Carlos Kleiber: The Myth Revealed

[mathias broucek]

You will know better than I do of how reviewing the procedures work. My point is merely that all reviewers are human and have strong likes and dislikes of their own. After years of reading a critic's reviews, we come to expect certain "idee fixes", such as those I've mentioned. But for newer readers it is less easy. As for "spite, prejudice and bile", that would be a risk, but only if negatively presented.

What bothers me most is reviewers failing to identify serious failings of execution (tuning, soloist and orchestra not together etc). Sometimes this seems to be a matter of nationalism with US reviewers being much less squeamish about identifying failings of execution in - for example - some Barbirolli live material than critics from the UK.

I'm less concerned by preferences as you can decide whether you would be likely to share a critic's dislike of (say) the tempo variations in a Jochum performance or the tension in a Solti recording.

[makropulos]

You will know better than I do of how reviewing the procedures work. My point is merely that all reviewers are human and have strong likes and dislikes of their own. After years of reading a critic's reviews, we come to expect certain "idee fixes", such as those I've mentioned. But for newer readers it is less easy. As for "spite, prejudice and bile", that would be a risk, but only if negatively presented.

Good point, Eine Alpensinfonie - you're certainly right about critics being human (at least in my experience). If something like this is going to happen, it really does need to avoid the spite etc... and the other problem is this: critics tend to look particularly ridiculous when they parade their prejudices in public. Wasn't there a newspaper critic a year or so ago who declared that he considered Schubert "a dull composer" or something like that? It just came across as particularly silly (and reminded me of some of the more preposterous opinions of one of the two names you named - the one not called Alan Blyth).

So - I suppose my question would be - how might it be done in a way that could be amusing and in some way actually informative?

[Barbirollians]

What bothers me most is reviewers failing to identify serious failings of execution (tuning, soloist and orchestra not together etc). Sometimes this seems to be a matter of nationalism with US reviewers being much less squeamish about identifying failings of execution in - for example - some Barbirolli live material than critics from the UK.

I'm less concerned by preferences as you can decide whether you would be likely to share a critic's dislike of (say) the tempo variations in a Jochum performance or the tension in a Solti recording.

On the other hand some of those US critics seem often to me to be unable to see the wood for the trees.

[mathias broucek]

On the other hand some of those US critics seem often to me to be unable to see the wood for the trees.

That's fair!