International Record Review magazine

I concur with what you said Chris.  Very sad to hear about this news.

Reviewers of recorded performances?

Who cares?

All opinion ... and most are wrong. Fashion changes, but real style is immutable ...

Welcome back George

Well George, it's an opinion I suppose...

In the old days I used to subscribe to the Gramophone Magazine, so as to know when a great recording had be [re]released as avertised in the releases page. I then ordered the issue. I sometimes would read a review a month or two later. Usually this annoyed me ...

Record reviewers are even less use than reviewers of Hifi components ... A plague of arm-chair faux-musicians ...

The problem is that it is opinion dressed up as fact!

ATB from George

Only if you read it as so. Reviewers don't as a rule supply IMHOs and smiley emoticons.

I wouldn't take a review as anything more than the author's opinion or take umbrage against them for doing so..

Which is something you never get on internet forums.

Dave

Its a FACT that :-

The best hifi retrieval is via a MAC mini

The best DAC is a DAC V1

the best amp is a Nap100

and the best loud speakers by a country mile are

Quad ELS 57s (as stacked pairs)

It is also a FACT that the only decent music available to the world was written by Bach

Whist the above appears to look like a “Statement” it isn’t. A fACT is far superior to any “Statement”

Dear Joe,

I read a review in the language it is couched. If the reviewer writes that the performance is too slow, too fast or just the right speed, then I assume he is taking onto himself [or herself though it is is usually a man] the Wisdom of Solomon in these matters, and the truth is that the reviewer's position is nothing more than another opinion. Sometimes they try and give a scientific veneer to what they write as if it could ever be the objective truth by scoring the criticism in numbers! If this is not an attempt to present their opinions as having superior value to the views of others, then I do not know what it is for!

Now you say that I took umbrage at the reviews! I did not. Sometimes they caused me to laugh out loud! But the funny thing is to find people taking reviews seriously, and that is why I made my initial post in this thread.

As Sir Thomas Beecham said of the possibility of a University Chair being set up in Music Criticism, "Better it be an an Electric chair then!" 

ATB from George

Dave

Well, I suppose that some of us are lucky enough to have the replay that we would choose given any amount of money. I am one of those lucky people. However, to say that it is a fact that my replay is the best for everyone is clearly wrong, or else there would be no market for different systems to mine!

I find the V1 to have a nice balance of characteristics, and no obvious or annoying flaw. That does mean that it is flawless! I am fairly sure that the NAP 100 is not the best amplifier ever made, though for the money it is phenomenal! Again I find no obvious or annoying aspect to it.

As for ESLs the situation is more clear cut. A wide range of people find that doing what they do best, they do this better than any other loudspeaker, but once again that does not actually make them the best speaker in World yet made, but rather they are widely regarded as one of the best yet made.

ALL IMO of course! 

ATB  from George

Amen to that, George.

Dear Don,

The only facts that I insist on are the observation in performance of proper musical style - a matter of Musicology, a study now nearly two centuries old [resulting in what is now called Historically Informed Practice] - and performance on the instruments stated by the composer.

In replay there are no absolutes. It is ALL opinion, by definition ...

My comments about replay are always a matter of relaying experiences as tempered by my opinion. Necessarily this is very largely subjective. 

Best wishes from George

George,

As has been said above, most of us happily accept that record reviews are an expression of the reviewer's opinion, whether that is expressly stated or not.

Life is too short for some of us to personally sample recorded music prior to purchase. If a reviewer says a piece of music is well recorded and that he enjoyed the performance, I might well buy it.

If the recording also turns out to be well recorded and enjoyable in my opinion, then I am likely to rely a bit more on this reviewer for my next adventure, rather than some other reviewer, especially one where his idea of "good" doesn't align with my idea.

Some magazines seemed to harbour better reviewers than others - IMHO obviously.

Dear Don,

I have been lucky that I had an alternative to believing reviews. Listening to Radio Three over more than four decades. Less now as Radio Three is not the station it used to be for better or worse for most people, but it has allowed me to find almost all the music I love. It also allowed me to listen carefully to how different performing artists played and interpreted the music.

Once I knew of a musician that I admired I made certain lateral choices based on what that favourite musician had also chosen to perform. This was a method that allowed me to to approach music on records without depending on critics to direct me to their enthusiasms rather than my own. 

When I took the Gramophone Magazine [1980 and the next ten years] I used to devour reviews. Not to learn anything very much beyond finding out if this reviewer or that made intelligent comments on music and recordings I already knew! It was an interesting thing to do, because there were certain critics I found pretty much shared my view of what was favourite music and performers. But mainly I studied the issues page to find out what recordings had come out of my favourite music, and who were the performers.

My love of music led to a certain and un-usual approach. I bought the musical score and often learned this off by heart. This is an invaluable method of discovering what is a good and what is a less good musical performance. Of course it did not stop there. I have read and thoroughly studied books like Dolmetcsh and Donnington on musicology, which covers every aspect of the music and stylish performance practice. In other words I became that rarest thing - a self-motivated musical scholar. 

From this perspective adding playing music and the study of performance practice from the stand-point of playing music, from the study of musicology, and from listening to music on radio, records, and at its best in concerts, then my view of certain reviewers is not always that complimentary. 

But it is an informed position, and one that has on times allowed me to have very probing conversations with some great performing musicians. I have never had a conversation with a music critic, either of recordings of live concerts ...

What does distress me is when someone quotes a critic that my understanding leads me to consider a charlatan, as a real authority!

Too many of them are. Fine that they have an opinion, but not if it is an opinion that is without authoritative knowledge of the whole subject. Unfortunately the position of knowing what a person likes, but not knowing why by rigorous study is not a correct position of authority on which to expound in an authoritative tone on the subject. That does lead me to question that critic or person quoting that critic, so sure. for example, if John eliot Gardiner were to criticise a performance by another top-flight artist, I might not agree with everything said, but it being said with real authority, it would be hard to ignore the points made, even if one did not find oneself agreeing with it all that much, but it should the cause of the thought at least. Many critics fall far short of that kind of true authority. Unfortunately though many performing musicians prove to have been superb musical analysts and critics [both of the music and performances] few actually publish their views, but rather reserve them for private writings such as diaries! They prefer to use their talent for the performance of music ... 

On the subject of buying music that has not been previously listened to [in performance in question] I can say this much. I have done more of it in the last twenty years than before that, but it based on knowing the artists performing, and wishing to explore this previously unheard music. 

This kind of exploration is great fun, but buying on critical reviewing is not in my experience fun at all!

I hope you forgive this long reply, but it is sent in good will, and I hope that you can read it as such.

Best wishes from George

A reviewer should describe some of the characteristics of a performance: tempi, repeats, layout of the orchestra (eg divided first and second violins for example), version performed, quality of recording, and perhaps some comparisons with other well regarded recordings of the same work.  A well-written and considered review can in itself give pleasure and be informative, though ultimately we should make up our own minds - a visit to Spotify, Tidal etc can often be useful before buying. We get to know, over time,who are the most trusted reviewers, in our opinion. 

Dear Chris,

By now with internet streaming of almost every recording available, then the critic's day is passed, as their opinion is never worth more than a proper listen to the intended recording. You hardly need to be told that the violins are divided left and right if you have a listen to the actual recording. 

As for the pleasure of reading well written prose. I am sure that this is true.

But I find I'd rather read something based in fact such a biography or history, rather than either fiction or critical review. 

An example of a critic who wrote well and with real authority was Michael Kennedy, and his biographies of composers, including Britten and Elgar, are indeed superbly written and I enjoyed reading them.

ATB from George

Dear George, I take your points.  However, there isn't always time to listen to everything you might like to sample.  Also, a good review can draw your attention to a recording you might otherwise have missed.  Yes, Michael Kennedy was a learned and good reviewer.  I still maintain that a critical review is often worth reading - if only to re-confirm one's prejudices!

Dear Chris,

Michael Kennedy even sent me to many interesting books beside his own on music! Through the references at the end of his biographies and so on ...

I almost always used to find myself in agreement with what he wrote, and even when I might have not found myself quite agreeing, his points were made from a real position of authority. Unfortunately he is not especially representative of the average music critic or even author of stylish prose. 

I can think of a handful of truly erudite critics, such as Edward Greenfield, Eric Blom, Cecil Grey [these two from and older era], Richard Osbourne, and Trevor Harvey for a few examples, but all too many others come out with basic howlers!

Some of the most interesting and perceptive writing [in the music criticism line] that I have read was from Sir Adrian Boult in his book on conducting, where he wrote excellent and perceptive chapters on his colleagues! Some were devastating in their directness discussing what Boult saw as basic faults of technique and musicianship. 

Another fascinating commentator who was also a practicing conductor was Hermann Scherchen, and his comments on Furtwangler [almost an exact contemporary of his] in his book on conducting are devastating and should be studied by anyone who admires Furtwangler. ...

Such authoritative criticism is fascinating whether one agree all that much or not, because it comes from a fellow practitioner. Ralph Vaughan Williams was privately very critical of Boult! RVW was not a great conductor, but he could easily see why he preferred his own music performed by Sir John Barbirolli instead of Sir Adrian Boult, even though Boult was a far greater advocate [in terms of number of concerts given] of his music than Barbirolli!

Anyway, it is nice to share these thoughts. 

Thanks from George

Dear George

Thanks for your further thoughts.  Boult was a very fine musician, an ultimate professional in the best sense of the word.  Barbirolli, though often more indulgent, was also a great conductor.  One of my favourite critics is Robert Layton - his writing on Sibelius in particular leads the field. 

Reviews have helped me exploring new music (in cases the review was positive). It hasn't kept me away from buying music I like, because it didn't have a favorable review.

Reviews are helpful as they give a wider perspective on what is on offer.

There are magazines that have reviewers I agree with more often than the reviewers of other magazines.

Those magazines get my money, because their reviewers' opinions are closer to my own.

But everything (their's and mine) remain subjective opinions and impressions.

A review invites debate, which is a good thing - a healthy consideration of a performance is to be welcomed.  Whether or not the listener agrees with the reviewer, it is good to read a different perspective.  A review encourages exploration of recordings one may otherwise ignore, or not even be aware of in the first place.  However, with the demise of IRR, how many other sources are worth looking at?  I welcome suggestions....