Wolfgang Sawallisch once related how, after his first piano recital (he was originally a pianist), he turned eagerly to the papers. The first said he was very musical but had a poor technique. The second said he had a fine technique but was completely unmusical. After that, he never read a review again. And what about Neville Cardus who, after his first experience of Don Giovanni in a provincial theatre, walked the streets in a daze, so overwhelmed was he. Only to read Edward Dent's comment in the morning paper: "Rather than have a Don Giovanni like this, better have no Don Giovanni at all".
Music criticism just is like this. You read the opposite views and then, if the repertoire or interpreters interest you, you buy the disc anyway, or find a way to hear it. Reviewers can tell us a few objective facts like, are all repeats taken, has the score been altered in any way (older performances of Beethoven usually were), are there cuts (older performances of Traviata are unlikely to be complete), are original or modern instruments used, but as to the deeper issue of what the music or the performance communicates, this is all opinion.
As to this "unfathomable" review, it looks clear enough to me, if this is unfathomable, I should have thought most reviews here (including probably all of mine) would fail Szoze's fathomability test.
Hello Nick
It's debatable but contrasting opinions may be equally valid but I don't see how they can help readers to make their own minds up, isn't it more likely to lead to the opposite?
If two reviewers have such widely different opinions about the same recording how is the reader supposed to choose which one to buy? As a reader of record reviews it can be interesting to encounter contrasting opinions but ultimately I expect to encounter a consensus, to a greater or lesser extent, among knowledgeable and experienced reviewers whose opinions I trust more than my own as to which recordings are the best in a market that has multiple versions on offer. That for me is the very crux of record reviewing. To be a trustworthy guide, i.e. buy this, don't buy this and to explain why. If one reviewer says 'black' and another says 'white' about the same recording of core repertoire, isn't there a real risk of readers throwing their hands up and saying if the reviewers can't agree what chance have I got?. What's the point in reading reviews, if the experts can't agree?
This is connected to a point I raised last year about the Recording of the Year. I would expect a recording of the year to be seen as such by at least the majority of reviewers and not just one among a long list of reviewers favourites.
Helpful, worthwhile record reviewing, like a school curriculum has to be based on more than mere subjective opinion. There have to be criteria upon which those who have invested the time and effort into music and its recorded history can agree on to some degree. If not it's just a free-for-all, where anything goes, which I dont think helps anyone to make up their mind.
One of the great joys and strengths of MWI is the broad church of its opinions and its willingness to publish multiple reviews. As it happens the complete Blomstedt/Dresden/Beethoven cycle received a "deja review" just last August;
https://musicwebinternational.com/2024/08/beethoven-symphonies-nos-1-9-brilliant-classics/
where reviewer Neil Horner writing originally in 2002 heaped praise on this cycle and especially Symphonies 5&6. Another example of MWI offering contrasting but equally valid opinions which will surely help the reader make their own minds up....
Hi
This review is really completely unfathomable and is a disgrace to MusicWeb. It should simply be removed.
https://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2003/Aug03/Beethoven56_Blomstedt.htm
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb