BBC Magazine's Reviews: a Curious Decision

[Mister Sharpe]

I just read in the current issue of BBC Music Magazine that they will no longer include, as a separate, graded component of reviews, one pertaining to engineering or recorded sound quality. Their editors' reasoning?  They say that with so many diverse forms of recordings these days that it makes less sense to do so. I can't and don't buy that myself.  (Recordings will still be given a performance-based grade, 1-5 stars).  I think it's safe to assume that reviewers may still bring-up any engineering issues encountered in the context of their reviews. Still, I vigorously disagree with this editorial change.  Among other things, I fear that an otherwise wonderful performance might now meet (human nature being what it is) with a lesser overall grade from engineering that is neither the musician/s' fault nor his/her/their responsibility. Bad move, BBC.

[DavidW]

What do they mean by diverse forms of recordings?? I would think that SQ would be easier to evaluate and score as compared to performances, which is more a matter of taste, since the technical prowess of recording classical musicians is extraordinarily high.

[Brian]

Maybe they mean too many people are listening on Beats or earbuds or TVs or phones? Because there really are not many forms of recordings...?

It is surprising and noteworthy when a recording made these days does NOT have satisfactory sound.

[Daverz]

More "diverse" forms of recording seems like a nice way to say there are more lousy recordings.  The advertisers probably don't like the "negativity" of the sonic ratings.   

[Wanderer]

More "diverse" forms of recording seems like a nice way to say there are more lousy recordings.  The advertisers probably don't like the "negativity" of the sonic ratings.   

That and the reviewers probably want to pontificate on recordings while listening to them on their Airpods or computer speakers.

[Irons]

In the "Golden Age" when record labels had an identity and sound engineers, people like Kenneth 'Wilkie' Wilkinson and Lewis Leyton, enjoyed legendry status, sonics on occasions became more important then performance. A case of tail wagging the dog but this was sometimes the case. It would not surprise me in the least if on a brand new recording I read Recording Engineer: A1. I do not buy many current recordings but the ones I do sound OK. Is good sound a topic anymore?

[DavidW]

More "diverse" forms of recording seems like a nice way to say there are more lousy recordings.  The advertisers probably don't like the "negativity" of the sonic ratings.   

But that is just not true. The sound quality is excellent, whether from major labels or small labels.

I would like to see the exact quote, not a paraphrase, Mr. Sharpe, no offense intended.

[Daverz]

But that is just not true.

You can't handle the truth!     

A lot more in-concert recordings are being made in less controlled conditions.  Balances often suffer for it.  And too many recordings are being made in venues with poor acoustics.

[Brian]

Actually that is true, a lot of self financed Naxos piano and solo recitals by no-nams artists are recorded in awful rehearsal halls at American public universities. Norbert Kraft retiring or quitting from producing their recitals was a big loss for them.

[Mister Sharpe]

Thanks for your interesting and valuable comments and an apology is in order as I erred in my post. (David W is correct in his suspicions that a quote would be appropriate).  I rechecked that issue (June) and the review editor explicitly states that engineering will indeed be judged but subsumed under the general star rating along with performance. My concerns about that remain.  Even more oddly to my mind, BBC Music's change is not (as I sloppily stated) a matter of "diverse forms of recordings" but "because people listen to music [my emphasis] in so many ways." ("Do you sit in a comfortable chair near some very expensive speakers? Do you use earphones, or a smart speaker? Maybe you listen in the car, or while jogging!").  Still not happy with the 'logic' (?) of their decision, and I can't help but think they will encounter some headwinds on this editorial change. 

[DavidW]

Well, Brian was right!

I'm also not happy with the logic. It only matters when listening critically in a quiet place, but it does matter then. SQ doesn't matter to people who are listening on the go, distracted, etc., but that is only true for some people some of the time. And distracted listening has been a reality ever since the invention of the car radio and later the Sony Walkman. This is not something that magically came true in the past year.

Finally, if people are distracted, they are probably not critically evaluating the performance anyway. And they are not reading the reviews either! So, who is this really for?

[Mister Sharpe]

Anent the SQ question: I was curious about how the previous issue's (May) reviewers rated the engineering on their recordings, so I counted them.  One Star ("poor"): 0; Two Stars ("disappointing"): 2; Three Stars ("good"): 7; Four Stars ("excellent"): 20; Five Stars ("outstanding"): 21.  The overwhelming tilt toward excellence in SQ could well have been - as Brian suggested about it, generally - persuasive in their decision to drop that rating in reviews. So what's your guess; will readers complain? While many listeners do listen through n'importe quoi means, I believe there is a growing audiophile segment that will resent the change.

[Roasted Swan]

I suspect that although the general listening public engage with their chosen music genre via a variety of platforms and - more importantly - listening environments, a (slightly?) larger proportion of CM listeners engage in a more 'traditional'/focussed manner.  This might be via high end headphones or an audio set-up dedicated to listening.  The more dedicated the set-up the more sensitive the listener becomes to technical shortcomings.  So by extension that listener will be more concerned that the recording quality matches that of their system.

Personally, I only have an upper-mid range system and that's not set-up ideally so I have to say I find most modern engineering to be pretty good.  Certainly good enough to allow me to hear the music and the intentions (as I perceive them) of the performer(s).  But of course this is before you factor in an individual listener's own subjective preference for what makes a recording "good" - pin point clarity or Telarc-style bass drums.....!!??  So I do have some sympathy for the BBC Mag (and their reviewers) trying to fix an absolute value/number of stars on something that is no more than a personal opinion.  But of course, exactly the same can be said about the "performance" quality/rating too......

[Brian]

This reminds me a bit of a record label named Fondamenta, about 10 years ago, that would release each album as a 2CD set where the first one had a normal dynamic range and the second had a restricted dynamic range for playing on car stereos.