# How much do you believe critics?



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I was in a record store looking at the Penguin guide to Classical that they had for reference, and the store clerk asked me, "do you trust it? i don't". I heard Grammaphone or BBC Music Magazine have a bias for British made recordings, such as by Colin Davis, while I noticed Classicstoday favours American recordings, particularly Bernstein and Tilson Thomas. Do you rely on critics before buying a CD?


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

Do I rely on critics. No
If I'm looking to get a classical piece I don't have I will check various sources such as this website, Amazon reviews, a sales associate's recommendation at my local store, or I might pick up a CD of that new piece by a performer/conductor I am familiar with.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was in a record store looking at the Penguin guide to Classical that they had for reference, and the store clerk asked me, "do you trust it? i don't". I heard Grammaphone or BBC Music Magazine have a bias for British made recordings, such as by Colin Davis, while I noticed Classicstoday favours American recordings, particularly Bernstein and Tilson Thomas. Do you rely on critics before buying a CD?


Do I rely on critics before buying on a CD? Generally no. I only like the critic's view if I agree and if I disagree, I think the critic is not well informed at all.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

CDs said:


> Do I rely on critics. No
> If I'm looking to get a classical piece I don't have I will check various sources such as this website, Amazon reviews, a sales associate's recommendation at my local store, or I might pick up a CD of that new piece by a performer/conductor I am familiar with.


I don't trust Amazon reviews, because I feel the good and bad reviews are one-sided, and the middle ground ones don't tell me anything in my decision whether or not I should buy. So I do trust critics a bit more to lead me to a good interpretation. In the end, I base on my sampling from websites, youtube (which is relatively new, but a great resource) if available.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Upon listening I always trust my own judgments. But before this, I will often use critics I've found to be reliable for my tastes as a guide through my first option(s) (if anything, so I have a solid starting point and don't have to sift through too much mediocre material). Usually between Classics Today, Gramophone, Piero Scaruffi, and a friend of mine not on this site, I end up finding the best few recordings of a given work.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

The problem with critics is that, to use Nassim Taleb's memorable phrase, they have no skin in the game. That is to say, they don't really have anything to lose. They can casually make or break careers, without running any risk of their own: they'll still get their salary from the newspaper or university. 

Here's another thing to consider: I am not aware of any major contributions made to music by critics. The major contributions are made by musicians and composers (both of which have plenty of skin in the game).

Thus I wonder how much attention we should pay to them. I suppose they are often well educated in music and have great ears, so perhaps they can pick up on subtle things in a performance or composition that I can't. I'm not sure they are any better than anyone else to tell us what is good though. Only time can do that.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I haven't yet come across any critic whose taste in music so closely matches mine that I'd expect to like the great majority of what they recommend.

Collectively, critics can be useful though. If something gets many positive reviews it may be worth checking out, even if one might not explicitly trust any of the individual critics.

Anyway, I don't believe that what we hear in music is a fixed thing - whether we like a particular performance or recording will be determined not just by the actual music we hear but by our mood and other circumstances. So I don't even trust _my own_ ears sometimes!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Amazon reviews are generally crap but I do look at what the critics say and read between the lines. Sometimes I concur and sometimes I wonder if they have listened to the same thing as me. If it's a rave review on a few different sites then they are usually spot on but I don't base my buys on what they say - they're just a useful guide.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

As long a the critics likes the stuff I like I'll listen................


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Sorry I can't trust critics until I listen at least some samples of what I am interested in. I find several critics biased and sometimes seems they didn't listened the recording they are reviewing because I read vague descriptions.

As an example of this fact I had the experience of reviews made in a classical music store website which is located in my city: Madrid, Spain. Mysteriously, every single recording made in Spain by spanish ensembles, spanish sopranos got always compliments and highest scores, inviting you to buy them as soon as possible. Why? because those artists are promoted by those brands stores and concert sponsors. Sometimes, reminds me the italian mafia.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Critics are worth listening to but not worth bowing down to. They're one of a number of sources of info.to which I refer when choosing what to buy, no less, no more.


----------



## JSBach85 (Feb 18, 2017)

Merl said:


> Amazon reviews are generally crap but I do look at what the critics say and read between the lines. Sometimes I concur and sometimes I wonder if they have listened to the same thing as me. If it's a rave review on a few different sites then they are usually spot on but I don't base my buys on what they say - they're just a useful guide.


So far I found the best recordings with 1 star because the reviewer says that the cd is defective or the cd arrived very late or damaged. He/she even didn't mention anything about the performance. That doesn't help me either.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

critics today are nothing more but advertisers that push own products and undermine others'.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Critics give their subjective opinions.

It is impossible to scientifically and objectively quantify one person's listening experience to another, whether positive or negative, in order to predict whether the latter will experience a similar reaction.

So many times I have bought CDs because of the ecstatic praises of professional reviewers, only to be sadly disappointed and out the money.

So many CDs just sitting on my shelves, played only once.

What I have done is ignore those critics from my record reviewing publication that have burned me in the past and concentrate on only those reviewers who I am consistantly in-sync with.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> critics today are nothing more but advertisers that push own products and undermine others'.


Spot on, and it works, for them that is.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I tend to listen to what the critics say, but if I see a review counter to the majority, I may put more weight on the contrary review, if I think the person knows what they are talking about. But finally, it comes down to checking out sound clips and what works for me. Also there are certain reviewers on Amazon that I put more stock into though will not always follow their advice either.


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't trust Amazon reviews, because I feel the good and bad reviews are one-sided, and the middle ground ones don't tell me anything in my decision whether or not I should buy. So I do trust critics a bit more to lead me to a good interpretation. In the end, I base on my sampling from websites, youtube (which is relatively new, but a great resource) if available.


With Amazon reviews if the CD has only a couple of reviews I don't take it seriously but if the CD has a lot of reviews say 50+ and the average is over 4 stars I will look for a few detailed reviews to see what they say.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was in a record store looking at the Penguin guide to Classical that they had for reference, and the store clerk asked me, "do you trust it? i don't". I heard Grammaphone or BBC Music Magazine have a bias for British made recordings, such as by Colin Davis, while I noticed Classicstoday favours American recordings, particularly Bernstein and Tilson Thomas. Do you rely on critics before buying a CD?


Well, at least one knows that the reviewers in Penguin Guide and Fanfare are being paid to give their honest opinions.

On Amazon.com, who knows who these "reviewers" are and whether they have vested interests in what they are writing.

I don't trust online reviews in general.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Well, at least one knows that the reviewers in Penguin Guide and Fanfare are being paid to give their honest opinions.
> 
> On Amazon.com, who knows who these "reviewers" are and whether they have vested interests in what they are writing.
> 
> I don't trust online reviews in general.


It can work both ways. Getting paid to do it may put pressure on the critic to go with consensus, for fear of some backlash by going against the trend, but then some might rever in it, since some feel they are distinguished from the crowd, and giving more honest opinions (who doesn't want to put down the Grammy's?). I feel there is a mix of both, from what I've seen. But I agree that professional critics consensus is still the most trustworthy basis, even though not perfect.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> It can work both ways. Getting paid to do it may put pressure on the critic to go with consensus, for fear of some backlash by going against the trend, but then some might rever in it, since some feel they are distinguished from the crowd, and giving more honest opinions (who doesn't want to put down the Grammy's?). I feel there is a mix of both, from what I've seen. But I agree that professional critics consensus is still the most trustworthy basis, even though not perfect.


Well, yeah.... but within Fanfare, there is a lively "hatefest" among critics, constantly arguing with each other.

The critics in Fanfare I don't agree with....I simply ignore. I've been burned too many times.

One reviewer claimed ecstatically that the performance of Bach Cello Suites he was reviewing, differed from other performances because they were irresistibly dance-like. A must get! I was never so disappointed. I don't know what he was smoking, but the performances could only have been danced successfully by elephants-lumbering, slow, depressing performances, with all repeats taken to prolong my agony!!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Well, yeah....but the crtics in Fanfare I don't agree with....I simply ignore. I've been burned too many times.
> 
> One reviewer claimed ecstatically that the Bach Cello Suites differed from other performances because they were irresistibly dance-like. A must get! I was never so disappointed. I don't know what he was smoking, but the performances could only have been danced successfully by elephants-lumbering, slow, depressing performances, with all repeats taken to prolong my agony!!


I've been burnt at least once by all magazines, and found gems overlooked by all. One book I have I thought is generally great, is Classical Music: the Essential Listening Companion by Third Ear. They survey the recordings for each work, and give general recommendations. They list pros and cons of recordings even by referring to individual movements, and don't take themselves too seriously. They also go into major and minor composers.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Merl said:


> Amazon reviews are generally crap but I do look at what the critics say and read between the lines. Sometimes I concur and sometimes I wonder if they have listened to the same thing as me. If it's a rave review on a few different sites then they are usually spot on but I don't base my buys on what they say - they're just a useful guide.


I try to read between the lines as well. Sometimes a reviewer isn't biased due to external factors, but they just have different tastes than I do. A good reviewer won't just say whether a recording is good or bad, but they'll explain their conclusion with details from each performance. I can sometimes pull useful information from those descriptions.

I do find that information about sound quality is more reliable than information about performance quality. It's not perfect though so some research is required. These days it's easy to pull up recordings on YouTube or other streaming services so the best thing to do is to listen for yourself and see which performance suits you the best before you buy.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I don't see all reviews as "critical" in a negative way, as the OP implies. I approach them with the idea of getting more information about the product. I especially like the Amazon "everyman" reviews. Sometimes these have crucial information, as well.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The key to the usefulness of any review, be it a magazine critic or an amazon buyer (or even a TC'er) is knowing something about that person's likes/dislikes and biases. Even if I often disagree with them in specific, I can often glean some useful information from what they have to say. Of course this only works after having seen a substantial amount of their reviews and opinions which is why Amazon is the least useful as I (usually) know nothing about the writer. I used to use Gramophone & Penguin Guide much more than now, these days I often go to MusicWeb International and ClassicsToday.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think it's a matter of believing or not. Critics are persons who listen a lot of music, have their own tastes and they can have interesting point of view. Sometimes they are talking about A and B and I like (or I can relate with what they say) about A and B too, and they recommend C. At that point I'm curious to listen C too. But I could disagree about the value of other artists with the same critic.
Sometimes I could disagree completely but I can however find an analysis interesting. 
I've found a lot of interesting music to listen and a lot of interesting articles to read about music, and that's all that matters.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I do like David Hurwitz. He does some very good and fair reviews. He's often on my wavelength (but not always).


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Merl said:


> I do like David Hurwitz. He does some very good and fair reviews. He's often on my wavelength (but not always).


I personally don't trust him at all as he seems to be strongly biased against everything the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan did.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I trust that all reviewers are offering their honest opinions. Beyond that, it's a crap shoot. As for Amazon reviewers, I have zero faith and don't read them anymore.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't look to critics to tell me what recordings to buy, but I love reading criticism. There were some fine record critics back in the '60s and '70s whose reviews I read avidly, and they taught me a lot about how to think and write about music. As guides to buying, critics obviously disagree. Once in a while you may find one whose insights seem to you spot on, and you may come to trust him, as I did Conrad L. Osborne, opera critic for High Fidelity Magazine, who understood opera and singing so thoroughly that I find myself thinking his thoughts to this day.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Well, yeah.... but within Fanfare, there is a lively "hatefest" among critics, constantly arguing with each other.
> 
> The critics in Fanfare I don't agree with....I simply ignore. I've been burned too many times.
> 
> One reviewer claimed ecstatically that the performance of Bach Cello Suites he was reviewing, differed from other performances because they were* irresistibly dance-like.* A must get! I was never so disappointed. I don't know what he was smoking, but the performances could only have been danced successfully by elephants-lumbering, slow, depressing performances, with all repeats taken to prolong my agony!!


Indeed. Unless a reviewer specifies "gavotte-like," "frug-like," or "do-si-do," you can't trust him.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Indeed. Unless a reviewer specifies "gavotte-like," "frug-like," or "do-si-do," you can't trust him.


I can't believe the critic was that daft. He must have confused the set he recommended with a different set.

Not only were the tempos lumbering, but there was frequent buzzing from the strings and the cherry on the cake-frequent intonational lapses. Otherwise, very fine indeed!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I can't believe the critic was that daft. He must have confused the set he recommended with a different set.
> 
> Not only were the tempos lumbering, but there was frequent buzzing from the strings and the cherry on the cake-frequent intonational lapses. Otherwise, very fine indeed!!


He was probably listening and writing under deadline. The buzzing was obscured for him by the buzz from two pots of coffee,and the dance-like rhythm would have been tachycardia.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If a critic is consistent, and honest enough to admit when he isn't being so, and I've read enough of him(her) to know how our tastes intersect, then I can enjoy reading him, maybe learn some thing new about music, and know whether there's a snowballs chance in hell I should listen to the performance.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I don't look to critics to tell me what recordings to buy, but I love reading criticism. There were some fine record critics back in the '60s and '70s whose reviews I read avidly, and they taught me a lot about how to think and write about music. As guides to buying, critics obviously disagree. Once in a while you may find one whose insights seem to you spot on, and you may come to trust him, as I did Conrad L. Osborne, opera critic for High Fidelity Magazine, who understood opera and singing so thoroughly that I find myself thinking his thoughts to this day.


Absolutely on CLO. Also Alan Blythe, John Steane and Edward Greenfield in the Gramophone. What I care most about is not their recommendations but the reasoning behind them.


----------



## pierrot (Mar 26, 2012)

I believe user reviews from websites such as Amazon before I listen to professional critics.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

pierrot said:


> I believe user reviews from websites such as Amazon before I listen to professional critics.


Did you see the battles they fight about certain singers...male / female?


----------



## pierrot (Mar 26, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Did you see the battles they fight about certain singers...male / female?


Yeah, the inevitable fanboys are always there.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

When Alex Ross has a piece in the New Yorker, I will place it high on my reading list. Not because I always agree, but because he often makes me curious or helps me see something in a new light.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

jdec said:


> I personally don't trust him at all as he seems to be strongly biased against everything the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan did.


True, but whilst he openly says he didn't like a lot of Karajan's stuff he does give him back-handed credit in many reviews by using his recordings as reference pieces. I think it was the hype and promotion around Karajan and the BPO that Hurwitz didn't like. Tbh, he isn't on his own amongst critics these days but, barring Karajan recordings, I find him pretty fair except when it comes to Dudamel. Again, he hates the hype around Dudamel (and often mentions it when reviewing his recordings) but I'd say that a lot of the flak Dudamel has received, up to now, is warranted (some of his recordings are poor).


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Critics, still better than the average user here.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was in a record store looking at the Penguin guide to Classical that they had for reference, and the store clerk asked me, "do you trust it? i don't". I heard Grammaphone or BBC Music Magazine have a bias for British made recordings, such as by Colin Davis, while I noticed Classicstoday favours American recordings, particularly Bernstein and Tilson Thomas. Do you rely on critics before buying a CD?


I work on the provisional assumption that the critics know more, and have listened more than me. They can point me in one direction or help me with initial selections. I'm certainly not going to swallow what they say without considering other points of view.



jegreenwood said:


> When Alex Ross has a piece in the New Yorker, I will place it high on my reading list. Not because I always agree, but because he often makes me curious or helps me see something in a new light.


One of the critics I have found reliable. Tom Service, The Guardian is another, although his enthusiam can lead him to make generalisations such as "If Shostakovich was about anything, it was..."


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

quietfire said:


> Critics, still better than the average user here.


There are actually quit a few good ones on the site, the art of finding them, that's the point.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

brianvds said:


> The problem with critics is that, to use Nassim Taleb's memorable phrase, they have no skin in the game. That is to say, they don't really have anything to lose. They can casually make or break careers, without running any risk of their own: they'll still get their salary from the newspaper or university.
> 
> Here's another thing to consider: I am not aware of any major contributions made to music by critics. The major contributions are made by musicians and composers (both of which have plenty of skin in the game).
> 
> Thus I wonder how much attention we should pay to them. I suppose they are often well educated in music and have great ears, so perhaps they can pick up on subtle things in a performance or composition that I can't. I'm not sure they are any better than anyone else to tell us what is good though. Only time can do that.


Their skin in the game is that of advisors in any field. They put their credibility on the line with every review they write. One simply has to know how to evaluate and use their advice. Should you trust them? Find out by seeing how they have reviewed recordings or performers about which one already has a confirmed opinion.

You aren't aware of any major contributions to music made by critics? Eduard Hanslick's writing still influences modern thought about music and its fundamental semantic and expressive capacities. If you ever read the diatribes of PeterB, formerly of this community, you have been exposed to Hanslick's thought. Have you heard of Robert Schumann? He was a great champion of music by as yet unknown composers like a man named Brahms. Richard Taruskin's ideas and those of his students and proteges have dominated long threads on this forum.

You wonder how much attention to pay them? They aren't a resource to be used passively. If you need the guidance of music criticism you might have to put in the effort to vet critics.

Disclaimer: I have never worked as a music critic.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> critics today are nothing more but advertisers that push own products and undermine others'.


Thank you Mister Sunshine!  One function of TC is crowd sourced criticism, isn't it? Having read this forum for a few years I have found a few critics whose advice I have drawn on in purchases. I'm pretty sure none of them had a financial interest in the music or performers or composers they praised.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's not a matter of believing critics.

They are expressing subjective opinions concerning how they are reacting to interpretations.

The idea is to discover which critics are in synch with your own subjective feelings about the music.

The publication I subscribe to has over 50 active music reviewers.

I key on the 3-4 who have burned me the least in the past and ignore the rest.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

jdec said:


> I personally don't trust him at all as he seems to be strongly biased against everything the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan did.


That's not entirely true. I read ClassicsToday quite often because I agree quite frequently with Jed Distler and I often find David Hurwitz entertaining, but David Hurwitz lists Karajan's Mahler 5 and 9th as reference recordings. He says that Karajan's Schoenberg, Webern and Berg recordings have NEVER been bettered! Karajan's Liszt, Prokofiev 5, Shostakovich 10th, Haydn Paris Symphonies, Richard Strauss recordings and many, many others have all had rave reviews from Hurwitz.

Hurwitz has always stated he thought Karajan was at his best when conducting composers like Holst and Strauss who are more about texture and color, than he was in the classic Romantic Repertoire that Karajan was most known for and in some ways I agree. I enjoy his Brahms and Beethoven but I feel there are others who have done both better in many ways which is basically what Hurwitz often says. I've often seen him give those kinds of recordings a 7 or 8 out of 10 which he still considers "good" recordings.

Yes, there are some he greatly disliked such as Haydn's London Symphonies, which if you compare to Bernstein or Dorati or Jochum or Davis, it's easy to see why. It was said he often favors American composers like Bernstein but he also greatly disliked Bernstein's Brahms recordings in Vienna and he gave Bernstein's earlier New York cycle Brahms recordings 7's or 8's because like Karajan, he felt there were others who have done Brahms better.

I don't agree with Mr. Hurwitz all the time either, but I like that he's not afraid to go against the popular opinion of Grammophone or BBC Music magazine. I've never seen either of those magazines really trash a recording, their almost always good or great (especially if it's a British conductor) but David will often pick apart something with sound examples where people can hear how rigid or badly played something might actually be.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

"How much do you believe critics?"

not too much, really...I make up my own mind...however, Over several years we may find some critics with whom we agree, or disagree...this can be useful. I remember certain critics - ie - Mortimer Frank, Roger Dettmer, who often liked the same things I did - so I found their critiques to be useful. Generally, if they liked it, I found that I probably would also, tho not always.

There were also some critics with whom I consistently disagreed. This can be useful as well - if they pan something, I may well find it very good. If they gave it a rave, I probably would not like it.
For me, the main useful purpose of magazines like Fanfare, Gramophone, etc - is to let me know what is available - what has been released, what is re-issued - quality of re-masterings [again subject to individual taste], history of recordings and/or releases.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

I put no trust in critics, but I do enjoy record reviews because I often find new records that I'd not otherwise.

Have subscribed to Gramophone for years, and really enjoy it. But yes, they are heavily Brit-centric. If you see an album in the reviews pages that is either a British composer and/or a British orchestra/chamber group/artist, you know before even reading the review that they're going to love it. If the two preceding items include said recording being released on a British label, well... .it's simply the best recording of said piece EVER.

Sometimes in Gramophone if a record is reviewed by a non-British artist or group for which there is an existing recording by a British artist or group, the review will slightly or entirely pan the new record and mention how it just can't compare to the version by <insert British group/artist here>. Tiresome, but predictable, and when I read this, I figure the new non-British version must be pretty good to upset the Gramophone reviewer so much.

There is a monthly column called "The Collection," where they'll select a composition and discuss and compare all recorded versions of it. Then select the best version. The best version is usually the one by a British group.

But I keep renewing the subscription, and I do enjoy it.

Many times I buy based on the samples on amazon, or I'll try to find the recording on YouTube and preview it that way. Then off to amazon to buy a CD.

-09


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

brianvds said:


> Here's another thing to consider: I am not aware of any major contributions made to music by critics. The major contributions are made by musicians and composers (both of which have plenty of skin in the game).


This...................................


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> That's not entirely true. I read ClassicsToday quite often because I agree quite frequently with Jed Distler and I often find David Hurwitz entertaining, but David Hurwitz lists Karajan's Mahler 5 and 9th as reference recordings. He says that Karajan's Schoenberg, Webern and Berg recordings have NEVER been bettered! Karajan's Liszt, Prokofiev 5, Shostakovich 10th, Haydn Paris Symphonies, Richard Strauss recordings and many, many others have all had rave reviews from Hurwitz.
> 
> Hurwitz has always stated he thought Karajan was at his best when conducting composers like Holst and Strauss who are more about texture and color, than he was in the classic Romantic Repertoire that Karajan was most known for and in some ways I agree. I enjoy his Brahms and Beethoven but I feel there are others who have done both better in many ways which is basically what Hurwitz often says. I've often seen him give those kinds of recordings a 7 or 8 out of 10 which he still considers "good" recordings.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected then. Yeah, what I read from him about HvK/BPO were reviews on performances of Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky. He also had a very negative review of Abbado's Mahler 1st with the BPO (one of my favorite performances of this work), so I assumed Hurwitz had some bad feelings against the Berliners in general. Thanks for pointing out this is not entirely true.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

jdec said:


> I stand corrected then. Yeah, what I read from him about HvK/BPO were reviews on performances of Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky. He also had a very negative review of Abbado's Mahler 1st with the BPO (one of my favorite performances of this work), so I assumed Hurwitz had some bad feelings against the Berliners in general. Thanks for pointing out this is not entirely true.


No, I don't think he has anything against the Berliners. He gave Abbado's Brahms Cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic a perfect 10/10 for both interpretation and sound.

Karajan's 1975 Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique" he gave a 10.
Karajan's 70's Bruckner "Te Deum" he gave a 10.
Karajan's Honneger's Symphonies 2 & 3 a 10.

Other Conductors with the Berlin Philharmonic such as Rattle, Maazel, Fricsay, Jochum, Kubelik, Jansons, etc. all have got perfect 10's for various recordings.

But yeah, he's given lots of 10's for Abbado and Karajan and Berlin lots of times. Just all depends on the recordings. I've personally never liked Abbado's Mahler recordings, but I can see if you really liked it how you might draw offense to an overly critical review.

In the end it's always up to YOU what YOU like, and that's all that matters. He's called several recordings I like "CD's From Hell" and while I may agree they might not be the best recordings ever, I certainly don't think they are that terrible. So he and I choose not to agree on those ones, but there are lots of things he and I do agree on. It's the same with other members on this board. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, and that's fine. We all like different things.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

All my life I have wondered why music critics judge the performance of the executive artists (the conductor and musicians) but never (?) the composition (the composer). As if all compositions are equally great and/or a matter of subjective taste (yet the quality of the performance can be objectively measured). Can someone enlighten me on this?

Anyway, because I am more focused on finding great compositions than on finding the best performances of whatever composition, I tend to ignore music critics.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Agamemnon said:


> All my life I have wondered why music critics judge the performance of the executive artists (the conductor and musicians) but never (?) the composition (the composer). As if all compositions are equally great and/or a matter of subjective taste (yet the quality of the performance can be objectively measured). Can someone enlighten me on this?
> 
> Anyway, because I am more focused on finding great compositions than on finding the best performances of whatever composition, I tend to ignore music critics.


There is a book Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1000 Greatest Works. It ranks the best composers, and gives a "10-work Starter Kit" recommendation for each, and goes on to provide a more complete collection by each, plus some recommended recordings. It's got lots of trivia and stuff.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> There is a book Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1000 Greatest Works. It ranks the best composers, and gives a "10-work Starter Kit" recommendation for each, and goes on to provide a more complete collection by each, plus some recommended recordings. It's got lots of trivia and stuff.


Thanks. Now I use The Rough Guide to Classical Music which is a very good introductory book as well.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I would also like to say that many critics today have a very commercial motivation about their opinion. I get the feeling they have been paid to write/say what to express.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I would also like to say that many critics today have a very commercial motivation about their opinion. I get the feeling they have been paid to write/say what to express.


Yes, this is especially prevalent in Rock criticism. It does not appear to be as much in Classical, but I might be wrong.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Agamemnon said:


> Thanks. Now I use The Rough Guide to Classical Music which is a very good introductory book as well.


Good one, at least a bit objective.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I believe I've read a review once, from a concert I went to. I was curious but nah, waste of time.


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I would also like to say that many critics today have a very commercial motivation about their opinion. I get the feeling they have been paid to write/say what to express.


Professional writers paid to write?? Good Lord!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Professional writers paid to write?? Good Lord!


Samuel Johnson: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."


----------



## Rys (Nov 26, 2016)

I'll take their advice, maybe look up recordings they suggest on YouTube. Ultimately I trust them no more than I'd trust someone's recommendation on TC. 
Although sometimes critic's strong praise or opposition is bothersome. That's their job though. They're paid to be geniuses in strong opinions


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Sometimes reviewers have clued me in on certain aspects of DVDs that I would find unacceptable and for that I am grateful.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Florestan said:


> Sometimes reviewers have clued me in on certain aspects of DVDs that I would find unacceptable and for that I am grateful.


Very true, there are things revealed in some reviews you can't get elsewhere.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Very true, there are things revealed in some reviews you can't get elsewhere.


Like when I learned a certain Fidelio DVD has Leonora exposing her breasts when she reveals that she is a woman. Wasn't enough for the producer to simply have her say "First kill his wife" and let her hair fall out of her hat.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Florestan said:


> Like when I learned a certain Fidelio DVD has Leonora exposing her breasts when she reveals that she is a woman. Wasn't enough for the producer to simply have her say "First kill his wife" and let her hair fall out of her hat.


No, that would not have been enough.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm the kind of a guy who really, really wants to believe critics. I really respect them and value their contributions to the arts and their progress. I may be the only person in the world who thinks like that. I get really angry at my hero Sibelius when he says that stupid line about how you should not pay heed to what the critics say and how there's no statues about them, yadda yadda. And when I myself find that a critic is just wrong, I frown - not at the critic, but at the _world_ where critics can be wrong!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Pierre Monteux had a great line about critics - Monteux was quite popular with orchestra musicians, because he had a pleasant disposition and was not nasty, sarcastic or tyrannical....a concert he had conducted with the orchestra was reviewed unfavorably in the local newspaper...Monteux thought it had gone very well and he was pleased with the orchestra's performance:
Best I can remember it:
<<Well they say - if you can't play, then you teach, if you can't teach, then you criticize!!>>


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

With some critics , if they pan a recording, it's almost a recommendation . And if they give it a rave review , it means I won't like it . But there are exceptions . 
One of these is David Hurwitz of classics today.com , who constantly makes the most off the wall negative comments about conductors and orchestras whom I admire greatly , for example today , saying the late Claudio Abbado was a "lousy " conductor of Mozart. Abbado was not a lousy conductor of any composer , like his interpretations or not . 
He has also stated that British conductors are the "worst " Elgar conductors . He has stated that the Berlin Philharmonic has the "worst " percussion section of any of the world's top orchestras, which is asinine, and that it has a "weak " brass section , which is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger (in his body building days at least ) of being puny , which is even more asinine . 
When EMI released a recording of the Bruckner 6th with Muti and the Berlin Philharmonic some years ago , Hurwitz stated that Muti should have recorded it with the Philadelphia orchestra , which supposedly plays Bruckner more idiomatically , which is like saying that Sylvester Stallone is a better Shakespearean actor than Sir John Gielgud . I could go on an on . This guy is a clown , not a music critic .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> One of these is David Hurwitz of classics today.com , who constantly makes the most off the wall negative comments about conductors and orchestras whom I admire greatly


Yes, Hurwitz is pretty extreme, excessive....sometimes I agree with him, other times, I think he's nuts...he's too mercurial for me....I may read his critiques, but I don't place any great value on them.



> He has also stated that British conductors are the "worst " Elgar conductors


Interesting viewpoint - Barbirolli and Boult certainly would refute that claim, IMO.



> He has stated that the Berlin Philharmonic has....a "weak " brass section


Here I might tend to agree with him - their insistence on using rotary valve trumpets on everything really doesn't cut it. The way they play them, the sound simply does not project. But..that's the sound they want....they aren't trying to sound like Chicago or NYPO.



> When EMI released a recording of the Bruckner 6th with Muti and the Berlin Philharmonic some years ago , Hurwitz stated that Muti should have recorded it with the Philadelphia orchestra , which supposedly plays Bruckner more idiomatically ,


I think a lot of the time Hurwitz likes to just ****-stir, be "notorious", controversial....that's why I don't pay much attention to him.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I like Jim Svejda, except when he's bashing Messiaen.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Heck148 , I would not call the Berlin Philharmonic brass "weak" in any way . Yes, they don't blast and blare like some American orchestras, but the rotary trumpets sound wonderful . And even the late Bud Herseth , the legendary Chicago symphony principal trumpet, somethimnes used rotary trumpets .


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> Heck148 , I would not call the Berlin Philharmonic brass "weak" in any way . Yes, they don't blast and blare like some American orchestras, but the rotary trumpets sound wonderful . And even the late Bud Herseth , the legendary Chicago symphony principal trumpet, somethimnes used rotary trumpets .


I heard them do Mahler 9 with Abbado - live in Boston Sym Hall..wonderful performance overall -Abbado led a terrific rendition - but the trumpets were really weak, underpowered...horns were OK, low brass was good. 
I know that Chicago and other orchestras are using rotary trumpets more often now, but I don't like it. The Chicago and VPO guys seem to get more sound and brilliance out of them - maybe they use different instruments - different plating, etc, that provides a bit brighter sound that projects better. 
I still like piston valve instruments better, tho - they project much better, and I like the way the notes "pop"...rotary valves are excessively mellow and legato IMO.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Critics i do not trust that much because they have opinions often BUT some critics are correct sometimes you know.I say one should listen to music or watch something to judge for them selves you know.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Well, the Berliners may just not have been accustomed to playing in the Boston hall or it may have been the acoustics of the seat you were in , but I have never found the Berlin brass to be in any way "weak ". 
In some American orchestras, the brass can be too loud and overbearing unless the conductor keeps them in check , but this never happens with the Berliners , who always blend in with the rest of the orchestra yet still sound gorgeous .


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

superhorn said:


> With some critics , if they pan a recording, it's almost a recommendation . And if they give it a rave review , it means I won't like it . But there are exceptions .
> One of these is David Hurwitz of classics today.com , who constantly makes the most off the wall negative comments about conductors and orchestras whom I admire greatly , for example today , saying the late Claudio Abbado was a "lousy " conductor of Mozart. Abbado was not a lousy conductor of any composer , like his interpretations or not .
> He has also stated that British conductors are the "worst " Elgar conductors . He has stated that the Berlin Philharmonic has the "worst " percussion section of any of the world's top orchestras, which is asinine, and that it has a "weak " brass section , which is like calling Arnold Schwarzenegger (in his body building days at least ) of being puny , which is even more asinine .
> When EMI released a recording of the Bruckner 6th with Muti and the Berlin Philharmonic some years ago , Hurwitz stated that Muti should have recorded it with the Philadelphia orchestra , which supposedly plays Bruckner more idiomatically , which is like saying that Sylvester Stallone is a better Shakespearean actor than Sir John Gielgud . I could go on an on . This guy is a clown , not a music critic .


So, you are an expert and he's not? And because he disagrees with you he's a clown?

I like VERY little of Abbado's recordings and I think he made many "lousy" recordings, so what? If you love him, good for you. I don't like his Mozart recordings either. But Hurwitz has ranked his Mendelssohn Symphony cycle and his Brahms Symphony cycle (with the Berlin Philharmonic) as reference recordings. He likes some of his output and others he doesn't just like most listeners.

As far as the Elgar comment goes, out of the numerous British recordings how many have been considered great by a large majority of people? Heck148 mentioned, Barbirolli and Boult which are probably the only two most people can think of, so two out of a hundred maybe? 2% doesn't seem like a very high percentage so maybe he's right.

In the end why does it matter? He's a critic, he has been for many, many years. He's played in orchestras, he's watched Bernstein and Abbado and many other big conductors and orchestras in person over the years and he's welcome to his opinion just as you are.

You can start your own Classical website and write your opinions and if people want to pay you for it, then good for you. He often confers with Jed Distler who is also a writer for ClassicsToday and who has written many liner notes for recent big box sets of conductors and pianists and has been a critic for Grammophone, etc. so does that make him a clown as well because he often agrees with him?

If you don't like his reviews, don't read them. That simple...


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I read a lot of music criticism, including Fanfare and The American Record Guide. I enjoy the reads and have bought many discs based on recommendations but have usually found this to be unsatisfying. It helps if one can identify a critic whose tastes consistently coincide with your own, and the reverse is true as well.
With streaming I have thability to sample many ofthese discs and have greatly cut down impusle purchases


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

superhorn said:


> Well, the Berliners may just not have been accustomed to playing in the Boston hall or it may have been the acoustics of the seat you were in , but I have never found the Berlin brass to be in any way "weak ".
> In some American orchestras, the brass can be too loud and overbearing unless the conductor keeps them in check , but this never happens with the Berliners , who always blend in with the rest of the orchestra yet still sound gorgeous .


I'm glad you like them....not for me, tho - as I said - really needed a lot more in Mahler 9....also - I heard/saw a video of BPO Summer Pops series - they were playing lots of Latin pieces - Copland - "El Salon Mexico", Moncayo "Huapango", etc...real rollicking Latino style...the trumpets were trying to play this stuff on rotary valve trumpets - sounded ridiculous, too round and mellow - that music needs a quasi "mariachi" style - requires a light, bright, crisp, "chattery" sound, along with the proper rhythmic inflection and style....none of which were present....It really sounded silly, way off the mark.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think critics need to organize more and reveal the concepts by which they are critiquing a piece. This would make it much more exhilarating of a read because you know what points they are critiquing the piece on. This in my opinion is how you objectively critique your subjective thoughts on a piece and make a worthwhile read to a reader.

That said, I don't think enough critics do this, it's more like a marketing scheme where notable critics get paid to endorse something with very little conversation about the art. This has at least been my experience.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I remember attending a performance of the Rachmaninov Third Piano Concerto and the pianist absolutely murdering it- Perhaps the worst live concert I've ever been too (obviously excluding my little brother's orchestra concerts and things like that). The next day, a critic praised the concerto has being a "stupendous interpretation of a stupendous piece." I've never trusted critics since then.

Besides, throughout history, critics have either praised works that are now forgotten, or scorned at pieces that are now well-known repertoire!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I remember attending a performance of the Rachmaninov Third Piano Concerto and the pianist absolutely murdering it- Perhaps the worst live concert I've ever been too (obviously excluding my little brother's orchestra concerts and things like that). The next day, a critic praised the concerto has being a "stupendous interpretation of a stupendous piece." I've never trusted critics since then.
> 
> Besides, throughout history, critics have either praised works that are now forgotten, or scorned at pieces that are now well-known repertoire!


Smells like bribery .


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

If I listen to the sound clips and like it, then even if the critics don't like it, I may buy it. Another thing about critics and particularly since I am not musically educated, something that bothers them may go unnoticed by me.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I always used to check for the best possible recording at the time after all the critics would know more than me and have listened to many versions of a particular work, I found that the magazines, BBC, Classical CD, Gramophone etc had a conflict of interest because of their advertisers where as the Penguin guide, as far as I knew were more neutral and if they awarded a rosette then it would be a cracker. I have not been disappointed in their recommendations but this was years ago and things may have changed.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

superhorn said:


> Well, the Berliners may just not have been accustomed to playing in the Boston hall or it may have been the acoustics of the seat you were in , but I have never found the Berlin brass to be in any way "weak ".
> In some American orchestras, the brass can be too loud and overbearing unless the conductor keeps them in check , but this never happens with the Berliners , who always blend in with the rest of the orchestra yet still sound gorgeous .


My one experience of the CSO in Orchestra Hall was last year when they did the Strauss Don Juan & Bruckner 7th. I sat about the middle of the main floor and my reaction to the sound was that the brass, particularly the trumpets, was overwhelming. That could be a function of the acoustics in that area but I was not impressed. I have heard the BPO dozens of times in simulcasts and have never felt that there was an imbalance which, of course, could be partly due to the sound engineers.

Incidentally, the BPO horn section uses only the Gebr. Alexander horns, mostly 103s, to give a more consistent section sound.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I enjoy critics. Not just because someone is expressing opinions about music, but good critics put the piece in historical context. At best, good critics are educational.

I'm also really intrigued by some extreme "critics", like full philosophical treatments of music and arts. Adorno comes to my mind, but unfortunately I don't understand a word what he's trying to say. I've tried


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> My one experience of the CSO in Orchestra Hall was last year when they did the Strauss Don Juan & Bruckner 7th. I sat about the middle of the main floor and my reaction to the sound was that the brass, particularly the trumpets, was overwhelming.


That's the CSO style - the brass has always been very strong. So are the woodwinds...



> Incidentally, the BPO horn section uses only the Gebr. Alexander horns, mostly 103s, to give a more consistent section sound.


many orchestras use the same instruments throughout the brass section to provide uniformity of tone - Bernstein/NYPO horns all used the Conn 8Ds, Reiner/CSO trumpets used Bach trumpets...Szell/CO used King trombones


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Yes, he's entitled to his views . I read them every week because I sort of enjoy being irritated by them. And sometimes we do agree about some recordings . I've also played in so many orchestras myself , under who knows how many conductors , including Joann Faletta , Maurice Peress, David Alan Miller, David Lawton, 
Dalia Atlas, Arthur Weisberg, all distinguished ones .
Not to mention opera companies (smaller ones ) , musicals , concert bands, chamber ensembles etc .
It's just that many of his statements seem over the top and perversely off the mark to me. This is just my reaction . And I've also been a reviewer of classical music , when I was a graduate student in musicology at Queens college , city university of NewYork . I reviewed concerts by visiting musicians and orchestras which took place there . And my reviews were well received . The conductor of an all Beethoven concert I reviewed sent a letter to the editor of the Queens college student newspaper praising me for my "balanced " review and said I was a credit to the paper . Please pardon the blatant self plug ! The letter was published by the paper .


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Some have expressed concern over the influence advertisers/other companies have on reviewers. It's not music related, but perhaps the situation is the same with music. I recently came across an article on a car blog where they discuss how Honda recently gave auto journalists (including a journalist from the blog) and their families a free Hawaii family vacation to review their Honda Odyssey mini-van. Apparently Honda also wanted the journalists to participate in social media engagement events designed to generate interest for the van. The blog says they don't like the way the manufacturers are basically paying for coverage like this, but they felt compelled to accept the vacation in order to not get out-scooped by other media outlets who do go since those will be the first publications to get a review for the van.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/05/time-tide-turn-automaker-junkets/

So, anyway, I wonder how many bad reviews the Honda van got!  I'm guessing classical music critics aren't given free Hawaii family vacations for reviewing DG's latest CD, but perhaps they get certain perks as well. If nothing else, they might not want to give advertisers bad publicity.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I think you are right. I am not from or involved in any of the regions, and I do feel that Penguin, Grammaphone and BBC Music Magazine all have a strong bias for British related recordings, such as conducted by Colin Davis, Marriner, Gardiner, Pinnock, and Solti, while those American critics (like some hi-fi ranking list etc) do favor American musicians over others. I am not saying those hyped recordings are not good, in fact some of them are excellent. However, this can not be the reason to top them on the list, as many other good versions are equally great (or even better in some aspects). I think many of the critics run a list under the influence of commerce and propaganda. Thus, I don't believe any of them.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Could you please explain how the penguin guide favours English recordIngs i have always found them to be neutral.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2017)

Here's a way to sample what the Penguin Guide favours - look at the Rosettes handed out to recordings of various composers' works...

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/rosettes.php?keytype=3&keyword=4

I started with 'Classical' and it was soon apparent that European orchestras dominate, though I didn't go far enough to find out whether this was true over the whole range.


----------



## FranzS (May 27, 2017)

How much do you like chocolate?
Just like everything else in life it is a matter of discerment, not all chocolate is worth eating, not every critic is worth reading.
So many recordings out there, how are you going to choose without an informed opinion? I appreciate and trust Diapason (France), Musica (Italy) and I particularly trust the opinions of the Italian critic Mario Bortolotto who has written a bunch of really illuminating books.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

I don't have enough experience (or faith in my own judgment) to know or time right now to sort out which critics to trust and which to ignore.

I pretty much go by what interests me and what comes up in parallel when pursuing what interests me. So if a particular Beethoven appeals, I might look at the performers and see what else they have recorded. Or the conductor or orchestra. 

I don't know if critics have as much power in classical music as they do in the movies or popular culture. 

It is hard to know what I am going to like, let alone what is considered good that I should try, and critics don't make it any easier.


----------



## Robert Gamble (Dec 18, 2016)

I don't trust them at all in isolation. Every critic has their own biases and they may not be at all like mine.

If there's a piece out there that I want to have a recording of, I start by looking at various best recordings threads, note down the ones that appear the most often or which might be less known but enough people enthuse about to be of interest. Then I search for reviews both in a couple of books that I have and on line. I'm starting to learn what styles of readings I most prefer so I look more for that information among the short list I've created. If the critics all agree on a recording, then I'm pretty confident I'll like it as long as it's the style of music I prefer.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Here's a way to sample what the Penguin Guide favours - look at the Rosettes handed out to recordings of various composers' works...
> 
> http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/rosettes.php?keytype=3&keyword=4
> 
> I started with 'Classical' and it was soon apparent that European orchestras dominate, though I didn't go far enough to find out whether this was true over the whole range.


I actually said English however I will peruse my own copies of Penguin and see what comes up, as for "European orchestras dominate" for a start there are a lot more artists and ens to choose from in Europe so a greater choice and it is not just rosettes all recordings listened to get a mention and IMO a fair appraisal if that is not good enough and I hate to suggest this but they may actually be the best available at that time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Everyone has biases, although they are not necessarily ruled by them. I am generally more interested in the why of an opinion that the summary conclusion. And I evaluate a review substantially based on how well I think the argument (in a classical sense) is presented and sustained.


----------



## dillonp2020 (May 6, 2017)

I think the arts are the pinnacle of subjectivity, and no critic will have exactly my taste. Add that to the fact that they often have ulterior motives, I don't typically trust them. Since I'm not made of money, I like to pick and choose what recordings I buy, and I'll do some research on what the best recording is. That said, I won't make formulate my opinion solely based off of the writings of another.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

When I was still a wide-eyed freshman I discovered a few books by a certain Norman Lebrecht in my school's library. To put it succinctly, almost every conductor I've ever admired got lambasted and torn to shreds in his books. I've always liked Herbert von Karajan; Lebrecht hates the fellow with his guts. Lebrecht basically said his life was a moral wasteland and that he had zero artistic talent, only a glory-seeker. Plus a few juicy "anecdotes." It shocked me initially, but I came to the conclusion that most if not all of it was gossip with little basis in fact. I enjoy Karajan's work, and I'm going to keep enjoying it. Critics be darned. 
I know Lebrecht is a poor choice for gauging the behavior of critics, but I hardly ever pay attention to them. My ears are the only critic I need.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

JAS said:


> Everyone has biases, although they are not necessarily ruled by them. I am generally more interested in the why of an opinion that the summary conclusion. And I evaluate a review substantially based on how well I think the argument (in a classical sense) is presented and sustained.


I agree and that is what Penguin does, a work say 'Mufties St Qt #5 Op45' will have present recordings previewed and each one will be subject to a critique and if good enough awarded 1-2-3 stars or if it is outstanding a rosette, the reason will always be given you may not agree with the result but I have never been let down.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I prefer reading the recommendations posted by TC members. I think that we TC'ers are collectively much better informed than most critics!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I tend to believe all reputable critics. It's why I buy 50 recordings of a given work one day, sell them the next, and then regret having done so the day after that. Listening to critics is expensive but worth it, imo.


----------



## danj (Jun 1, 2017)

Not really -- no. People's taste are different. I have found a various a pieces from composer's unknown or "not famous" and I have loved them. Haydn's organ concertos to Beethoven Choral Fantasy, etc.


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> I actually said English


Yes... ?

I thought we were agreeing that British recordings _don't_ dominate.


----------



## FranzS (May 27, 2017)

Gordontrek said:


> I know Lebrecht is a poor choice for gauging the behavior of critics, but I hardly ever pay attention to them. My ears are the only critic I need.


Lebrecht is not a critic, even his Wikipedia page says so:
"Norman Lebrecht (born 11 July 1948 in London) is a British commentator on music and cultural affairs, a novelist, and the author of the classical music blog Slipped Disc."
He cannot even read a musical score...


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Yes... ?
> 
> I thought we were agreeing that British recordings _don't_ dominate.


OK, You could have said that :tiphat:


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Perfect critic example for me. I found a Bach cello suites on spotify and really liked it. Listened to all of it then parts of it the next day. Out of curiosity I looked at Amazon reviews, mostly positive. Looked at several critic reviews, two slammed it pretty hard and one pointed out a lot of faults but said the effort was good. I re listened to the parts the critics had issue with. I still liked the works enough to spend $4 on cds.
So no, critics don't matter to me. In fact I don't have much use for any professional critic.


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

*Amazon reviews getting worse?*



Merl said:


> Amazon reviews are generally crap but I do look at what the critics say and read between the lines. Sometimes I concur and sometimes I wonder if they have listened to the same thing as me. If it's a rave review on a few different sites then they are usually spot on but I don't base my buys on what they say - they're just a useful guide.


Often lately, Amazon shows me a review of a recording that is wildly different from the one under consideration. Is this getting worse? Do others notice this going on?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ I even found an amazon page yesterday that had the wrong picture - a jazz album for a Haydn CD. Their reviews have often been posted to the wrong records for some time. Their database is in a mess. But I avoid buying from them anyway.


----------



## WNvXXT (Nov 22, 2020)

I use them (critics) for purchases of pieces I already know I like. e.g. if I sample a piece from Current Listening Vol VII - I'll check my 2010 Penguin, then see what's available. Sometimes I'll go with the poster's recommended album and forgo the Penguin guide.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

I'm of the opinion that somewhere out there is a critic, publication or website that generally shares similar likes, dislikes, preferences, biases etc. as you do. The challenge is to find them. For me, it's Gramophone. They seem to rarely let me down and I like that they update their recommendations every now and then. I get it that their review will not meet with universal approval. That's inevitable.

If undecided, I sometimes use Presto to see what accolades a particular recording has earned or won, and if another recording has surpassed it.

As for Amazon reviews, I rarely read them.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*How much do you believe critics?*

Critics/reviews have not influenced my listening in decades. I may refer to them for information or news purposes, but what they say about the performance, or music, is irrelevant for me.


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I even found an amazon page yesterday that had the wrong picture - a jazz album for a Haydn CD. Their reviews have often been posted to the wrong records for some time. Their database is in a mess. But I avoid buying from them anyway.


I have found some quite impressive reviews on Amazon, particulary when you want to straighten out which recording is actually on a released CD. That said, there is an enormous amount of garbage. I rarely buy from Amazon. I prefer Presto, ClassicsSelect, SupraphonOnline, and QoBuz.

But, but, getting back to Amazon reviews, what goes on there? Hank Drake, who many like on tc, shows up there and he refers to Santa Fe Listener who no longer has his 5000 reviews appear on Amazon and who someone here on tc says is really Huntley Dent at Fanfare. Wha?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Do you rely on critics before buying a CD?_

Not in years but I did when I was young and didn't know anything. Once I bought, sold, traded and collected a few thousand recordings I came to understand what I wanted from music. At that point I no longer needed critics to tell me what they thought.

I don't think there's much question books like the Penguin Guide series and its antecedents greatly influenced CD and LP buying worldwide from the 1960s through its final issue 2010. These books were read by millions and they put recordings on the map no one would otherwise have known about. I know they were very influential on me as a young collector.

Today I still read publications but in the main to see what's new. I can usually tell just by reading a review if the music will be of interest to me. Whether or not the critic likes it is immaterial.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_But, but, getting back to Amazon reviews, what goes on there? Hank Drake, who many like on tc, shows up there and he refers to Santa Fe Listener who no longer has his 5000 reviews appear on Amazon and who someone here on tc says is really Huntley Dent at Fanfare. Wha?_

Fanfare magazine agreed to post its reviews on Amazon some months back. When that happened everything by the Amazon critic formerly known as Santa Fe Listener was redone in his name --Huntley Dent. Dent, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., now writes reviews for Fanfare. I don't think this affected other Amazon critics unless they were previously writing under a pseudonym and now write for Fanfare.


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

larold said:


> _But, but, getting back to Amazon reviews, what goes on there? Hank Drake, who many like on tc, shows up there and he refers to Santa Fe Listener who no longer has his 5000 reviews appear on Amazon and who someone here on tc says is really Huntley Dent at Fanfare. Wha?_
> 
> Fanfare magazine agreed to post its reviews on Amazon some months back. When that happened everything by the Amazon critic formerly known as Santa Fe Listener was redone in his name --Huntley Dent. Dent, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M., now writes reviews for Fanfare. I don't think this affected other Amazon critics unless they were previously writing under a pseudonym and now write for Fanfare.


I see there is an online resource where you can subscribe to the archives of Fanfare reviews. Has anyone tried this? Worth it?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

When full price CDs were around $20 (or the D mark equivalent) and magazines cheap or could be browsed without being bought I read them. Similarly for the Penguin guides etc. that were sometimes in stores. But I didn't adhere to particular reviewers. As a student funds were so limited anyway that I didn't buy much and when I could buy more I had access to the internet that had both reviews and discussion groups already in the more text based net of the mid-1990s, so was exposed to a much broader range of opinion than a handful of professional reviewers in magazines.
So overall, I do not "believe" critics and reviewers but many of them can offer valuable insights, point me towards stuff I'd have missed otherwise etc.
OTOH I have reached mostly saturation in the last few years. I am not going for the umpteenth recording of some warhorse, unless there seems a very good reason. Neither am a going for the fifth supposedly unfairly neglected too late romantic or high baroque composer. I have so much stuff on my shelves I have not heard properly and certainly not "digested". This has also reduced my interest in reviews and new recordings etc.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Sondersdorf said:


> I see there is an online resource where you can subscribe to the archives of Fanfare reviews. Has anyone tried this? Worth it?


I did at one time because I was compiling a critical discography of the List _Piano Sonata in B Minor_ and wanted access to reviews of older recordings (the Fanfare archive was just one of several I accessed). It is a good resource although a bit clunky in functionality.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I see there is an online resource where you can subscribe to the archives of Fanfare reviews. Has anyone tried this? Worth it?_

If you subscribe for $60 a year you get it. They have reviews going back to 1989.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*How much do you believe critics?*

I believe everything I read on this Talk Classical Forum, so ... what do you think my answer to that question is?


----------

