Thank you Ralph for your imput. Why would you consider organising a Zoom meeting time consuming, or as you say close to impossible? You choose a date and time, and that's it. Also why would you consider talking about classical music recordings with other reviewers time-consuming? Spending time doing something you enjoy immensely is not time-consuming. From your's and Nick's post I get the feeling that the real issue is that reviewers don't want to consult with other reviewers which surprises me tremendously but does explain a lot.
Could we please forget about Presto. I only mentioned them as an example of an alternative way of arriving at an overall choice, the choices in themselves are completely irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.
I agree with you when you say that such undertakings are bound to produce debatable results. Debate is good. However an overall result that wasn't chosen by 90% of the reviewing team is not debatable, it is just plain weird. If, as it seems, I am the only one who sees it like this and everyone else is happy with the ROTY selection process, I will say no more about it and leave you all to enjoy the selections.
It needs to be understood that despite what is, I hope, all the expertise and professionalism of its output, MusicWeb is not a commercial organisation; it functions exclusively as a result of voluntary contributions by people, many of whom have other commitments. We do in fact get together physically once a year, mainly for social purposes and the logistics even of that can be tricky, we are so dispersed geographically - our Webmaster, for example, is in New Zealand; otherwise communication is by email etc.
Like Nick, I don't see much of a problem in the way the ROTY are presented beyond the inevitable element of arbitrariness in selecting one "best" recording; organising numerous Zoom meetings, apart from being very time-consuming - and close to impossible - would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Finally, to say that some of Presto's selections caused me to raise an eyebrow would be an understatement and convinces me that any such undertaking, regardless of how supposedly ordered and exhaustive it is, is bound to produce debatable results.
Are any of the following objective criteria really ;
"technical quality, artistic excellence, fidelity to the score, presentation, originality, historical significance"
Even fidelity to the score is a matter of opinion - one person's interpretation of "allegro" might be very different from another....
Personally I enjoy reading the range of interests and views of the MWI reviewers so I have no issue with the different priorities between various reviewers "discs of the year". When we are requested to submit ROTY the criteria is simply the half dozen discs that have made the greatest impression on us as individuals. I suspect most readers who look at this annual page have an inkling in advance which reviwers most often chime taste-wise with their own preferences and so will seek them out. One of the strengths of the reviewing panel of MWI is that it is a broad church of diverse opinions. Long may it remain so - I have no wish to become part of a review committee.
For what its worth - I disagreed with a lot of the Presto choices.
Thank you John for your response. I would like to address the points you raise one by one.
When you say that face to face meetings are not really practical, I fail to say why not. Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic Zoom and similar platforms have made face to face meeting enormously easy and eminently practical, indeed for many people they are now an indispensable part of their working and social lives. I can understand that having 24 people on Zoom at one time could be too chaotic and impractical, but doing it in blocks of say 4 or 6 people at a time based on time zone seems to me an easy and very practical way for MWI reviewers to talk to each other. Likewise for your reviewers that live in the UK, I can't understand why you would not all be willing, indeed chomping at the bit to physically meet up especially if it were something as infrequent as, let's say, once a year. When I read your appreciation of the late Brian Wilson in which you addressed this point John, I was struck by two things about how you seem not to get together regularly, namely how sad and why ever not? You all share a passion for classical music and its recorded legacy and life has few pleasures as enjoyable as sharing your passions with like-minded people. If the world learnt anything from the pandemic I would like to think it is just how precious is being in the physical presence of other people, or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
As regards the subjective nature of your reviewers' chosen discs, I think your readers would be better served (and the overall choice would be more representative and fair) if more weight were given to agreed objective criteria such as technical quality, artistic excellence, fidelity to the score, presentation, originality, historical significance, etc. than to mere subjective caprice. Reviewers choosing as their disc of the year something that he or she (if there are any women among your reviewers) might not actually like to listen to should not at all be an anomaly.
As a possible improvement I would suggest taking a look at a piece Presto published yesterday in which they explained how they whittled down 100 discs to ten. In your case I think it would have been better if your 24 reviewers had been obliged to chosen one among the eight discs that received two votes originally. The result in that case would have been fairer and more representative than what we finally get which is a situation where over 90% did not choose the recording of the year and no disc received more than 2 from 24 votes, a situation from here that looks very wrong and skewed.
You raise a fair challenge, Robert.
The first thing to say is that the Recording of the Year has been chosen along similar lines for many years and we always try to be fair and balanced in our approach. Our reviewers live in various countries - the UK, Europe and North America - so face to face meetings (even online) are not really practical. Also, all our colleagues have their own areas of interest and specialisation; consequently, it's never possible for all reviewers to hear everything that other colleagues propose as their Recordings of the Year.
We use the number of nominations as a means of applying a judgement as to recordings that have particularly impressed reviewers during the year. This year we arrived at a shortlist of eight recordings. Then five members of the editorial team considered the original reviews of the releases in question and reached a decision based on the strength of the case that the reviewer(s) had made when first writing about each of the releases in question.
Inevitably, there's an element of subjectivity involved in any selection process such as this. We recognise that and we regularly consider how we might refine and improve the process.
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb