Never had it so good

[Barbirollians]

Have been spending many an idle moment on the Gramophone Digital Archive despite its appalling search engine . One thing that has struck me as how lukewarm sometimes the reception to what gave now become classics was .

Trevor Harvey and rather more surprisingly Edward Greenfirld can be read putting the boot into or damning with faint praise recordings by the likes of Fricsay and Horenstein.

I wonder why that is - was it just that they were more critical or that they had lived through such s golden age of conductors that they were spoiled . TH for example is lukewarm about fricsay's Beethoven 9 . I imagine nowadays one would be thrilled to bits to have a vocal quartet of the quality of Seefried,Forrester,Haefliger and the young DFD .

Or maybe that poor pressings meant that the quality of a performance was concealed from the reviewers something hinted at in TH's review of the finale of the Fricsay 9 .

[Conchis]

Most likely explanation: these reviewers were listening to stuff on equipment that wasn't set up properly, with bass retarded and treble pumped up.

[pastoralguy]

Most likely explanation: these reviewers were listening to stuff on equipment that wasn't set up properly, with bass retarded and treble pumped up.

I know I've banged on about this before but here I go again! The Gramophone used to do a section called the 'Audio Dr' where the boffins would go to a reader's abode and take enough equipment to do an upgrade on their existing equipment. On one occasion, they went to a reviewer's home to do an assessment and I was appalled at the fact that their equipment wasn't as good good as mine and not only that but it needed a lot of adjustment! After that, I took reviewer's pronouncements with a large pinch of salt. (February 2004. Page 98).


I've always thought that, heaven forbid, I should be invited to do a review, I would listen on at least three levels of equipment from the bog standard to the esoteric. I've just traveled back from the Scottish Borders today and have listened to the Brendel/Rattle/Vienna Philharmonic Beethoven piano concertos (*) through my Bose headphones and am now listening to the same discs through my Quad + Magnepan combo. A COMPLETELY different listening experience!

And, don't forget, those guys were listening to vinyl which can also be unreliable.

(*) Found in a charity shop in Peebles for 99p!

[cloughie]

Most likely explanation: these reviewers were listening to stuff on equipment that wasn't set up properly, with bass retarded and treble pumped up.

I think that is only part of the story. Many recordings of the era were not brilliant on LP and have been remastered to bring out a lot more from the original tapes.

...and of course some recordings did not fare well. Mehta's 1812 on Decca SXL6448 attracted the reviwer's comment - not a record for small machines or semi-detached houses!

[pastoralguy]

I think that is only part of the story. Many recordings of the era were not brilliant on LP and have been remastered to bring out a lot more from the original tapes.

[EdgeleyRob]

+1

[Ferretfancy]

Most likely explanation: these reviewers were listening to stuff on equipment that wasn't set up properly, with bass retarded and treble pumped up.

I once wrote to the editor to complain about inconsistencies of reviews where the sound quality was concerned, and got a non committal reply. I had assumed that regular contributors would be supplied with the same or very similar equipment, but that was not the case.
As you say, it was more than likely that the reviewers equipment was poorly set up, but we still got comments like - " I detected a small moment of pitch insecurity three bars after letter H " and similar nonsense.

I once asked a BBC colleague " If you had a truck at the back of HMV's one night, what would you remove? He said "I'll hire another truck to return the faulty pressings! "

[LHC]

I once wrote to the editor to complain about inconsistencies of reviews where the sound quality was concerned, and got a non committal reply. I had assumed that regular contributors would be supplied with the same or very similar equipment, but that was not the case.
As you say, it was more than likely that the reviewers equipment was poorly set up, but we still got comments like - " I detected a small moment of pitch insecurity three bars after letter H " and similar nonsense.

I once asked a BBC colleague " If you had a truck at the back of HMV's one night, what would you remove? He said "I'll hire another truck to return the faulty pressings! "

I can still remember the joy when CDs arrived on the scene; not because they offered 'perfect sound forever', but because you could listen to a recording without the strain of listening out for the next click or pop from the low grade vinyl used by most companies at the time.

I bought Abbado's recording of Ballo in Maschera when it was first released, but had to return it four times before I found a copy that wasn't either warped, drastically off-centre, or already scratched. The fifth copy was just about passable, although a few sides had excessive surface noise. I for one don't miss vinyl at all.

[mathias broucek]

Not just sound quality, also something about changing fashions here too, I suspect. For example Karl Richter’s Bach was thought good when it first came out, was then written off as old-fashioned when HIPP started up and today the view is more balanced (good singers, often musical but sometimes a bit ponderous in dance-line music)

BTW many years ago I got Friscay’s Eroica on LP from a charity shop and couldn’t stand it! It seemed flabby and undramatic to me at the time. (At the time I had the 1977 Karajan, Erich Kleiber and Jochum with the LSO.)

[Parry1912]

The Gramophone used to do a section called the 'Audio Dr' where the boffins would go to a reader's abode and take enough equipment to do an upgrade on their existing equipment. On one occasion, they went to a reviewer's home to do an assessment and I was appalled at the fact that their equipment wasn't as good good as mine and not only that but it needed a lot of adjustment! After that, I took reviewer's pronouncements with a large pinch of salt. (February 2004. Page 98).

That was an eye-opener, wasn't it!

[pastoralguy]

That was an eye-opener, wasn't it!

It certainly was! And I should have made clear in my original post that my equipment was better than what the boffins were advocating as replacements! And I'm a nurse, not a professional musician writing influential reviews of recordings that have been created by blood, sweat and tears!

I've always felt that reviewers should give SOME indication as to the equipment they are using since recordings often give details about what gear was used to record them.

[Stanfordian]

I can still remember the joy when CDs arrived on the scene; not because they offered 'perfect sound forever', but because you could listen to a recording without the strain of listening out for the next click or pop from the low grade vinyl used by most companies at the time.

I bought Abbado's recording of Ballo in Maschera when it was first released, but had to return it four times before I found a copy that wasn't either warped, drastically off-centre, or already scratched. The fifth copy was just about passable, although a few sides had excessive surface noise. I for one don't miss vinyl at all.

Hiya, LHC,

My thoughts exactly!

[Barbirollians]

FF may well be right - I did laugh at what he said after pitch insecurity after Letter H . That sounds like Trevor Harvey to a tee .

The only thing is s that occasionally some of these negative reviews were despite compliments on the recording quality e.g Horenstein's Pathetique

[johnb]

Have been spending many an idle moment on the Gramophone Digital Archive despite its appalling search engine . One thing that has struck me as how lukewarm sometimes the reception to what gave now become classics was .

Trevor Harvey and rather more surprisingly Edward Greenfirld can be read putting the boot into or damning with faint praise recordings by the likes of Fricsay and Horenstein....

I remember that The Gramophone would often damn Barbirolli's recordings with faint praise, with remarks such as "he wears his heart on his sleeve", etc.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The only thing is s that occasionally some of these negative reviews were despite compliments on the recording quality e.g Horenstein's Pathetique

Indeed. I think it's more a case that critics are critics - they're human, they're frequently just wrong in their assessments. Go through the reception history of many of what have become the "Classic" works of the Western Classical Traditions, and it's laughable how often the critics of the time misunderstood them. The same thing occurs in literary, dramatic and art criticism: why should it be different for recordings?

Qualities that become "standard" over time are often simply misunderstood by listeners (including critics) who are more accustomed to what they grew up with, and who expect want newer generations of performers to give them Music-making that conforms to these standards - and who cannot hear what's valid in performances that differ from these traditions. It still happens, of course, today.