywords=khachaturian+gayaneh+tjeknavorian

The reviewers, about 4 or more of them, say the transfer to cd (sound quality) is very bad. So going with that 'consensus' I will not buy this disc. Btw, the sound quality of the same recording on tape was top notch. The Armenian Philharmonic must have 'gone West' to do it, I doubt it was done in the old USSR, the sound was a thing I really liked about it, apart from the performance itself.

So that's what I mean, if there is that 'consensus,' I go with it, but sometimes as the OP shows, it ain't that easy. Well, that's life, I guess.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Now here is a hilarious review that should be taken with more than a grain of salt, or ah, bellybutton lint. The review is on Amazon under James Taylor's Sweet Baby James:



> Two Lane Blacktop is my favorite movie of all time. I love James Taylor's acting in it. But, there is a reason he is not a successful singer. The evidence: Sweet Baby Jane. This is probably the worst CD I have ever heard, and I have listened to some bad CD's. I bought this CD because JT was in it, thinking it couldn't be too bad. I have never listened to it all the way through. I can't. Can't stomach it. There is virtually no intelligent lyrics, and I have absolutely no idea what the songs are about. This could have been called "Chronicles of the Tone deaf Drifters". Now, I have this album in my CD collection and people ask me, "What is that?" And, I say, "Oh, That's a CD James Taylor recorded back in the day." And, then they say, "Oh . . . Well, Should we . . ." And, I say, "No. NO! Don't ever listen to this CD. Ever. You would be better served picking lint out of your bellybutton or watching paint dry, because this CD is like that, with worse lyrics and less vivid accompaniment." But, that is probably the same reaction JT has now, when some random fan mentions this CD and he cringes, before putting his head in his hands, and saying "What was I thinking . . ."


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I always try to remember that a review from whomever is a personal opinion. I've often disagreed with some fine professional reviewers, never mind the non-pros who voice their views. So I end up enjoying the reading of reviews, but I don't base any purchasing decision on the words of others.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Even with so-called professional reviewers you should not trust them. My all time favorite "proof" is from a 34 year old recording of the Mahler 2nd with Lorin Maazel and the Vienna Philharmonic. This was a very early CD.

In the now-defunct Ovation magazine this was a "Recording of Distinction". It is praised to the skies by no other than Mahler scholar Jack Diether. Then in 2007 another Mahler scholar, Norman Lebrecht chimes in. In his book, Life and Death of Classical Music is a chapter on 20 Recordings that Never Should Have Been Made. The same Maazel recording is no. 5. "The dreariness of this performance defies belief...If ever there was a recording that no one wanted to be part of, this is it."

This is all too common. I understand completely how two people might react differently to the same recording. Being completely objective is humanly impossible. But it still leaves potential buyers in a quandary - who do you believe? Which reviews can you trust? I've been collecting LPs and CDs for over 50 years. I wish I could answer that question, but I can't. Some recordings I love have been dismissed by critics. Other recordings I find wanting are held in high esteem by critics. In the end, it doesn't matter. Every performance is different - and that's good. No one sets out to make a bad recording; they can't afford it (although there are some bad ones...). Even perception of the quality of recorded sound is flexible: unless they're listening in the same room, with the same gear, don't trust 'em! The best you can do is find a reviewer or website you find to be accurate more often than not. And I don't trust any magazine where the record companies spend a lot of money advertising.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Reviews are useful to the extent that they prompt us to think about the music in question and about what qualities we might like in a performance. There are critics - a very few - who are knowledgeable, perceptive, and articulate enough to describe performances in the context of possible interpretive approaches, and so give us a fair idea of how our tastes may align with theirs.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Reviews are useful to the extent that they prompt us to think about the music in question and about what qualities we might like in a performance. There are critics - a very few - who are knowledgeable, perceptive, and articulate enough to describe performances in the context of possible interpretive approaches, and so give us a fair idea of how our tastes may align with theirs.


Exactly .


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

SAKO said:


> 2 people leave 1 star; 1 because he cannot play the CD on his computer (which must obviously be the fault of Harnoncourt)


I agree that the other complaints are rubbish, but this is imo to the point. The reviews are for the complete product (CD, liner notes, packaging), not for the recording only. To know that this particular CD cannot be played in a computer is valuable information to potential buyers. As is e.g. a complaint that the liner notes are only in German, that there are no liner notes whatsoever, that the CDs come in very tight cardboard sleeves in a box, and so on. Perfectly valid to deduct one or more stars based on that.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

SAKO said:


> This is just me having a rant.
> 
> Democracy is often considered the least of many evils. Yes it gives people the vote, it does not however measure their ability to vote.
> 
> ...


I noticed things like that - what can you do? some people completely miss the point.. of anything.. 

People should take a tested before being allowed to post public stuff on internet! 

(kind of like driving... is a right, not a privilege)


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Personally I have always trusted the Penguin Guide it has various reviewers and I used it for most of my early purchases from about 1987-8 it did mean renewing it every couple of years at a cost of about $50, but IMO well worth it.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> I agree that the other complaints are rubbish, but this is imo to the point. The reviews are for the complete product (CD, liner notes, packaging), not for the recording only. To know that this particular CD cannot be played in a computer is valuable information to potential buyers. As is e.g. a complaint that the liner notes are only in German, that there are no liner notes whatsoever, that the CDs come in very tight cardboard sleeves in a box, and so on. Perfectly valid to deduct one or more stars based on that.


Although I agree with most of this (and I've certainly deducted a star or two for non-musical production issues), the fact that a reviewer can't play a CD on his computer may not be the fault of the CD, but may be due to the reviewer's lack of computer literacy.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> Personally I have always trusted the Penguin Guide it has various reviewers and I used it for most of my early purchases from about 1987-8 it did mean renewing it every couple of years at a cost of about $50, but IMO well worth it.


Conversely, I bought a lot of very dull recordings, and missed out on some very, very good ones due to the Penguin guide's bias toward "safe" recordings, not to mention their lack of coverage of most independent labels.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I bought Penguins for a long time and still have a large collection of them for reference. But there is no question that they exhibit a strong bias in favor of British performers. Understandable of course, that's where it was published and likely most of sales were. There are online sites that to some degree make up for Penguin's demise; I just prefer printed books.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is my favourite recording review book by far of the ones I have (including Gramophone, Penguin, NPR, BBC)

https://www.amazon.ca/Classical-Music-Essential-Listening-Companion/dp/0879306386


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I have disagreed with the Penguin Guide so many times over the years that I no longer pay it any attention.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I have disagreed with the Penguin Guide so many times over the years that I no longer pay it any attention.


People say that their practice was _not _to listen to the recordings before they made the reviews, they felt that they didn't have the time to listen, and that anyway it wasn't necessary. Instead they had a concept of "nodal points" in the music, that's to say key moments which would be particularly revealing for an interpretation -- they'd just listen to these nodal points and form their judgements on that basis.

So in the goldbergs, they'd listen to the start of the aria, one or two fast variations, the quodlibet, some of the "black pearl". And they'd skim the booklet and press material. Then they'd knock out 50 words and allocate some stars. And on to the next.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I picked this book up really cheap at Barnes and Noble several years ago. You can still get it cheap online. It's really pretty good. Incredibly thorough, at least up through 2002. But for a reference, it's been great.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> People say that their practice was _not _to listen to the recordings before they made the reviews, they felt that they didn't have the time to listen, and that anyway it wasn't necessary. Instead they had a concept of "nodal points" in the music, that's to say key moments which would be particularly revealing for an interpretation -- they'd just listen to these nodal points and form their judgements on that basis.
> 
> So in the goldbergs, they'd listen to the start of the aria, one or two fast variations, the quodlibet, some of the "black pearl". And they'd skim the booklet and press material. Then they'd knock out 50 words and allocate some stars. And on to the next.


Reviewing a recording without listening to the whole performance is something a guy like Trump would do. Change that - Trump would do the review and say he listened to the whole thing when he actually didn't listen to any of it. Then a week later, he would totally contradict his original review.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Now I don't feel bad about never reading reviews.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Reviewing a recording without listening to the whole performance is something a guy like Trump would do. Change that - Trump would do the review and say he listened to the whole thing when he actually didn't listen to any of it. Then a week later, he would totally contradict his original review.


I read and hear enough about Trump without having to do so on a forum devoted to music, on a thread about music criticism.

If you want to engage in partisan political snarkiness, find someplace else to do it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> I read and hear enough about Trump without having to do so on a forum devoted to music, on a thread about music criticism.
> 
> If you want to engage in partisan political snarkiness, find someplace else to do it.


It was humor, but I understand your position.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It's hard to believe some of the tall tales told about these three fine gentlemen of the Penguin Guide - that they didn't listen to the recordings before they wrote their reviews. That's an outrageous falsehood. Here's an interview with all three. They undoubtedly had to listen to the recordings in order to compare notes, not on all the recordings, of course, because each one also had a particular area of interest... I'm interested in anything they have to say even if I happen to disagree with their conclusions. Their love of the music is obvious and they'll never be replaced:

http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_features.php?id=3483


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Experienced and knowledgeable critics have a place and are worth consulting. But that doesn't make them right for me or you. You get to know some who you trust more than others but sooner or later you are going to have to work out what's good for yourself. As for the punters who post reviews by the hundreds on Amazon, don't get me started. Most are not worth reading. And how do you work out which are the ones who might be? There are just a few punter-critics on Amazon who are consistent and have posted enough for you to get an idea where you might agree with them and where you will not. But, for the most part, their views are very different to mine. And some of them are insufferably smug or pompous as well!


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> It's hard to believe some of the tall tales told about these three fine gentlemen of the Penguin Guide - that they didn't listen to the recordings before they wrote their reviews. That's an outrageous falsehood. Here's an interview with all three. They undoubtedly had to listen to the recordings in order to compare notes, not on all the recordings, of course, because each one also had a particular area of interest... I'm interested in anything they have to say even if I happen to disagree with their conclusions. Their love of the music is obvious and they'll never be replaced:
> 
> http://www.classicalsource.com/db_control/db_features.php?id=3483


Thanks Larkenfield a very interesting article I do wonder if those that made such outlandish remarks have even seen the guide.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It was Edward Greenfield who pioneered and encouraged nodal point listening when reviewing, if I remember right not just for Penguin but also at The Guardian, or so I was told by a journalist who used to work for him.

I’m sure the method is still used today by freelance journalists who are paid small amounts of money to quickly write short reviews, sometimes (often) of music they’re not specially interested in.

I remember once seeing it in use in the preparation for a Building a Library programme for Radio 3, for a symphony.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

As a devoted Sibelian, I take no notice of critics:

"Pay no attention to what the critics say... Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic!"
Jean Sibelius, as quoted in Bengt de Torne's 1937 book _Sibelius - a close up_.

But I wonder in what language he said it, given that Sibelius's command of English was negligible, and whether it lost anything in translation?


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> It was Edward Greenfield who pioneered and encouraged nodal point listening when reviewing, if I remember right not just for Penguin but also at The Guardian, or so I was told by a journalist who used to work for him.


As if anyone had to "pioneer" nodal point listening. To the rest of us it is called "listening to the good parts." What had to be pioneered is the notion that anyone would want to read a review written by someone who only listened to the good parts.

More evidence that classical music reviews are utterly worthless.

I think the title of the thread would more appropriately be "why reviews should be used to wipe your ..." Well, never mind.


----------



## WildThing (Feb 21, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> More evidence that classical music reviews are utterly worthless.


Couldn't disagree more.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

WildThing said:


> Couldn't disagree more.


I should say, utterly worthless _to me_.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> As if anyone had to "pioneer" nodal point listening. To the rest of us it is called "listening to the good parts." What had to be pioneered is the notion that anyone would want to read a review written by someone who only listened to the good parts.


Exactly. I use "nodal point listening" (a new term for me) when I'm going through 10 or more recordings of a particular work, deciding which ones to keep in my collection. Publishing a review based on that method would be irresponsible and unethical.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> More evidence that classical music reviews are utterly worthless.


Mostly. But there are occasional exceptions. I find reviews useful when the reviewer...

1) Provides enough detail to say why he or she did or did not like the recording.
2) Gives evidence that they listened to the entire recording with full attention.
3) Demonstrates a knowledge of other recordings of the work in question 
4) Admits to any biases they might have.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> Mostly. But there are occasional exceptions. I find reviews useful when the reviewer...
> 
> 1) Provides enough detail to say why he or she did or did not like the recording.
> 2) Gives evidence that they listened to the entire recording with full attention.
> ...


In my opinion the reviewer shouldn't say whether s/he liked the performance or not. They should limit themselves to saying what they heard, what the performer is doing and maybe suggesting why they're playing like that, whether he thinks the approach is justifiable.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I read reviews but I don't often take them as useful. Of the ones that are they convey a certain non-biased standpoint that I admire. Even then I only use them as a rough guide. Some of the symphony cycle reviews I've read are so sickeningly biased to certain conductors that I find them unreadable. A lot of the Amazon reviews are written by know-nowts and fanboys and as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> In my opinion the reviewer shouldn't say whether s/he liked the performance or not. They should limit themselves to saying what they heard, what the performer is doing and maybe suggesting why they're playing like that.


I find reviews of that type relatively dry and academic, preferring reviews that entertain as well as provide information. I want the reviewer to use the information offered as the foundation for the particular recommendation. If not done, I consider the review incomplete.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

WildThing said:


> Couldn't disagree more.


In the past, these things were useful to help people make quick purchasing decisions, but it's not like that any more.

Today if you want to hear anything you can hear pretty well every recording of it on Spotify, YouTube etc. The role of the modern reviewer should be to support you in that process of discovery, rather than tell you what's best.

I think in these days of easy access to recorded music, the Penguin type reviews are not only useless, they're also dangerous, in that they promote an ordering, a canon. The canon of rosettes etc.


----------



## Guest (Jul 26, 2018)

The value of reviews is bring attention to the fact that a recording exists.

Probably I needed reviews when I only owned 5 classical music recordings and I needed some sort of clue. I remember getting the Karajan Beethoven ninth instead of Solti on LP after reading reviews. But once I had some idea of what conductors, performers, composers resonated with me I went on instinct. Now I have instinct + 30 second clips on various web sites.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The value of reviews is bring attention to the fact that a recording exists.
> 
> Probably I needed reviews when I only owned 5 classical music recordings and I needed some sort of clue. I remember getting the Karajan Beethoven ninth instead of Solti on LP after reading reviews. But once I had some idea of what conductors, performers, composers resonated with me I went on instinct. Now I have instinct + 30 second clips on various web sites.


With me it's different, if I get interested in a piece of music or a composer I want to hear everything ever recorded relevant to it.

Fortunately most of the music I'm interested in has at most a handful of recordings. It's not too hard to hear every recorded performance of . . . Frescobaldi's Toccatas. But it's not always like this. I'm interested in the Bach cello suites, for example . . . and if someone has thought about it enough and cares about it enough to make a recording, I want to get to understand what he's doing.

Whether I like what I hear or not is quite besides the point, there's nearly always something in there that's interesting, which makes listening to it worthwhile.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

There is not a person here who has not done “spot listening” in order to choose what CD to buy or not out of the thousands of possibilities. I do it all the time on Amazon because one can quickly spot bad engineering or an obvious voice that one isn’t going to enjoy. Or on jazz albums, one can spot whether a jazz soloist is “on” or not. It’s done all the time by everyone. But it doesn’t preclude someone actually listening to an entire album once the choice is made for a more detailed assessment, and Greenfield and his friends obviously did. The worst reviewers are the destroyers who grind up the musicians or the conductors or the vocalists. But to say that no critic or reviewer is worth listening to or lacks any value at all who obviously loves the music I’ve found to be false. The best reviews are constructive and encourage independence of mind, and the gentlemen of the Penguin Guide always did. What a glorious life of the music they had. With them gone it’s the end of an era because they helped propagate the era. It’s not that any reviewer should be followed blindly but simply that they may have had something interesting to say about a musician or a composer from a lifetime of listening.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> Exactly. I use "nodal point listening" (a new term for me) when I'm going through 10 or more recordings of a particular work, deciding which ones to keep in my collection. Publishing a review based on that method would be irresponsible and unethical.


I've done that, too. But I have found that it doesn't work. It gives me little sense of which version or piece of music I will eventually enjoy the most or get the most out of. It might work for ruling things out but that is risky, too.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> The best reviews are constructive and encourage independence of mind, and the gentlemen of the Penguin Guide always did. What a glorious life of the music they had. With them gone it's the end of an era because they helped propagate the era. It's not that any reviewer should be followed blindly but simply that they may have had something interesting to say about a musician or a composer from a lifetime of listening.


I'm find myself agreeing with you on lots today, Larkenfield! Yeah, I found the old Penguin guides informative, even-handed and pretty fair, by and large. Grammophone reviews can often be blurry, pretentious and not very helpful whilst Classics Today slaughter certain artists. Hurwitz has slaughtered many of Norrington's recordings on there (sometimes unjustifiably). Penguin always showed balance. I still use Penguin's example to order my classical CDs.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Does anyone know why Penguin dropped the guide? Was it no longer profitable?


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> With me it's different, if I get interested in a piece of music or a composer I want to hear everything ever recorded relevant to it.
> 
> Fortunately most of the music I'm interested in has at most a handful of recordings. It's not too hard to hear every recorded performance of . . . Frescobaldi's Toccatas. But it's not always like this. I'm interested in the Bach cello suites, for example . . . and if someone has thought about it enough and cares about it enough to make a recording, I want to get to understand what he's doing.
> 
> Whether I like what I hear or not is quite besides the point, there's nearly always something in there that's interesting, which makes listening to it worthwhile.


That might be my attitude if I had the time...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> With me it's different, if I get interested in a piece of music or a composer I want to hear everything ever recorded relevant to it.
> 
> Fortunately most of the music I'm interested in has at most a handful of recordings. It's not too hard to hear every recorded performance of . . . Frescobaldi's Toccatas. But it's not always like this. I'm interested in the Bach cello suites, for example . . . and if someone has thought about it enough and cares about it enough to make a recording, I want to get to understand what he's doing.
> 
> Whether I like what I hear or not is quite besides the point, there's nearly always something in there that's interesting, which makes listening to it worthwhile.


That is pretty much how I feel about recordings of favourite music. Sadly, though, a good chunk of the music I love has been recorded tens of times or more so I do have to draw lines somewhere.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Regarding The Penguin Guide.The suggestion that English Artists were favoured is totally wrong just a quick glance will show otherwise, that minor labels were not included, all I ask is which minor labels bearing in mind the label owners (minor) do have a responsibility to submit CDs for review, and “Penguin guide's bias toward safe recordings” what that is about remains a mystery, also that our games master found he disagreed with the reviewers so many times he no longer pay’s it any attention fair enough but it has not been published for about 10 years, his tastes are not in tune with the experts. Personally the reviewers would have heard a hundred time more CDs, LPs etc than I ever will and while not infallible I found them to be a good guide as to which version I should spend my hard earned cash on.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It took me many years to understand reviews of classical recordings are someone's opinion seen through their own lens. Once I understood that I accepted reviews as guides but not necessarily as truth or fact.

However, reviews serve other purposes besides making personal statements. When I was a young collector I bought a copy of Beethoven piano concertos by a famous pianist. I later read a tepid review of that set in a magazine where the reviewer pointed out the pianist's entry in one of the concertos was hesitant. When I listened I heard it -- but I hadn't noticed it previously. It helped me make later comparisons in the music and to develop my preference.

I pay attention to what is said in reviews and, after about a half-century of listening and collecting, I have a good idea of what I might want to buy today. I still read a lot of reviews and generally enjoy reading them. Today their purpose is more to let me know what's out there than the quality of it. I can usually determine that for myself.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> I later read a tepid review of that set in a magazine where the reviewer pointed out the pianist's entry in one of the concertos was hesitant.


This is a helpful comment for a reviewer to have made. He should go on to suggest why the pianist chose to sound like that, what the effect of his decision was on the listener's experience.

It makes me think of Brendel's entry in the first movement of Mozart PC 24, in his first recording, where I would argue that the hesitancy is all part of what the musicians are trying to express with the music. Lang Lang with Harnoncourt is interesting for hesitancy in that concerto too.

It's totally unprofessional to just assume that a hesitant entry is a weakness. It may be a weakness in the concerto in question, but he's got to argue for it, rather than just impose it. Whether the reviewer would have preferred a more confident entry, for whatever reasons, is not very interesting. Why should anyone care what he likes? The review is about the performance, not about him.

Of course it's much harder to do what I'm asking for. And most journalists, who are paid a few pennies for a short review of a recording or a concert, aren't going to bother. They're not interested enough in the enterprise, and many don't have the acuity or imagination to say what the performer did and speculate why.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are still many critics who believe that there is a correct and a wrong way to play a piece - you sometimes hear one on the BBC's Building a Library series - whereas it is surely more like there are many ways to do either. This kind of criticism may only have applied to recordings and the search for "the best" or "the one to buy". I doubt it was nearly so common in concert reviewing?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_...kind of criticism may only have applied to recordings and the search for "the best" or "the one to buy". I doubt it was nearly so common in concert reviewing?_

A concert is a live event and to some extent the music is being created before you. A recording -- even most "concert" or "live" recordings -- is something calculated and processed to at least some degree. Concert recordings are often composites of more than one concert.

I know concert recordings that would be, for me and in my opinion, "the one to buy." However, I don't think most reviews of concerts talk this way or go in that direction. They tend to be a response by the reviewer of that person's reaction to the concert-making: whol what, when, where, who did what, did they like it, were they disappointed, did it meet their standards, were they any surprises, things like that.

American Record Guide carries a section each issue called "Concerts Everywhere" and "Opera Everywhere" that are first person "reviews," if you will, of events in mostly big cities in USA and Europe and occasionally in Asia. I think of these reports more as musical travelogues than the critical recording reviews that follow later in the same issue.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> _...kind of criticism may only have applied to recordings and the search for "the best" or "the one to buy". I doubt it was nearly so common in concert reviewing?_
> 
> A concert is a live event and to some extent the music is being created before you. A recording -- even most "concert" or "live" recordings -- is something calculated and processed to at least some degree. Concert recordings are often composites of more than one concert.
> 
> ...


But why should there be a "one to buy" when you can have five or ten or more? And do we all actually need for every recording we buy being good for 1000 plays? The days when most classical fans only bought one version of each work are surely long gone.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> But why should there be a "one to buy" when you can have five or ten or more? And do we all actually need for every recording we buy being good for 1000 plays? The days when most classical fans only bought one version of each work are surely long gone.


Not long gone, it is only in the past few years that I could afford to buy as I please. LPs used to cost an arm and a leg and CDs were in the $40 range when I started on them so you had to be sure you were getting a good one.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Having the option to buy five or 10 copies of the recording is much easier today when the music has been so greatly devalued with the merger of different record companies. But it wasn’t true in a previous generation when CDs were sky high in price and LPs could also be expensive. Times have changed. It’s nice reading some of the early reviews from years ago when the music was actually valued and considered much more precious than today. Plus, I think people forget that there’s a special challenge and a special satisfaction in choosing a recording that one likes without having to buy 5 to 10 of them as if it didn’t matter. No one likes to buy a dud recording, and consequently, a lot of thought would go into choosing a particular one when prices were prohibitive. Nor was there the option to hear 5 to 10 recordings and to choose one of them like there is now. Look at how many famous recordings are on YouTube that can guide one in the right direction to buy the CD. The good reviewers were at the time providing a great service that could save one hundreds of dollars, and it’s too bad their labors of love aren’t more appreciated. Anyone can call himself a reviewer now, but it wasn’t so easy to get into print before the words also became cheap because of the internet.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Having the option to buy five or 10 copies of the recording is much easier today when the music has been so greatly devalued...


Back in the early 60s, stereo LPs were generally $5.98, equivalent to almost $50 in today's dollars. You can bet that people chose carefully!

Classical CDs were initially $15.98 for the first-line labels, and bargains were rare until Naxos came along with its East Europe orchestras. Now music costs essentially nothing unless you're a very picky person.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> Not long gone, it is only in the past few years that I could afford to buy as I please. LPs used to cost an arm and a leg and CDs were in the $40 range when I started on them so you had to be sure you were getting a good one.


Absolutely. And I can still only (and barely!) afford the good ones. But there is a world of difference between thinking of these and thinking of "the one" (which never existed, anyway).


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've bought recordings, played and sung music, and attended concerts a half-century. I once thought it important to own 5 or 10 recordings of music I liked a lot and played often. These feelings died off but then came the period performance boom and a new way of performing. 

Soon I had thousands of recordings. Most of them sat there and collected dust. I sold most or gave them away. Now I limit the collection to music I think I may actually play. I still own stuff I haven't played in years. I suppose this doesn't apply to people that collect on a computer but that isn't me.

Another reason for this is I am likely to never again buy a recording of any top 200 classical music -- any symphonies by Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Dvorak, all romantic piano concerto, most violin concertos, and many other popular pieces like tone poems and masses. I have heard them all hundreds of times on recordings, in concert, and on the radio and have no interest in owning or playing them. While it's nice hearing one on the radio now and again I haven't heard in years I simply no longer have interest in owning and playing them. 

Today I own a couple hundred recordings and most I own multiples of are rarities like Hummel's Partita in E and only because it came linked to other recordings I wanted. Otherwise my collection is full of old favorites I know will satisfy me if I want to hear a piece of music, such as Schmidt-Isserstedt's 1964 Hamburg version and/or Furtwangler's 1948 version of the Brahms 4th symphony. I cannot imagine there will come a time in the world when a new conductor finds more in this music than Furtwangler did 70 years ago.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> I've bought recordings, played and sung music, and attended concerts a half-century. I once thought it important to own 5 or 10 recordings of music I liked a lot and played often. These feelings died off but then came the period performance boom and a new way of performing.
> 
> Soon I had thousands of recordings. Most of them sat there and collected dust. I sold most or gave them away. Now I limit the collection to music I think I may actually play. I still own stuff I haven't played in years. I suppose this doesn't apply to people that collect on a computer but that isn't me.
> 
> ...


I could never guess what I will want to listen to new week, let alone next year. I have probably only sold about ten CDs in my life but two of those I ended up buying again! And do you really think that if you have heard Furtwangler in Brahms 4 there is no need to hear anyone else doing it. What about, say, Abbado, Kleiber, Walter, Klemperer and Sanderling? All so different and all so wonderfully valid. Of course, we are all so different ...


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

larold said:


> I've bought recordings, played and sung music, and attended concerts a half-century. I once thought it important to own 5 or 10 recordings of music I liked a lot and played often. These feelings died off but then came the period performance boom and a new way of performing.
> 
> Soon I had thousands of recordings. Most of them sat there and collected dust. I sold most or gave them away. Now I limit the collection to music I think I may actually play. I still own stuff I haven't played in years. I suppose this doesn't apply to people that collect on a computer but that isn't me.
> 
> ...


Is the Schmidt-Isserstedt's Hamburg 1964 Brahms this? (If so, I agree it is very good indeed, apart from sound.)


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Classical CDs were initially $15.98 for the first-line labels, and bargains were rare until Naxos came along with its East Europe orchestras. Now music costs essentially nothing unless you're a very picky person.


We had a flood of East European CDs about 8-10 years ago from NZ$0.99 up to a staggering NZ$5 and there were many good recordings.


----------

