Previous Message

Ralph Moore asks in another thread what readers think about the twenty-year old reviews now posted. I enjoy them, although I'm slightly disappointed when they are used to compensate for a decreased number of new reviews - today only four, plus two déjà-reviews.

But I'm curious about the selection. It seems well balanced in terms of kinds of music, and also includes a fair proportion of older recordings that were reissued or newly transferred in the early 2000s. Readers hopefully realize that they reflect the situation when they were written. But I could spend a lot of time if I did not resist the urge to comment on these old reviews: it's so easy now, using the Internet, to add relevant information, point out more recent issues, or put the reviews into the context of artists' careers, and point out what makes them still significant! I realize it would take a lot of work also for your knowledgable selection committe (or the Editor) to do so, but every morning I end up thinking "I wonder if readers realize that...?" and would love a few lines why precisely these texts were selected.

I realize that would be a lot more work for "someone". And I hope other readers end up, like me, reflecting on the déjà-reviews in a similar fashion. So maybe it is better to leave them as they are, like now.