Who do you trust among the critics?

Tend to agree that reviewing is 90% puffery. Remember one year a reviewer uttered the phrase 'this will definitely be one of my discs of the year' - at the time when Gramophone reported the favorites of all its reviewers. I bought the disk. But it was not subsequently among that writer's (six) discs of the year, nor was it anybody elses, nor did it ever get mentioned in the magazine ever again. Add the ludicrous puffery around Hatto - and Bryce Morrison's famous declaration that Hatto was far superior to Haebler (the Hatto recordings WERE the Haebler) - and I got the picture, I think we all did.

That said, reviewers have to be forgiven their enthusiasm. If there were not periodicals like Gramophone pushing this stuff then there would be less money (even) in the music industry. I treat reviews as what they are - an enthusiastic notice that something new and perhaps interesting has come along - and that's fine. Like others, I already know what I like and am not easily influenced, but I do welcome the fact that there are people at least trying to intrdouce me to new stuff.

The Wikipedia entry on Joyce Hatto has this link:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/hattogate-bryce-morrison-replies

Then, we don't need the critics, reviewers, etc., mussessein, in the first place. And, if we don't need them, why we bother to discuss about them?

I trust their role is to add their whatever expertise incorporated in their opinion, so that their review could make a positive contribution in the general but also in our own perception of the performance/recording in question. In some cases, this has been quite useful and constructive. However, nowadays, it tends to be a plain account of their quite personal opinion and nothing more. In the worse cases, other motives (commercial, etc.) intervene and, then, we have the result(s) we're faced today.

Parla

This is something I've often wondered about. One wouldn't necessarily want a list of the equipment used after every review (as Gramophone used to do in the 'Sounds in retrospect' panel reviews of the technical quality of recent releases) but I see no reason why reviewers' systems couldn't be listed on, say, an annual basis. It might help put comments on recording quality in some sort of perspective.

Exactly. At the very least you can benchmark. I was never a big B&W fan and when Sounds in Retrospect switched to a pair of B&Ws I knew I had to start interpreting their reports.

I came across some Layton sleeve notes this weekend. What a grounded, calm reviewer he was and ready to back up his views with specifics.

True, a good critic can describe, analyze, and teach as well as simply providing an opinion. What I mean is that a reviewer with similar tastes can scout ahead for you -- if your opinion of a piece I know is similar to my own, and for similar reasons, then your views of something I haven't heard are more likely to be what mine will be; hence, I will give more credence to your reviews of unfamiliar material than someone else's, and probably be less disappointed with my purchases.

Fair play Doc, in your more lucid moments you can raise the odd titter.