Reviewers you rate ... and those you don't

[Mark]

It's fairly well known around here that I don't hold much store by the opinions of (admittedly learned and experienced) classical CD reviewers. Any hint of bias towards performers of a particular nationality, or only those of the dim, distant past, or perhaps a specific record label makes me somewhat suspicious of their views. Besides which, I've been burned before now by buying on the strength of reviewers' recommendations (that disappointing, over-hyped Vanska Beethoven Ninth on BIS being just one example ).

However, as I take three printed publications each month - BBC Music magazine, Gramophone and Classic FM (I buy the last of these for light relief only) - I naturally get to compare and contrast the opinions of dozens of regular reviewers. One in particular stands out: Calum MacDonald, whose real name is Malcolm MacDonald. I almost always buy or add to my wishlist any recording praised by him (supposing I'm interested in it, naturally), as I've had several great experiences buying CDs he's given the thumbs up. Don't ask me which, however: I recycle magazines pretty swiftly, and keep no record of which reviewer recommended which disc on my shelves (if indeed, any reviewer did), instead keeping a mental note of the reviewers whose opinions steered me safely to musical heaven.

By contrast, the reviews of Harriet Smith (former BBC Music magazine Editor, now reviewer and Gramophone columnist), despite being eloquently and entertainingly written, usually lead me into trouble. Ditto (and in particular) the opinions of Jed Distler, who I find either praises too readily, or finds too many faults. Again, don't quiz me on specifics: I no longer recall what I bought on the suggestion of this pair, but I do know it didn't satisfy.

So, as I thumbed BBC Music magazine this evening and spied a couple of promising reviews by Calum MacDonald, I thought to myself, 'We could use a thread on this.' And here it is.

Which reviewers do you rate, and which would you rubbish (in part or in whole)?

[Solitary Wanderer]

I don't get any classical music magazines, but I've been considering getting one...


However at this stage my most reliable source of recommendations is from this book:



Its written by sixteen different reviewers although who wrote what is not identified. I have found it to be an excellent book for key works by a wide range of composers, informative biographical information about composers I'm less familiar with and, most importantly, lots of key cd recommendations covering classic to modern recordings and usually several options of each. From there I cross-reference interesting looking titles on-line.

I will exhaust the book one day but at the moment its 'The Bible'. 

[Mark]

I too frequently become infuriated (to the point of wanting to tear out pages) with some of what I see as the rubbish printed in both the Gramophone's annual tome, and in the much-esteemed Penguin guide. An example of such peeved fury would be occasions on which, while browsing these titles in bookstores, I decided to inspect their views on Rachmaninov's All-night Vigil and Saint-Saens' Third Symphony - two works I know well and of which I have copious recordings. Let's just say I wasn't at all impressed with their top choices; nor did I particularly catch aflame at their suggestions for the best recordings of Sibelius' Violin Concerto and Grieg's Piano Concerto. That was the point at which I convinced myself I could do without the sermons of such 'Bibles'.

[Lilas Pastia]

I like most reviews from American Record Guide. Esp. their scandinavian music reviews, always thorough and illuminating. I don't care about Don Vroon's rantings, he writes very few reviews. But his team is very capable.

Hurwitz in his 10/10 mode is interesting to read, if only because he covers so much little-known music.

I'm done with Gramophone (as credible as Hatto) and Diapason or other french publications - they, too, in their very different way stretch credulity to breaking point.

A good review must convey the writer's impressions, but he must first make clear that he has done his homework. It should use comparisons when possible and end up making a recommendation: buy or pass.

[Mark]

A good review must convey the writer's impressions, but he must first make clear that he has done his homework. It should use comparisons when possible and end up making a recommendation: buy or pass.

Perfect. Couldn't have put it more succinctly if I'd tried.

[AnthonyAthletic]

Anyone here think the odd, or perhaps quite a few Reviewers take the odd Bung or Backhander?  To promote a certain cd/recording?

Happens in everyday life, the odd little clandestine comp here and there and an average cd is now a good rec.  (depends on who's reviewing it of course) 

[DavidW]

Hurwitz in his 10/10 mode is interesting to read, if only because he covers so much little-known music.

That's well said, when he's not making a fuss about bitchslapping something he is usually interesting to read.

[Renfield]

I'm done with Gramophone (as credible as Hatto) and Diapason or other french publications - they, too, in their very different way stretch credulity to breaking point.

A good review must convey the writer's impressions, but he must first make clear that he has done his homework. It should use comparisons when possible and end up making a recommendation: buy or pass.

Strange that I find the Gramophone, which you dismiss in the first of the above phrases, as a classical music periodical the reviews in which often satisfy the criteria specified in the second.

Obviously, they are as biased as almost 100% of British sources, when it comes to all things British; but also like most British sources that have "done their homework", they are very credible indeed, when it comes to international recordings.

Also, there's this thing that British critics excel at, and that's carefully shaping their presentation of something (e.g. a new CD), in a manner that serves their purposes (e.g. British bias), yet does so while maintaining an undercurrent of objectivity:

If you read their review for the Rattle Mahler 2nd, for instance, you might notice how certain objective facts about the performance are presented (and apparently perceived) as "relevatory", in a purely subjective manner.

Yet disregard the subjective terms in that same review, which I will apologise for not quoting directly, and what remains is a collection of aesthetic facts about the performance. In other words, exactly what I want.

After all, the reason I turn to such a periodical - or any source of opinions, reviews and/or recommendations - to begin with, is for some key aesthetic and musicological observations on a recording, not an "opinion guide".


Hence, the Gramophone covers me, to answer the question in the original topic; Edward Greenfield, Richard Osborne (when properly decoded), the late Alan Blyth and, on occasion, Bryce Morrison being the reviewers I most often find myself nodding in agreement to.

[Harry]

I am my own critic. I know many musicians, on the basis of having a extensive knowledge of their style of playing, and listening to a lot of music by radio or concerts. This knowledge almost never fails me. That said, Gramophone is my update of what is new, but I never ever buy records because of their reviews. All written is subjective, as is my knowledge, but that at least is my subjectivity, and that suits me well.
I buy at least more than 500 cd's a year, and the refuse bin contains only 2 cd's so far, so I can trust my ears. New releases info I get through my extensive network of contacts in that world, and sometimes far before it gets in the shops.
Also I have a network of musical friends all over the world, that send me new local recordings, otherwise not available in the world, and vice-versa.
So no reviewers rating, but rather the rating of the people I know well, that works better as some unknown critic.

[marvinbrown]

Which reviewers do you rate, and which would you rubbish (in part or in whole)?

  Mark you might be surprised to hear this from me but I usually go to the members of the GMG forum (yes everyone here!) when I need advice on which recordings are good and which are not so good.  GMG is excellent in this regard because not only are the members here so knowledgable (as I have come to know) but there is the added benefit of discussions between the GMG members which sheds more light on various recordings.  This you do not or (might not always) get  when you read reviews published in journals, reference books etc. 

  marvin

[Mark]

I'm actually rather glad you raised GMG as a source of reviews, Marvin. I agree that there are many benefits to getting information about recordings from this place, particularly the added insights to be gained here for which there is simply no room in a space-conscious magazine.

[Harry]

  Mark you might be surprised to hear this from me but I usually go to the members of the GMG forum (yes everyone here!) when I need advice on which recordings are good and which are not so good.  GMG is excellent in this regard because not only are the members here so knowledgable (as I have come to know) but there is the added benefit of discussions between the GMG members which sheds more light on various recordings.  This you do not or (might not always) get  when you read reviews published in journals, reference books etc. 

  marvin

Of course Marvin, that is also a source of knowledge for me. Some selected members give for me valuable info, wether to buy or not. Those opinions I respect and take into account. On that basis I made a lot of buying decisions.

[George]

I mention this book whenever this topic comes up (dtwilbanks also recommends it):



Click here to search inside.

If you click on "surprise me," you can read some of the reviews.

This book has helped me find hundreds of great recordings.

[dtwilbanks]

I mention this book whenever this topic comes up (dtwilbanks also recommends it):



Click here to search inside.

If you click on "surprise me," you can read some of the reviews.

This book has helped me find hundreds of great recordings.

Yes, I do. Tons of fun info in there.

[longears]

re. Gramophone:

The reviews are often insightful.  I usually read at least the "Editor's choices" each month and have been turned on to some good stuff that way.  However, the "recommended recordings" on their website suck--I just took a look at their Sibelius, for instance, and a more flaccid lot of discs is hard to imagine (excepting Segerstam's Legends--a fine recording, even if it falls short of the magic of Franck's contemporaneous disc).

[Renfield]

re. Gramophone:

[T]he "recommended recordings" on their website suck--I just took a look at their Sibelius, for instance, and a more flaccid lot of discs is hard to imagine (excepting Segerstam's Legends--a fine recording, even if it falls short of the magic of Franck's contemporaneous disc).

On that we are agreed. On occasion, I'm getting the feeling that website is the domain of only one reviewer, hoping to "side-step" the recommendations of others, and promote his/her own favourites.

[Lilas Pastia]

I was a Gramophone subscriber for about 20 years. I let my subscription run out in 1994. For a number of years the reviews had become less interesting. The more I knew about music, the more critical I became of their critics. My local library has a subscription and I check it from time to time, but matters have not improved, loin de là...

[The new erato]

Martin Anderson is my favorite. His preferences seems to coincide with mine, he is interested in the kind of music I am interested in, and he writes informatively. Always liked Robert Laytons writngs on Nordic music as well. They both can be found in the IRR which is my one indispensable magazine besides online reviews, though for sentimental reasons I've kept my Gramophone subscription.

[not edward]

I was a Gramophone subscriber for about 20 years. I let my subscription run out in 1994. For a number of years the reviews had become less interesting. The more I knew about music, the more critical I became of their critics. My local library has a subscription and I check it from time to time, but matters have not improved, loin de là...

Much the same for me, if you replace 20 by 10 and 1994 by 1999.

I'm not sure what that proves other than that I'm one of those lousy young whippersnappers who doesn't respect his elders.

[Don]

I don't usually pay attention to the names of reviewers, but three do stick in my mind:

Hurwitz - does most of the reviews on ClassicsToday.
Vroon - Writing style and off-beat comments on ARG.
Jerry Dubins of Fanfare - Very outspoken and hated by some other Fanfare reviewers who are jealous as to how he can review so many recordings each month.