What makes for a good review of a recording ?

[Alison]

Please give examples of good and bad reviewing.

I'll let you have your say before airing my views :)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

A good review is an open-minded one, made without preconceptions of what is the right way to perform it. So many reviewer get all high and mighty about whether the performance fits into the HIP pigeonhole, and regarded this as paramount, whatever the qualities of the performance.
Sometimes, (in the case of live performance criticism) they appear not even to have attended the performance they are writing about. I refer to a review of the Proms Das Rheingold performance with Simon Rattle and the Orchestra of the Age of he Enlightenment, when the reviewer commented on the lack of string vibrato. He obviously wasn't there, as the vibrato was so clear to the eye that it could be see in the most distance parts of the RAH.
On recordings, reasoned comparisons should be made with a number of recordings. Gramophone used to list comparable recordings, but do longer do this, preferring to give us a nice picture of the cover instead.
On recording quality, it helps to have reference to the balance, sense of depth and how natural it sounds.

[Cellini]

It's simply one that dose not pull any punches.

[Mark Sealey]

As a reviewer of some years' standing for a couple of sites (Classical Net and MusicWeb), I hope I get things about right when I aim (in the case of CD recordings) to:

• provide all relevant information… 4WHW
• give composer background(s) - especially if they're less well known
• give the work(s)' background - again, especially if not part of the mainstream repertoire and/or likely to be unknown to target audience
• evaluate the work(s) within the composer's oeuvre
• provide details of and evaluate any special/particular aspects of the performer(s)… young/debut, recent prizes, unusual repertoire for them, re-recording, particularly illuminating comments in accompanying (liner) notes etc
• highlight the approach the performer(s) take… HIP, venerable violin, particular venue, own arrangement etc
• add in depth evaluation of the playing, performing itself - noting any inconsistencies across the CD(s)
• describe acoustic and miking etc, docs, location
• comment on pricing, value-for-money, presentation of product
• briefly allude to comparable recordings - with possible summary and statement as to where the CD(s) under review stand… first choice, 'also ran', worthy but flawed etc.
• offer final assessment of this recording in comparison with others and choice as to best buy where relevant

Other aims: To be as objective as possible and as is consistent with honesty - and from an informed position. To this end, to provide more of a 'roadmap' (seen from the reviewer's point of view - inevitably) than a definitive 'statement'. To provide readers with as much as they need to make a good buying decision. To illustrate all such points made representatively and in an unbiased fashion. Generally it seems as though readers value a well-researched review over a highly personalised one.

But am watching this thread with interest. I'd love to hear new views, angles and suggestions! Thanks :-)

[MickyD]

Ah, if only all reviews contained all that you list, msealey! For my part, I hate not having comparisons made with other recordings to help me decide - Gramophone reviewers are guilty of this so often nowadays, writing a lot of personal puff, with the result that one is just left hanging in the air by the end of the review, unsure of whether to purchase or not. Even more important for me is to add "in my opinion" at points when really subjective views are expressed!

[amateur51]

An excellent list, msealey!

The great music and cricket reviewer, Sir Neville Cardus, reckoned that, when reporting on a day's crickert, that you had to tell the reader the state of the game, the state of the pitch, and the weather during the day. If you missed these factors out, then your report was largely worthless to the reader. I reckon that your list is comparable to Cardus' cricket list, msealey

Taking EA's earlier point about open-mindedness, I don't care if the reviewer is, say, anti-Glenn Gould as long as s/he has clear reasons for so being and applies them consistently - that way I can calibrate that reviewer according to my own prejudices - I mean judgement! ()

An editorial matter - I prefer it if a journal has a 'house expert' in baroque, contemporary music, Beethoven symphonies etc. That way I can calibrate the reviewer again, sometimes over long periods. What cheeses me off in Gramophone is that they'll review 3 new recording of, say, Mozart violin concertos & assign them to 2 or 3 different reviewers - where's the sense in that?

[Don Petter]

Ah, if only all reviews contained all that you list, msealey! For my part, I hate not having comparisons made with other recordings to help me decide - Gramophone reviewers are guilty of this so often nowadays, writing a lot of personal puff, with the result that one is just left hanging in the air by the end of the review, unsure of whether to purchase or not. Even more important for me is to add "in my opinion" at points when really subjective views are expressed!

I agree that reference to earlier recordings, to whatever extent is practical and relevant, should be essential. We need to see where, in the ears of the reviewer, the newcomer sits with what has gone before.

Even worse than those who neglect this are the reviewers who, by what they do write are actually seen to be unaware of previous key recordings of works. (I am talking about major compositions, say the Beethoven Late Quartets, not expecting it with some obscure baroque concerto.) I had a bit of a spat with several Fanfare reviewers over this a few years ago, as reference to the letters pages will testify!

[Mahlerei]

I think Mark has put it very well. That approach works for me :)

[mikealdren]

The audience is important, we here are looking for more depth and content in the review than, say, a review in a national newspaper. That, to my mind, was Gramophone's fatal error, they forgot who they were writing for and started to write for the readership they wanted rather than the readership they had.

Mike

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

An interesting question, Alison, and it has prompted some thoughtful responses.

A good review is one which, ultimately, helps you to make an informed decision about whether you wish to buy the recording or not. It should describe the performances and the reviewer’s responses to them, setting them in context with other relevant recordings. Comment has been made about which recordings are used for comparison, but I think it’s important to remember that these are restricted as to what actually constitutes the reviewer’s own collection – there’s no access to the whole back catalogue! There’s no point in listing comparative recordings if the writer doesn’t actually refer to them in his/ her review.

If the composer or the music isn’t that well known, some background information is required; likewise, if the performer is relatively new on the scene. Responses to the ordering of the items on the programme are useful, as is value for money – particularly where the disc offers short measure.

Describing the sound achieved by the engineers is important – acoustics, placement of microphones, SACD surround sound etc.

I welcome an essence of personality from the writer and an admission that his/ her response to the disc is personal and other listeners may not like this or that aspect of the recording. You grow to trust certain reviewers and a simple recommendation from them is enough.

Sometimes, the sheer quality of writing can win one over. I wasn’t really in the market for another recording of Fauré’s Piano Quartets, yet when I read Piers Burton-Page’s IRR review (March 2010, p.47) I knew I had to exercise the itchy credit card!

You don’t necessarily have to agree with the reviewer. I know this review - http://www.opera-britannia.com/index...iews&Itemid=16 - is of an operatic performance rather than a recording, but although my editor clearly didn’t like much of the production, he described it in enough detail for me to know I had to see it for myself, which I did – twice!

[Ferretfancy]

I think that over time the individual tastes or prejudices of a given reviewer become apparent, and it's possible to allow for them, after all, reviewers cannot be completely without personal bias, however hard they may try. Some of these little foibles can raise a smile, Edward Greenfield's adoration of Andre Previn for example, sometimes in the face of the evidence. This understanding of reviewer's own likes and dislikes seems easier when the review is in print rather than on the radio or online. As far as BAL is concerned, some critics are poor broadcasters, and we get the sort of comments that read well on the page, but sound stilted and over academic on air.

With the sheer number of discs to deal with,comparative assessment must be increasingly difficult. I've noticed that there is a tendency nowadays to dismiss many classic recordings which are still available, simply because they are not digital in origin. Often when dealing with familiar music great swathes of fine performances are dismissed in this way.
The old Royal Festival Hall programme booklet used to contain a quote from Hamlet " Take no man's censure, but reserve thy judgement" It was the old fool Polonius who said it, but in this case I think he was correct. Read plenty of opinions, listen to internet clips if possible, and then make up your own mind.

[Mark Sealey]

Mahlerei,

I think Mark has put it very well. That approach works for me :)

Thank you! I think amateur51 expresses the important point of 'calibration' much more succinctly than I - and reaches what I was groping for - by saying:

Taking EA's earlier point about open-mindedness, I don't care if the reviewer is, say, anti-Glenn Gould as long as s/he has clear reasons for so being and applies them consistently - that way I can calibrate that reviewer according to my own prejudices - I mean judgement!

I would also add two difficulties we face from time to time:

1. very occasionally performers whose style and skillset may not always quite match up to the standards of the mainstream record industry will send a personally-produced CD in the hopes of getting it (and them) promoted. I've had some real terrors in this respect. Voices like Joyce Grenfell's, piano playing like… mine (!). One wants to be honest but not discouraging. Finding kind words in such circumstances is not always easy
2. maintaining honesty when one - inevitably - builds up a professional yet at times close and quite chummy relationship with labels, distributors and performers and for whatever reason a CD doesn't quite work can require great diplomacy. Those of integrity will recognize that it is indeed the audience for whom one is ultimately writing.

[mikealdren]

Mark,
Interesting points. With the current proliferation of 'popular classical' artists, the challenge is where to draw the line. Do you include Haley Westenra, Katherine Jenkins, Charlotte Church or even Andrea Bocelli?

From my point of view, if you do then decide to include a crossover artist, you then have two options: pull no punches and review what you hear or draw attention to the facts and let the reader know that you are using different standards to be kind. The reviews that dodge the issues are unacceptable.

Mike

[Mark Sealey]

Mike,

I'm in the fortunate position of choosing what I review for the most part. And only contribute to the serious music (sections of) sites. Only once, I think, have I been sent material of the sort you mention. When it has its faults for those reasons, it's fair to say so. Yes, I agree, pop, crossover, mixtures, 'idol-led', 'singer-songwriter' and the rest have different aims. And it's necessary to say so in any review that touches on them.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

Mark,
With the current proliferation of 'popular classical' artists, the challenge is where to draw the line. Do you include Haley Westenra, Katherine Jenkins, Charlotte Church or even Andrea Bocelli?

From my point of view, if you do then decide to include a crossover artist, you then have two options: pull no punches and review what you hear or draw attention to the facts and let the reader know that you are using different standards to be kind. The reviews that dodge the issues are unacceptable.

It depends on what they're singing too. I reviewed Andrea Bocelli's Carmen not so long ago (a fellow critic I spoke with last summer said he refuses to review him). Now, this was released by Decca, featured established, genuine operatic singers of the likes of Marina Domaschenko, Eva Mei and Bryn Terfel and was conducted by Myung-Whun Chung, so needed to be judged as a serious operatic release by one of the majors. If Bocelli puts himself up there, shoulder to shoulder, with Domingo, Carreras et al, then he has to face comparison with their singing... however unfair that may seem. It wouldn't have been fair to apply a different standard.