Not your usual classical music reviews

OK, I know that magazines depend mostly from advertising revenue to survive.  In other words revenue from labels, etc.Revenue from subscriptions is insignificant. Surely, there must be a way to balance profitability against simply kowtowing to the labels and other clients, etc. There has to be a way of keeping a good working relationship with the labels and keeping their business while at the same time preserving journalistic integrity.

Really with reviews it depends how you use them. I am quite interested in concert reviews if I was at the concert, really not very interested in CD reviews whether commercial or independent. With regard to Gramophone or BBCMM (are we allowed to mention that?) I generally see the reviews as part of the advertising, so the main function is to make me aware of the existence of a recording.  A positive review has little impact on me as there are so many and I feel they are basically designed to talk up the industry - which is fine by the way, if everything got talked down there'd be no sales and no industry. However where a review signals a problem I don't ignore it, even if the reviewer is otherwise puffing the recording. For example, a slight reservation about the recording quality usually means a disk is borderline unacceptable and should be avoided. On certain labels though - I would call them independents but they are so associated with G that they are more like co-dependents - I don't believe anything in the reviews and I almost never buy the disks.

All that said, for years now I have rarely looked at G and buy things based on my interests. If you want a recording of Rihm or Boulez, say, you pretty much have to buy the one that exists, and if you like the LSO or Renee Fleming then you have to buy disks recorded by the LSO or Renee Fleming. Slightly crude as an approach, I know. Oh and if they aren't much cop you find that out when you listen to them.

Yes - as you can see I've got it all worked out. ;-)

The Editor's comment on artists' replies reminds me of a copy of a letter the great Alfred Brendel wrote to the Gramophone following a review of his Vox Turnabout recording of Schubert's three pieces D946 in the early 1960s showing some testiness but also his sense of humour. Stephen Plaistow had criticised Brendel's omission of part of the first piece and suggested Brendel might be better looking at the likes of Hummel. Brendel replied he omitted the part because Schubert had crossed it out in the autograph score and whilst the urtext edition printed the part a footnote commented on the fact the composer had deleted it. He ended up saying Plaistow might take up reviewing horse racing! A copy of the letter is printed in the notes to a Vox 6 CD set including the (unsurpassed) recording of the pieces concerned. What I don't know though is, did Gramophone print the letter!

Just listened last night to his first Mozart concerto recording, K 453 No 17 on a Vox/Turnabout CD. Sheer magic; a wonderful quirkiness playing along with the tuttis, erratic speeds in the last movement, his sense of wonder & mischief; fantastic & never bettered!

I was somewhat startled by the Editor´s contribution to this post. Why would a reviewer of any integrity decline to review a disc in any circunstances?, and why would an Editor allow them such a privilege?, I would have thought that the Editor tells them what to review, end of story. I certainly don´t think this was always the case as I frequently have read negative reviews and editorials of recordings, performers, works and even listeners in the past. One I particularly enjoyed was MacKenzie berating Proms audiences for applauding everything indiscriminately, and that their main concern seemed to be shouting louder than the audience the previous night. Nobody wants negative reviews just for the sake of it, but it seems there is far too much agreement in a world were opinions, of listeners, forum posters etc., are very often diametrically opposed. Why don´t Gramophone reviews show that? Is it because we just don´t know what we are talking about, or that modern recordings are of a much more similar level of quality than before? I remember one of your Top Ten columns was something like the Top Ten most mistaken reviews. I found myself agreeing with most of them, and moreso applauding the reviewers for having the courage of their convictions and saying exactly what they felt, not worried a jot about what posterity might make of their opinions, such worries are the death of reviewing in my opinion.  I was also disappointed to see that the Lortie Beethoven Piano Sonatas review is a mere two paragraphs.

I've often thought reviews are too sanitised today. So more power to those who are prepared to call it as it is.

I had a quick look at some past issues. These are some of the most negative quotes I can find from 50, 40 and 30 years ago (all orchestral recordings).

Dec 1960 - 'I have found it difficult to listen to [it] at all, let alone judge. No, this just won't do.''
'The record is made completely unacceptable through technical shortcomings'.
'This is the first record of [Beethoven's] Second Symphony at a bargain price, but I can hardly advise anyone to take advantage of it.'
'Altogether it seems to me a bored and boring performance.'
Incidentally a couple of these are from EG who is still going strong!

Dec 1970 - 'The sound of the orchestra for a start, with scrawny string tone, is of no real quality; the playing, too which is no more than routine and sometimes not even as good as that.' 'Not a recommendable record, even at its moderate price.' 'I can't conceal a feeling of disappointment'. 'Turning to the recording, I unfortunately have to continue my tale of woe.'

Dec 1980 - 'This record must be regarded as serviceable rather than distinguished.' 'Ormandy's new version, for all the brilliant Philadelphia playing, sounds superficial'. 'This new version of the Four Seasons came as a disappointment'.

My feeling is that there is a long standing process of toning down negative language, for whatever reasons. Hence our need to read between the lines as indicated above.

Panda1961, I can assure you that I could find reviews as negative as anything from previous decades in the pages of Gramophone without having to look for too long, but it doesn't seem a very nice thing to do, so I'll refrain!

Well James you would have to look pretty hard sometimes, for instance in the orchestral section of the Dec 2010 issue there aren't any which come anywhere near that degree of negativity - one or two are luke warm but that's about it. Not an uncommon observation from issue to issue either I'm afraid.