What are you listening 2 now?

[Madiel]

Joyce Hatto Ingrid Haebler is also very good in the Mozart piano sonatas.

This hilarious review left egg all over Gramophone's face: https://www.gramophone.co.uk/review/mozart-complete-piano-sonatas-1

I knew before clicking that there must be a comparison with Haebler in the review. Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch.

[Florestan]

I knew before clicking that there must be a comparison with Haebler in the review. Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch.

I wonder whether after the Hatto hoax was exposed Bryce Morrison made mea culpa and retired or, on the contrary, kept writing reviews as if nothing had happened.

[Roasted Swan]

For a bit of fun once I was challenged to do "blind comparisons" of a piece I (thought) I knew extremely well.  In the course of my learned discussion I compared the relative merits of one blind version against my favourite/well-known version and of course found the blind version to be far inferior...... you know where this is going..... yes indeed the blind version was my favourite.

My conclusions from this cringingly embarassing mistake by me was that memory plays crazy tricks on you.  I think - especially where you do have favoured versions - probably unless you listen to them every single day(!) they become elevated unconciously onto a pedestal of perfection.  So when heard again unknowingly the "innocent" ear hears blemishes in execution/interpretation/recording whatever that the predjudiced ear edits out.

Now of course as someone being paid for his opinion and knowing that it had the potential to influence attitudes to this "new" recording, Bryce Morrison should have listened a-fresh to his reference performance.  But I bet a combination of certainty dangerously allied to a degree of laziness and/or lack of time meant he went with his recollections....

I suspect all avid listeners to any style of music believe they have clear and accurate personal assessments/memories of performances/recordings.  But then conversely I am sure we have all also had experience of returning to a given version of something only to find that our intial opinion of the work/recording etc for good or ill has radically changed....

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Schuman: Violin Concerto
Tubin: Double Bass Concerto

Two formidable concertos packed with engaging dissonances.

I've heard that William Schuman CD before and enjoyed it. 

PD

[Madiel]

For a bit of fun once I was challenged to do "blind comparisons" of a piece I (thought) I knew extremely well.  In the course of my learned discussion I compared the relative merits of one blind version against my favourite/well-known version and of course found the blind version to be far inferior...... you know where this is going..... yes indeed the blind version was my favourite.

My conclusions from this cringingly embarassing mistake by me was that memory plays crazy tricks on you.  I think - especially where you do have favoured versions - probably unless you listen to them every single day(!) they become elevated unconciously onto a pedestal of perfection.  So when heard again unknowingly the "innocent" ear hears blemishes in execution/interpretation/recording whatever that the predjudiced ear edits out.

Now of course as someone being paid for his opinion and knowing that it had the potential to influence attitudes to this "new" recording, Bryce Morrison should have listened a-fresh to his reference performance.  But I bet a combination of certainty dangerously allied to a degree of laziness and/or lack of time meant he went with his recollections....

I suspect all avid listeners to any style of music believe they have clear and accurate personal assessments/memories of performances/recordings.  But then conversely I am sure we have all also had experience of returning to a given version of something only to find that our intial opinion of the work/recording etc for good or ill has radically changed....

I think that one of the big problems is people assuming their experience of music is absolute. It isn't. It's contextual.

Not only does your experience of music depend on what sort of mood, energy etc. you have at that point in time, it VERY much depends on what other music you heard recently. I mean, composers actually exploit this in multi-movement works (and good pop artists do it in albums as well), which is why it surprises me so much that so many people don't seem to appreciate how important context is, and how readily it can affect whether you respond to the music or don't.

This doesn't mean that a like or a dislike isn't reproducible. But it's more like a statistical chance than an absolute. Favourite music or favourite performances are things that I tend to like, not that I'm guaranteed to like every time. The memory of liking it in the past is perfectly valid, but it's a memory of a past experience, not a perfect template for every future experience where at least some of the context must inevitably be different.

[Roasted Swan]

I think that one of the big problems is people assuming their experience of music is absolute. It isn't. It's contextual.

Not only does your experience of music depend on what sort of mood, energy etc. you have at that point in time, it VERY much depends on what other music you heard recently. I mean, composers actually exploit this in multi-movement works (and good pop artists do it in albums as well), which is why it surprises me so much that so many people don't seem to appreciate how important context is, and how readily it can affect whether you respond to the music or don't.

This doesn't mean that a like or a dislike isn't reproducible. But it's more like a statistical chance than an absolute. Favourite music or favourite performances are things that I tend to like, not that I'm guaranteed to like every time. The memory of liking it in the past is perfectly valid, but it's a memory of a past experience, not a perfect template for every future experience where at least some of the context must inevitably be different.

That is a REALLY GOOD explanation - I'll try to remember it!!

[AnotherSpin]

For a bit of fun once I was challenged to do "blind comparisons" of a piece I (thought) I knew extremely well.  In the course of my learned discussion I compared the relative merits of one blind version against my favourite/well-known version and of course found the blind version to be far inferior...... you know where this is going..... yes indeed the blind version was my favourite.

My conclusions from this cringingly embarassing mistake by me was that memory plays crazy tricks on you.  I think - especially where you do have favoured versions - probably unless you listen to them every single day(!) they become elevated unconciously onto a pedestal of perfection.  So when heard again unknowingly the "innocent" ear hears blemishes in execution/interpretation/recording whatever that the predjudiced ear edits out.

Now of course as someone being paid for his opinion and knowing that it had the potential to influence attitudes to this "new" recording, Bryce Morrison should have listened a-fresh to his reference performance.  But I bet a combination of certainty dangerously allied to a degree of laziness and/or lack of time meant he went with his recollections....

I suspect all avid listeners to any style of music believe they have clear and accurate personal assessments/memories of performances/recordings.  But then conversely I am sure we have all also had experience of returning to a given version of something only to find that our intial opinion of the work/recording etc for good or ill has radically changed....

Yes. Our perceptions are momentary and infinitely variable.  Also, completely conditioned by outside influences. What is attractive one minute will be repulsive the next. Therefore, any evaluations and verdicts are laughable, especially "objective" and "scientific" ones. All objects are changeable, only the perceiving subject is unchanging.

[AnotherSpin]

Quintette

[Traverso]

Mahler

Symphony No.6

 

 

[Todd]

[Harry]

Paul le Flem.
Chamber Music.
See back cover for all details.

[Brian]

I knew before clicking that there must be a comparison with Haebler in the review. Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch.

And they didn't even publish a correction!

If there was a 'post of the month' style award I'd nominate your follow-up comment about the context of our listens.

TD

[Traverso]

Bach

[Spotted Horses]

And they didn't even publish a correction!

If there was a 'post of the month' style award I'd nominate your follow-up comment about the context of our listens.

TD

You're reminding me of how much I enjoyed Saygun when I listed through the series some years ago!

[Harry]

Sergei Lyapunov.
12 Études d'exécution transcendante op.11.
Etsuko Hirose, Piano.
See details back cover.

[Todd]

[Roasted Swan]

Respighi: Concerto a cinque, for oboe, horn, double bass, violin, piano and strings
Linde: Cello Concerto

The Cello Concerto by the Swedish composer Bo Linde should be better known. A worthy addition to the repertoire. Fortunately it receives a confident and satisfying rendition on this Naxos disc.

I'd picked up the Linde disc cheap a few months ago but was prompted by your post to listen for the 1st time.  Very good immediate impressions - the violin concerto is quite Walton-esque I thought (a good thing in my book) similar sort of nostalgic but biting harmony and lots of jagged rhythms and melodic shapes - not jazzy but wouldn't have been written that way if there had never been any jazz.... (does that make sense?!)

[Florestan]

Yes. Our perceptions are momentary and infinitely variable.  Also, completely conditioned by outside influences. What is attractive one minute will be repulsive the next. Therefore, any evaluations and verdicts are laughable, especially "objective" and "scientific" ones. All objects are changeable, only the perceiving subject is unchanging.

The only objective thing in a review is the fact that the recording(s) exists. Everything else is highly subjective and indeed heavily context-dependent, starting with the vocabulary itself, which under the appearance of both intellectual and emotional sophistication is often pleonastic and/or nonsensical.

[AnotherSpin]

The only objective thing in a review is the fact that the recording(s) exists. Everything else is highly subjective and indeed heavily context-dependent, starting with the vocabulary itself, which under the appearance of both intellectual and emotional sophistication is often pleonastic and/or nonsensical.

Factual, quantitative parameters, instead of qualitative ones. Pleonasms or not, what difference does it make if criticism only scratches the surface without penetrating inside. Regarding subjectivity, I'm not sure how the externally conditioned can be subjective.

[Spotted Horses]

The only objective thing in a review is the fact that the recording(s) exists. Everything else is highly subjective and indeed heavily context-dependent, starting with the vocabulary itself, which under the appearance of both intellectual and emotional sophistication is often pleonastic and/or nonsensical.

That fact that the recording exists is usually the most important fact conveyed. There are other more-or-less objective things that can be said (modern instruments or period, tempo fast or slow, recording reverberant or dry, repeats taken or not taken). The reviewers opinion as to whether the recording is good or bad is typically not valuable to me, but some of the more-or-less objective criteria can be useful in deciding if I should be interested.