Who do you trust among the critics?

For all his annoying acerbity, so do I.

This is not the first time that the site has had a go at the sainted Kathleen.

If she was as bad as he says why did neither Bruno Walter or John Barbirolli spot it?

Actually, it doesn't. He addresses that in his current update. Whether or not you agree is a different matter.

Yes, he doesn't like Norrington or Horenstein, but I wasn't aware he had a thing about Boult. He tends to get apoplectic when conductors play fast and loose with the score. I don't have much Norrington or Horenstein but the latter's Mahler 3 has always been one of my favourites. Coincidentally I played Boult's Tintagel this morning, probably my favourite performance of that work and one of Lyrita's best recordings. Boult was never bad, and almost always very good.

You forgot about Rattle, and I'm largely with Hurwitz there.

To be honest, I don't know what HIP is. I thought it was a starchy version of hep.

He loathed the Brian giving it a 2/1.

I see what you mean - the Wikipedia entry on HIP has issues about citations, verification, cleanup and quality standards 'tagged since october 2008'.  It seems that no one wants to stick their head above the parapet on that one.

Quite right. He loathed it, but gave it a 3/3. I should have double checked the reviews before posting. Possibly I was thinking of Music International's review, or not.

I can only speak about the English speaking press but I really don't think there is a living critic who carries as much weight as Hanslick. In part this is just a consequence of the modern era. I see a clear division between the critic and the reviewer; the later spends the vast majority of their time reviewing recordings, which is a very different art form that of the critic. In Hanslick's time critcs were very much arbitrators of power and prestige. The support of someone lik Hanslick could make a real difference to the career of a performer or composer.When was the last time society got excited about a composer on the back of critics words - Hanslcik in a sense was the Simon Cowell of his time (though he probably never support an artist for commericial reasons).

Most classical music writring I read today is short in length and thought. Again, partly this is due to the declining quality of edtorial support. Those critics who do still write in the long form do so rarely and often through blogs rather than print journalism. Jessica Duchen puts much longer versions of her articles on the web and to be honest people like Greg Sandow, Anne Midget and Norman Lebrecht probably have far bigger RSS readerships than thorugh the printed media they work for. Even the venerable Guardian, under the stewardship of pianist and classical fan Alan Rushbridger, try hard as it might, seems to struggle with the form. Tom Service is their main critic and while his interviews tend to be quite fawning the main problem is that he is always on the defensive - take for exapmple the new ongoing series about contemporary composers. Potentially very intersting and yet Service feels the need to address to dumb down by exploding myths about contemporary music.

I much prefer the style of a writer such as Alex Ross (or his predecessor once removed Andrew Porter). They have the skills to write in the long and short form and treat the reader as a lucid, inquiring adult, who came to the article because they are interested. One gets the feeling that Ross works veery closely within the music community and he thoughts always feel to be genuine and thought through, even when I disagree with him. Ross (and this seems a common editorial feature of the New Yorker) never seems to have excluded any composer with a dismissive swat - he takes the work to pieces, not the man or woamn behind the piece.

Someone mentioned Norman Lebrecht. I have very mixed feelings about Lebrecht. On one level his gossipy, highly opinionated writings are amusing and can be interesting, but on the other had the cavalier approach seems calculated and for effect. After a long period of reflection I finally sat down to read his book 'Why Mahler?' and I just am unable to pin down why I wince and smile in equal measure. I suspect the other probelm is Lebrecht's ability to somehow trun the spotlight on himself in most everything he writes about. He is like the Shakespeare actor who knows all the words, gives a heartfelt performance but the only recollection you have are the mannerisms.