CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
Contents of a review
Posted by Jaap Verhage on March 6, 2021, 3:15 pm
I'd like to comment on a review and am very interested in what other readers think about my musings. The review concerned is the one by Jonathan Woolf on Philp Glass' 9th symphony, on http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Glass_sy9_OMM0081.htm .This review exhibits a trait I've noticed in some other reviews on MWI and elsewhere: the reviewer shares his or her thoughts about the recorded work(s), but remains completely silent about the quality of the performance. I'm very interested in both: I want to know what the reviewer thinks about the works concerned, read about some of the history of and the context in which they were composed, etcetera, but I still read a review primarily to hear how the reviewer judges the quality of the performance. As far as I am concerned, the reviewer's thoughts about the quality of the performance of the work(s) in question are more important than what she or he wants to tell me about the work(s) per se, though I always enjoy reading those observations as well, and often learn something new from them. So, what do other readers of these pages think?
Regards, Jaap.
Re: Contents of a review
Posted by Chris Howell on March 7, 2021, 11:53 am, in reply to "Contents of a review"
I have not written any reviews for several years, but, when I did, I gave the music itself priority when it was little known and readers would most likely be wanting to know if it could interest them. With a lot of the rarer repertoire, other performances are hard to find or non-existent, so detailed comments on the performance seem unnecessary unless there's reason to feel the composer is being misrepresented. In the case of a well-known work, the priority is with the performance. Readers should know whether they like the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto or not, so the issue is how the new version stands against the many others. I must say that, over the years, Jonathan Woolf (and not only Jonathan Woolf of course) has seemed to me to get these priorities consistently right.
Previous Message
I'd like to comment on a review and am very interested in what other readers think about my musings. The review concerned is the one by Jonathan Woolf on Philp Glass' 9th symphony, on http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Glass_sy9_OMM0081.htm .This review exhibits a trait I've noticed in some other reviews on MWI and elsewhere: the reviewer shares his or her thoughts about the recorded work(s), but remains completely silent about the quality of the performance. I'm very interested in both: I want to know what the reviewer thinks about the works concerned, read about some of the history of and the context in which they were composed, etcetera, but I still read a review primarily to hear how the reviewer judges the quality of the performance. As far as I am concerned, the reviewer's thoughts about the quality of the performance of the work(s) in question are more important than what she or he wants to tell me about the work(s) per se, though I always enjoy reading those observations as well, and often learn something new from them. So, what do other readers of these pages think?
I agree that reviews that don't discuss the performance quality are not useful. It may well be that in cases of repertoire the nature of the composition is more important, but 1) this doesn't mean the quality of the performance is irrelevant to appreciating the recording, and 2) the instant there is a second recording of a rare work some assessment of the performance becomes vital for the sake of comparison.
Previous Message
I'd like to comment on a review and am very interested in what other readers think about my musings. The review concerned is the one by Jonathan Woolf on Philp Glass' 9th symphony, on http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2012/Oct12/Glass_sy9_OMM0081.htm .This review exhibits a trait I've noticed in some other reviews on MWI and elsewhere: the reviewer shares his or her thoughts about the recorded work(s), but remains completely silent about the quality of the performance. I'm very interested in both: I want to know what the reviewer thinks about the works concerned, read about some of the history of and the context in which they were composed, etcetera, but I still read a review primarily to hear how the reviewer judges the quality of the performance. As far as I am concerned, the reviewer's thoughts about the quality of the performance of the work(s) in question are more important than what she or he wants to tell me about the work(s) per se, though I always enjoy reading those observations as well, and often learn something new from them. So, what do other readers of these pages think?
Regards, Jaap.
Re: Contents of a review
Posted by Ralph Moore on March 12, 2021, 10:14 am, in reply to "Contents of a review"
I have to agree that, unless the review is of a new work and the prospective buyer needs some indication of the nature of the music, I do not understand why some reviewers write several paragraphs in narrative or descriptive mode instead of evaluating the performance. This is especially true of operas whose plot summaries are readily available online. It is surely our job to inform, yes - but mainly to provide a qualitative - albeit subjective - assessment.
I read with interest the several views on review content. I think that what we are in danger of missing is the wide range of talent amongst the MWI critics. Some clearly enjoy exploring relative timings between versions. Others are passionate about the sound quality. Several, myself included, tend to be interested in the actual music and its context – Kipling’s Six men good and true - Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who. I want to know what a "new" piece of music sounds like. For an old favourite it is good to have an opinion on the performance and sound, but also to be reminded about the work's sitz in leben. CD documentation is also important to many...
An important "added value" of MWI is the possibility of more than a single review of an album, often from a different perspective. Some reviewers are subjective about their response to the music. I enjoy reading how they have personally responded to the work and performance. There is a place for anecdote. Other critics are clinically objective...and that can be equally helpful.
I always appreciate reading the reviews presented in these files. Typically, the individual critic is persuasive in their promotion of the CD. Their style of presentation is a pleasure to read. I certainly would not like to be presented with a review in a “standard format”, guided by a checklist of items to be covered.