How Unbiased Is The Criticism on CD Review

[Alison]

The excellence of Sir Simon's career is surely self-evident. My point was about bias and specifically Gramophone.

In any case nobody has really answered the original question about bias on CD Review.

[Petrushka]

In any case nobody has really answered the original question about bias on CD Review.

True. Is the OP somehow implying that, heaven forbid, a particular reviewer has been given a backhander to promote a certain record from a certain company and to rubbish the opposition? After all, a favourable review on the BBC of a disc held up to be 'the best' and one, moreover, that is thus promoted by Presto and Amazon and elsewhere ought to lead to a good increase in sales.

Dirty work at the crossroads? Bribery and corruption on R3?

[Alison]

I suspect it's generally not bribery and corruption.

A typical scenario might be critics not wanting (for example) to upset a glamorous young violinist
in order that they can have a nice chat over a drink at the next awards bash.

I could relate this to my own work in the field of horse racing.

Most journalists don't want to criticise jockeys or trainers. Jumping on the gravy train seems to be the greatly preferred option !

[johnb]

This thread reminds me of a CD Review a few months ago in which AM and a guest were reviewing some sets of the Shostakovich String Quartets. The guest was quite obviously unimpressed and kept referring back to the original Borodin's recording (the one that is incomplete) while AM seemed somewhat desperate to offset his guest's low opinions.

[mathias broucek]

This thread reminds me of a CD Review a few months ago in which AM and a guest were reviewing some sets of the Shostakovich String Quartets. The guest was quite obviously unimpressed and kept referring back to the original Borodin's recording (the one that is incomplete) while AM seemed somewhat desperate to offset his guest's low opinions.

Was the guest a practicing musician? They can be far more direct than professional critics. In that regard it's always fascinating for me to hear a favourite recording through Mrs Broucek's ears.

I suspect Alison is right. Few of us like confronting people we like or whom we want to like us and it's therefore tempting to take the line of least resistance.

This desire to "be nice is human nature. In my own work, if I had £10 for every time I've heard a major company tell me that, "our line managers can't or won't give bad feedback to their direct reports" then I'd be retired by now!

[johnb]

Was the guest a practicing musician? They can be far more direct than professional critics. In that regard it's always fascinating for me to hear a favourite recording through Mrs Broucek's ears.

I've just checked and am astonished to find the programme was broadcast on 25/06/11. Over a year ago!

Anyway the guest was David Fanning (an academic and authority on soviet music).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In any case nobody has really answered the original question about bias on CD Review.

I think Alpie in #4 and HS at the start of #23 did: any Music lover has performers s/he adores and those s/he despises - the clue is in the word "lover". In this sense, no one, no matter how objective and honest they try to be can escape their "bias". But the slight hint of a suggestion in the OP that there might be something a little underhand about JEGgers getting so many accolades isn't one that I can take seriously.

On BaL, a reviewer has to select a recording from those available that s/he believes most fully represents how the composer hoped the work would sound. Extreme performances can't safely be recommended, no matter how much the reviewer enjoys them; nor can those that are bland and unadventurous. So the reviewer has to select a committed, involving 7 involved performance (in good recorded sound) that doesn't offend too many sensibilities - and, as many of the British reviewers went to the same education establishments as those of Gardiner, it is hardly surprising that many his recordings across the wide range of his performing abilities appeal most closely to their own conceptions.

And it is "wide-ranging": I can easily imagine one reviewer who dislikes his Beethoven recordings recommending his Berlioz. And vice versa. And someone who loathes both "choosing" his Bach: three reviewers, all disliking most of Jegger's work, nontheless counting him beyond much reproach in one area = three recordings by him reach the "top slot".

[Thropplenoggin]

I think Alpie in #4 and HS at the start of #23 did: any Music lover has performers s/he adores and those s/he despises - the clue is in the word "lover". In this sense, no one, no matter how objective and honest they try to be can escape their "bias". But the slight hint of a suggestion in the OP that JEGgers is channeling his profits from the farm to pay for good reviews isn't one that I can take seriously.

[Insert thoroughly bemused emoticon here]
[Insert high dudgeon here]
I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. I was making a point that not everything Jeggers touches is gold, but as far as the British classical music establishment is concerned, it is. The older these conductors get, the more untouchable they seem to become. Every single JEG release gets treated with kid gloves and lavished with praise. It seems a farcical approach to critique. There's no detachment. Blind-testing would, perhaps, allow people to overcome such establishment cronyism.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.

With respect, then, I think you might have re-worded:

A frequent bugbear of Amazon.com reviewers is how Gramophone automatically lavishes praise on new releases by English conductors - JEG being, perhaps, the most notable. I'm often minded of Private Eye's yearly 'log-rolling' issue, in which they list the links between puffs by authors in their 'Book of the Year' lists and publishing houses, agents, friends, etc.

... this, I would suggest, could be misconstrued as a "slight hint of a suggestion" of underhand practice?

EDIT: But I have altered the wording of my comment to one which I hope you will find less inflammatory. Any further diluting will require your providing evidence of "establishment cronyism" (and, for that matter, that Blind-testing is not already used by reviewers. It may simply be the - surely not unbelievable - possibility that reviewers just think highly of the recordings they recommend!)