# Music critics trash and praise the same record



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Egg all over their faces...

http://ecclesiastes911.net/music_critics_trash_and_praiese_the_same_record/


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Oh yay, let's have a go at critics. Admittedly Mr Deacon's errors (a producer - enthusiast rather than an expert I would expect) occurred in close succession but 15 years stood between the other gent's reviews. But even so, what is the standard here? Unimpeachable objectivity and perfect memory? 

Also, that's 2 critics. I understand there are a lot of music critics (not all wonderful by any stretch of the imagination), but that probably doesn't matter if you just want to say "critics are awful"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I guess the point is that humans can be biased by things like brands. 

That's a phenomenal point. I'd think it should've been obvious by now, but if it wasn't, then we need to learn it ASAFP.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

F = frying, by the way. Like, hot and very bothered, as in, immediately.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2014)

Oh Lord, not Simkin again.

(Imagine a whole long string of explitives here.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. This is a rehash of the Malik trashing of Deacon, from the middle of the last decade. There must have been a 'history' between them, because Deacon was hardly alone in falling for the hoax. Malik expressed suspicion early on, and rode that fact for all it was worth - and then some.

[Edit - - I have several of the 'misattributed' CDs, on the covers of which I wrote the identified performer. The writing had no effect on the performances.]


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I just knew Simkin would get everyone hot under the collar... :devil:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The Gramophone magazine took great delight in exposing the Hatto fraud. However, when I wrote suggesting that certain of their reviewers should question their positions in the light of their double standards, I received no reply. Just proves that the 'experts' are not so expert after all! There were a lot more than two taken in! Even in spite of the hugely dubious circumstances in which the recordings were supposed to have been made.

See Jeremy Nicolas' obituary which hails her as one of the greatest British pianists:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/jul/10/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries1


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2014)

brianvds said:


> I just knew Simkin would get everyone hot under the collar... :devil:


A worthy goal, apparently.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I see that all the time in the journal I read. Two critics, one recommends, the other writes, stay away.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

some guy said:


> A worthy goal, apparently.


Not so much merely getting everyone worked up. I think Simkin has a very valid point, though he overstates it.

I notice that at the bottom of his article, there is a link to a page where one can go try to distinguish famous pianists from non-famous ones. I haven't tried it because I have a cap on my internet data, so I can't do much in the way of video or audio online. Perhaps some of our resident music experts want to do so.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

As an aside, I recall being annoyed with conductors--like HVK--who refused to allow blind auditions, despite complaints about egregious gender imbalances in their orchestras. Never occurred to me at the time that putting a sheet in front of the performers would present all kinds of new possibilities for practical jokes. Maybe it occurred to the conductors!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Yupp, they're people full of conditions and biases like the rest. Welcome to Earth.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Blancrocher said:


> As an aside, I recall being annoyed with conductors--like HVK--who refused to allow blind auditions, despite complaints about egregious gender imbalances in their orchestras. Never occurred to me at the time that putting a sheet in front of the performers would present all kinds of new possibilities for practical jokes. Maybe it occurred to the conductors!


It was, of course, Karajan who had a row with the BPO when get wanted to appoint a woman clarinettist, Sabine Meyer, against the wishes of the orchestra.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Rod Williams, writing in the Economist:

Of all the critics to have been fooled by Hatto none was more eminent than Bryce Morrison, a celebrated teacher, writer and broadcaster. An elegant stylist, with an encyclopedic knowledge of piano performance, Morrison has distilled the elusive genius of the great pianists in memorable prose. After Hatto died, Morrison was frequently visited by Barrington-Coupe, who bore handfuls of CDs and gifts of homemade jam. "Doubting Thomases, of which there are apparently many, may well wonder how Joyce Hatto achieved such unalloyed mastery and musicianship when tragically beset by ill health," Morrison wrote in a series of reviews designed to mark her achievement. "But others will surely celebrate an awe-inspiring triumph of mind over matter, of the indomitable nature of the human spirit." In Liszt, "her warmth, affection, ease and humanity strike you at every turn"; in Messiaen, he lauded "her very recognisable strength of character and personality"; in Mozart "Hatto trumps all the aces€¦above all, her warmth and humanity shine through page after page."
I was curious to know how Morrison looked back on this catalogue of error and asked him if felt he should have known better. "No, I don't," he told me. "I entirely disagree. I'd tell you if I did. I don't see any reason why I should know better. I'm not a cynic. I'm not. I had no evidence at the time it wasn't genuine. I think you are as a critic as objective as possible: thank God one's a human being. You are influenced by story. By someone's appearance. But if you're suggesting I was having my arm twisted by an extra-mural agenda, it is not true at all. I believe one has got to have a very strong sense of human empathy."
Yet Morrison's empathy for Hatto had surely warped his critical judgment. Several years ago his verdict on Yefim Bronfman's recording of Rachmaninov's Third Piano Concerto was that "the pianist operates at too low a voltage, he lacks the sort of angst and urgency which has endeared Rachmaninov to millions." Reviewing the same recording in its Hatto incarnation--it was one of the few that had not been tampered with--he declared it "among the finest on record€¦above all, everything is vitally alive and freshly considered." He went on to praise the soloist's "clarity and verve that will astonish even this concerto's most seasoned listeners."

You read the whole article

http://www.moreintelligentlife.co.uk/story/joyce-hatto-the-great-piano-swindle

And Morrison's reply:

http://moreintelligentlife.co.uk/story/hattogate-bryce-morrison-replies


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

It's a pretty good testimony for Morrison's humanity. It must have been a challenge for the 'hard-hearted' to remain unaffected by the Joyce Hatto story.

Depending on the circumstances, 'gullible' and 'touchable' may be the same thing, eh?


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2014)

brianvds said:


> I think Simkin has a very valid point


Care to defend this thought?



brianvds said:


> notice that at the bottom of his article, there is a link to a page where one can go try to distinguish famous pianists from non-famous ones.


And what would be the point of this? What criteria would one be using? If one were listening for eptness, one would be able to distinguish a polished performance from a less well-played one, but that wouldn't necessarily identify a famous pianist from a non-famous one.

And if one were listening for stylistic mannerisms, one would recognize the pianists one had heard before, but that's hardly identification, as one already knows the pianists one has heard before. So that would be pointless.

Dividing the world into famous and not famous is silly to start with. Famous performers can perform badly. Not famous performers can perform well. There's no way to tell the difference. All that's at work in that particular "test" is simply memory. You've heard a performer before. You recognize her quirks. Done. Not a big whoop. And certainly nothing to do with fame one way or another.

It might be probable that a famous musician only got that way by being a good performer, but being a good performer does not at all mean that that person is going to be famous.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianvds said:


> I just knew Simkin would get everyone hot under the collar... :devil:


Bores me actually, just another sophomoric twit.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ukko said:


> It's a pretty good testimony for Morrison's humanity. It must have been a challenge for the 'hard-hearted' to remain unaffected by the Joyce Hatto story.
> 
> Depending on the circumstances, 'gullible' and 'touchable' may be the same thing, eh?


Obviously we now have the benefit of hindsight, but the thought of a sick woman who had been at best a moderate (concert) pianist suddenly being able to produce over 100 recordings of some of the most challenging repertoire does strain credulity.
I think it proves that criticism is an exceedingly subjective realm, given excellence of technique, etc, expected today.
Of course the Joyce a Hatto story stirred us - it just happened to be mostly fiction!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I think it proves that criticism is an exceedingly subjective realm


Did that need to be proven?

Sadly, I guess it probably did.

The world sucks.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Did that need to be proven?
> 
> Sadly, I guess it probably did.
> 
> The world sucks.


Not quite sure why, but this gave me a good laugh. Jaded, jovial sarcasm poured from this.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Well the album may have a combo of good & bad stuff about it then.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

some guy said:


> Care to defend this thought?


You make the point yourself:



> And what would be the point of this? What criteria would one be using? If one were listening for eptness, one would be able to distinguish a polished performance from a less well-played one, but that wouldn't necessarily identify a famous pianist from a non-famous one.


So if there is no way to distinguish a famous from a non-famous pianist by the playing alone, then why are some famous and others not? Presumably, musicians get famous because they are genuinely better than others?

Simkin's whole point is that actually, it has little to do with how good you are. Musicians get famous via the Paris Hilton effect, i.e. they get famous for being famous, and once you have achieved a little fame, it becomes ever easier to use it to achieve even more.

But as I said, I think Simkin overstates his point, because listening to various recordings of a work, it will soon become clear to anyone with any ear at all that they are not genuinely all exactly equal. It is nevertheless a good idea to keep in mind that famous musicians are not necessarily all that much better, if at all, than non-famous ones.

Another point where I think Simkin misses the boat is simply that tastes tend to change over time, and what a critic likes today he might not like ten years from now. But here too, it would serve us all well to realize that music isn't rocket science, and there is much in its evaluation that is subjective.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It would seem that a good critic knows how to get to the objective meat of the piece. If it's all personal opinion then it's pretty much worthless. I really don't care if a certain melody makes him think about his dog Ralfy, or if he's simply not 'in the mood' for a particular work. They should be able to sift through all this nonsense.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_brianvds_: "So if there is no way to distinguish a famous from a non-famous pianist by the playing alone, then why are some famous and others not? Presumably, musicians get famous because they are genuinely better than others?"

Musicians 'get famous' because they are heard in the right places by the right people. The 'better' thing is usually determined by adroit performance of a work that 'works' for the significant audience. To restate: Without the significant audience, fame ain't happening.


----------



## cournot (Jan 19, 2014)

No one seems to address the other point that Morrison made. Granted he was trying to rationalize two wildly different reviews but he also said that the Hatto recording was altered to sound better (presumably warmer and fuller) than the "cold" and more analytic Sony recording of Bronfman. As someone who is fascinated by recorded sound, I am firmly in the camp that says that recording and playback quality greatly affect how we perceive a performance. In fact, I think it should be obvious that great sound matters -- hence, hearing a good orchestra give a decent performance of a well-known piece live can be a thrilling experience, while one would not care to listen too often to a recording of that same concert, especially if it were captured in poor sound and played back on a car stereo. Of course, it doesn't quite remove the gross inconsistencies between his views on the same performance, but the criticism would be more damning if it were the identical performance without sonic manipulation.

In fact, I wonder how many great (or even mediocre) but poorly recorded historical works in mono would still be recognizable if one somehow got a stereo master of the same piece, and reissued it with digital trickery to sound hifi ? Could we take some of the more dramatic versions of works that Pristine Audio has reissued in fake stereo, change them even further to distort the sound away from the original and see how many aficionados would recognize a famous performance by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Krauss, or Walter?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

cournot said:


> No one seems to address the other point that Morrison made. Granted he was trying to rationalize two wildly different reviews but he also said that the Hatto recording was altered to sound better (presumably warmer and fuller) than the "cold" and more analytic Sony recording of Bronfman. As someone who is fascinated by recorded sound, I am firmly in the camp that says that recording and playback quality greatly affect how we perceive a performance. In fact, I think it should be obvious that great sound matters -- hence, hearing a good orchestra give a decent performance of a well-known piece live can be a thrilling experience, while one would not care to listen too often to a recording of that same concert, especially if it were captured in poor sound and played back on a car stereo. Of course, it doesn't quite remove the gross inconsistencies between his views on the same performance, but the criticism would be more damning if it were the identical performance without sonic manipulation.
> 
> In fact, I wonder how many great (or even mediocre) but poorly recorded historical works in mono would still be recognizable if one somehow got a stereo master of the same piece, and reissued it with digital trickery to sound hifi ? Could we take some of the more dramatic versions of works that Pristine Audio has reissued in fake stereo, change them even further to distort the sound away from the original and see how many aficionados would recognize a famous performance by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Krauss, or Walter?


If you can trust the robots, you get a shot at an answer with the Zenph releases. I haven't heard any of them, and of course I don't trust myself to evaluate them honestly - in the first place, I don't have the knowledge, but the human mind being what it is, I don't trust _anyone_ to evaluate them honestly except in double-blind tests.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> If you can trust the robots, you get a shot at an answer with the Zenph releases. I haven't heard any of them, and of course I don't trust myself to evaluate them honestly - in the first place, I don't have the knowledge, but the human mind being what it is, I don't trust _anyone_ to evaluate them honestly except in double-blind tests.


My eyes-open listening indicates that some of the Zenph-ized performances are better than others. The Rachmaninoff I heard was bad enough that if he really sounded like that he wouldn't have made it out of Russia.


----------



## cournot (Jan 19, 2014)

Ukko said:


> My eyes-open listening indicates that some of the Zenph-ized performances are better than others. The Rachmaninoff I heard was bad enough that if he really sounded like that he wouldn't have made it out of Russia.


I've debated getting a Zenph or two. Are there any you strongly recommend? Have you listened to them on a high quality audio system?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Zenph seems to be out of the re-performance business. The main one to have is the re-performance of Gould's 1955 Goldberg Variations, which is quite fine.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I really want the Tatum one but I haven't got or heard it.


----------

