CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
MWI Recording of the Year?
Posted by Robert on December 4, 2023, 10:57 am
Taking a look at the figures presented in yesterday's (December 3) piece, wouldn't it be fairer to say, that in 2023 there has very clearly been no recording of the year? For a recording to merit such an accolade, should it not stand out from the rest? These figures very clearly indicate that there has been nothing outstanding among the crop of 2023.
If I understand correctly, from among your 24 reviewers not a single recording was deemed worthy enough to be chosen by as few as three of them. I would expect (indeed take it for granted) that a recording of the year should appear among the choices of far more than a mere 2 of your 24 reviewers' respective choices. Likewise, if from 109 chosen discs, only 8 received more than a single vote, this means that the overwhelming majority of discs where chosen uniquely by a single reviewer among a team of 24. These figures can be interpreted in different ways. It can evidence as is said "the great diversity of music and sources", or the sheer variety of recordings on offer over this last year or the vast breadth of enthusiasms among your reviewing team. It could also point out a severe or total lack of agreed judging criteria shared among the reviewing team or a distinct absence of face to face consultation among the 24 reviewers before choices are made. If the latter is true, is there any justification in calling the 24 reviewers a team, or anything other than mere coincidence among 24 separtate selections that decides the recording of the year?
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.
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.
Previous Message
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.
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Thank you for your imput Nick, I am surprised that more reviewers haven't contributed so far. I do believe the list of criteria you quoted from my previous post are 'more' if not 'completely' objective that mere personal taste.
My point was never about the breadth of recordings chosen by the reviewers, my point is how you get from those choices to an overall winner which for the figures I quoted seems unrepresentative to say the least.
From this readers standpoint one of the reasons why I am interested in these choices is in the hope of being introduced to recordings that I may not otherwise have given much attention to for the very reason that you state about readers gravitating to particular reviewers. It is in exactly a situation like the ROTY when reviewers have a chance to maybe surprise their usual followers and point them in the direction of a great recording that they might otherwise not give much time to.
As someone who is not a reviewer I would like to ask you as someone who is, when it comes to the ROTY why would you not like indeed relish being part of a review committee?
As for Presto I haven't even seen the choices, as I said my point has nothing to do with what discs actually get chosen but simply how the overall choice of ROTY relates to the reviewers choices.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Robert - apologies for not replying to your specific post sooner. I have to say I find the concept of one single recording from an entire year being deemed "the best" faintly ridiculous even if it is enjoyable simply as a point of departure for a discussion. I am very happy to leave that choice to the main editorial team who have a better/more detailed overview of the entire year of reviews alongside any additional discussions (listening room sessions etc) that might be factored in.
I have a great deal of respect for the opinions and knowledge of my fellow reviewers - indeed as a "punter" I regularly read the reviews on this sight with great interest. But no I would not want to be part of a review committee. As a little for instance - my "most listened to" disc this year was the choral version of the Strauss 4 Last Songs. But I know for a certain fact that this same disc left a couple of colleagues completely cold. My enjoyment/pleasure from writing reviews is to shed light on music/preformances and performers that might not be so well known or appreciated. If my enthusiasm guides other listeners to those discs then my job is done - I'd be sorry if they did not share my enthusiasm but not distraught because after all musical appreciation is such a personal thing. My concern about a 'shared' ROTY is that it becomes a compromised choice - the performance that most people kind of liked most. That does not make it the best it makes it the least disliked.......
Previous Message
Thank you for your imput Nick, I am surprised that more reviewers haven't contributed so far. I do believe the list of criteria you quoted from my previous post are 'more' if not 'completely' objective that mere personal taste.
My point was never about the breadth of recordings chosen by the reviewers, my point is how you get from those choices to an overall winner which for the figures I quoted seems unrepresentative to say the least.
From this readers standpoint one of the reasons why I am interested in these choices is in the hope of being introduced to recordings that I may not otherwise have given much attention to for the very reason that you state about readers gravitating to particular reviewers. It is in exactly a situation like the ROTY when reviewers have a chance to maybe surprise their usual followers and point them in the direction of a great recording that they might otherwise not give much time to.
As someone who is not a reviewer I would like to ask you as someone who is, when it comes to the ROTY why would you not like indeed relish being part of a review committee?
As for Presto I haven't even seen the choices, as I said my point has nothing to do with what discs actually get chosen but simply how the overall choice of ROTY relates to the reviewers choices.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Thank you Nick for your considered take on things from 'the other side' as it were. From other posts here you are clearly not alone among your fellow reviewers in viewing the concept of a single disc as the best of the year as faintly ridiculous. I can well understand this standpoint and it may well be better if Len Mullenger or John Quinn just chose a ROTY without reference to the choices of other reviewers. However as it stands the ROTY does exist and it does relate directly to your choices and those of your fellow reviewers. The, as I see it, unrepresentative choice of a winner in connection to the choices of the 24 reviewers is my only point and one which I raised to see what others thought about it or whether it could be modified in some way to make it a truer reflection of the reviewers tastes. I don't for one moment think this is easy or that there is a perfect solution, but I think it was worth it at least to ask the question to get reviewers' reflections.
When I suggested a getting together to consult your various choices I imagined that most or all of you would enjoy 'fighthing your corner' as it were for your chosen discs in a lighthearted and amicable spirit, but what you say makes clear why that would not be the case for you and by extension might not be for other reviewers and ultimately and most importantly why my suggestion might not be a welcome or appropriate one. Your concern about a compromised choice I think is a very telling and apposite point and one that I can't imagine anyone whether reviewer or reader wants.
Previous Message
Robert - apologies for not replying to your specific post sooner. I have to say I find the concept of one single recording from an entire year being deemed "the best" faintly ridiculous even if it is enjoyable simply as a point of departure for a discussion. I am very happy to leave that choice to the main editorial team who have a better/more detailed overview of the entire year of reviews alongside any additional discussions (listening room sessions etc) that might be factored in.
I have a great deal of respect for the opinions and knowledge of my fellow reviewers - indeed as a "punter" I regularly read the reviews on this sight with great interest. But no I would not want to be part of a review committee. As a little for instance - my "most listened to" disc this year was the choral version of the Strauss 4 Last Songs. But I know for a certain fact that this same disc left a couple of colleagues completely cold. My enjoyment/pleasure from writing reviews is to shed light on music/preformances and performers that might not be so well known or appreciated. If my enthusiasm guides other listeners to those discs then my job is done - I'd be sorry if they did not share my enthusiasm but not distraught because after all musical appreciation is such a personal thing. My concern about a 'shared' ROTY is that it becomes a compromised choice - the performance that most people kind of liked most. That does not make it the best it makes it the least disliked.......
Previous Message
Thank you for your imput Nick, I am surprised that more reviewers haven't contributed so far. I do believe the list of criteria you quoted from my previous post are 'more' if not 'completely' objective that mere personal taste.
My point was never about the breadth of recordings chosen by the reviewers, my point is how you get from those choices to an overall winner which for the figures I quoted seems unrepresentative to say the least.
From this readers standpoint one of the reasons why I am interested in these choices is in the hope of being introduced to recordings that I may not otherwise have given much attention to for the very reason that you state about readers gravitating to particular reviewers. It is in exactly a situation like the ROTY when reviewers have a chance to maybe surprise their usual followers and point them in the direction of a great recording that they might otherwise not give much time to.
As someone who is not a reviewer I would like to ask you as someone who is, when it comes to the ROTY why would you not like indeed relish being part of a review committee?
As for Presto I haven't even seen the choices, as I said my point has nothing to do with what discs actually get chosen but simply how the overall choice of ROTY relates to the reviewers choices.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
No,I really do like debating the merits of recordings with like-minded people and a fair amount of that goes on behind the scenes, as it were, so no resistance there. OK; we certainly should look again at the possibility of a Zoom forum (even though I don't much like them - lots of talking over and hiatuses with larger groups!), so please leave that with us for consideration of next year's choice and thank you for your suggestion.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Surely the whole purpose of an exercise such as ROTY is so that reviewers can state which recordings impressed them the most - not to choose a "winner", that to me just isn't how this site works.
Furthermore, as has already been stated - the reviewers are voluntary and therefore have their own varied commitments, so the idea of insisting that a web-meeting will take place on X day at Y time and they all have to drop whatever they are doing is rather absurd. I am grateful for the reviewers time and energy to provide us with their opinions, and if they then offer their selected discs for ROTY then that is a bonus.
The choice of the Recording of the Year is less arbitrary than you think. We had auditioned that set in The Listening Room and I own a copy of that set and pushed for it to be selected as Recording of the Year. Len Mullenger
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
Previous Message
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.
"Even fidelity to the score is a matter of opinion - one person's interpretation of "allegro" might be very different from another...." (Nick Barnard)
Well, no, it's not actually, it's a matter of experience and taste, so it's a matter of informed rather than personal opinion. I would expect an interpreter to be historically and musically aware enough to be able to distinguish how such a term might have differed in interpretation in different periods. You don't have to be fluent in Italian to know that the word "Allegro" refers to mood rather than speed.
Speaking of scores, there is also the issue of how accurate the score that a performer uses is. Apparently Klemperer used a very old edition of Mozart's Symphony no 29 in which the alla breve sign of the first movement appeared as common time signature and conducted it at a rather leaden four in a bar pace rather than in two.
The "Alla breve" indication (which appears frequently in classical scores right up to Schubert's time) is open to different interpretations. The text-book answer nowadays is "Two in a bar" but another, less common, view is that it is meant to indicate the structure over larger stretches of the music. It's the view I take (according to the context ! ) and why I can't wholeheartedly accept Bruno Walter's or Barbirolli's interpretation of the final movement of the "Jupiter" symphony....but would that worry anybody seeking a recommendation of a recording to add to their own personal library ?...probably not.
Of course, fidelity to the score or the score's fidelity to the composer's autograph doesn't necessarily (or even often) equate with a fine performance. I get far more pleasure from Beecham's Haydn recordings than many more modern historically-informed ones.
I can't comment on this particular controversy as I no longer buy issues of standard works as I've not enough breath in my body to be able to listen to all that I've acquired over the years even if I lived till I'm 90 started now and slept for only four hours a day.
I do know that one record I bought in the 1960s -Pennario and Previn performing Rachmaninov concertos - still gives me pleasure when I play it today even though the expert who wrote a review in the Gramophone of it dismissed it as rather poor. So personally I tend to rely on the judgement of my own ears nowadays. If I still intended to buy records I would be more appreciative of articles that listed the worst records (those that showed obvious faults in recording, performance standards etc.,) so that I knew what NOT to go for .
I think what has been lost in this discussion is that with ROTY the focus is on our own favorite recordings of the year. I look forward to making my selection each year because there are always surprises. I also look forward to reading the choices of my MWI colleagues because there are discoveries for me there too. Any single recording to be named an overall recording of the year is a futile exercise at best. As to a Zoom committee to select the Single ROTY...Well I think I can speak for all of my fellow reviewers in stating that the time involved in making that happen would be far better spent by writing another review for the site.
Previous Message
Taking a look at the figures presented in yesterday's (December 3) piece, wouldn't it be fairer to say, that in 2023 there has very clearly been no recording of the year? For a recording to merit such an accolade, should it not stand out from the rest? These figures very clearly indicate that there has been nothing outstanding among the crop of 2023.
If I understand correctly, from among your 24 reviewers not a single recording was deemed worthy enough to be chosen by as few as three of them. I would expect (indeed take it for granted) that a recording of the year should appear among the choices of far more than a mere 2 of your 24 reviewers' respective choices. Likewise, if from 109 chosen discs, only 8 received more than a single vote, this means that the overwhelming majority of discs where chosen uniquely by a single reviewer among a team of 24. These figures can be interpreted in different ways. It can evidence as is said "the great diversity of music and sources", or the sheer variety of recordings on offer over this last year or the vast breadth of enthusiasms among your reviewing team. It could also point out a severe or total lack of agreed judging criteria shared among the reviewing team or a distinct absence of face to face consultation among the 24 reviewers before choices are made. If the latter is true, is there any justification in calling the 24 reviewers a team, or anything other than mere coincidence among 24 separtate selections that decides the recording of the year?