CELEBRATING 53,000 Classical CD reviews on-line (Sept 2016); 21,000 page views each day. Return to MusicWeb International
excellent honesty in a review
Posted by David Rowe on February 15, 2024, 8:41 pm
Nigel Harris's review of the Saint-Saens/Glazunov violin concertos is excellent. It is refreshing to read a review which is thorough and honest about a recording's strengths AND weaknesses - the latter being conspicuously absent, or severely minimized, in too many other reviews on this site. Excellent writing and observations, Mr. Harris!
Mr Rowe's back-handed compliment regarding Nigel Harris' review made me think again whether the reviews on MusicWeb really are lacking honesty when it comes to indicating flaws in recordings, as we pride ourselves on being independent and unafraid to deliver opinions which might be...unpalatable....unwise? if we were dependent on sponsorship and advertisers. As a result, I trawled through some of the straplines for more recent reviews to test that assertion and while I concede that many are highly complimentary, that is surely more a testament to the quality of what we choose to review - and of course one tends to gravitate towards things which will please rather than be an eternal curmudgeon. Here are some verdicts: "Readings that don’t match up with the best"..."The main works are ill-served by eccentric tempi and phrasing"..."Virtuosic but not exceptional"..."unfortunately let down by singing"..."suffers from a lack of personality and variety"..."blighted by the conductor’s very audible vocal intrusions" (mine!)..."rather disappointing"..."There are better choices"..."too often heavy and ponderous"..."Too strident for my liking"..."lacking in power"..."Best avoided – there are many far superior options" (mine again!) - and they are all from just this month so far. Maybe the accusation is rather harsh?
Previous Message
Nigel Harris's review of the Saint-Saens/Glazunov violin concertos is excellent. It is refreshing to read a review which is thorough and honest about a recording's strengths AND weaknesses - the latter being conspicuously absent, or severely minimized, in too many other reviews on this site. Excellent writing and observations, Mr. Harris!
The word "honesty" was a poor choice on Mr Rowe's part. Perhaps what he really meant to use was "critical judgement". This too is a risky choice.To use an analogy...Lots of people love to drink Beaujolais but I think it tastes like cough medicine. Each to his own poison, so to speak.
Previous Message
Mr Rowe's back-handed compliment regarding Nigel Harris' review made me think again whether the reviews on MusicWeb really are lacking honesty when it comes to indicating flaws in recordings, as we pride ourselves on being independent and unafraid to deliver opinions which might be...unpalatable....unwise? if we were dependent on sponsorship and advertisers. As a result, I trawled through some of the straplines for more recent reviews to test that assertion and while I concede that many are highly complimentary, that is surely more a testament to the quality of what we choose to review - and of course one tends to gravitate towards things which will please rather than be an eternal curmudgeon. Here are some verdicts: "Readings that don’t match up with the best"..."The main works are ill-served by eccentric tempi and phrasing"..."Virtuosic but not exceptional"..."unfortunately let down by singing"..."suffers from a lack of personality and variety"..."blighted by the conductor’s very audible vocal intrusions" (mine!)..."rather disappointing"..."There are better choices"..."too often heavy and ponderous"..."Too strident for my liking"..."lacking in power"..."Best avoided – there are many far superior options" (mine again!) - and they are all from just this month so far. Maybe the accusation is rather harsh?
Previous Message
Nigel Harris's review of the Saint-Saens/Glazunov violin concertos is excellent. It is refreshing to read a review which is thorough and honest about a recording's strengths AND weaknesses - the latter being conspicuously absent, or severely minimized, in too many other reviews on this site. Excellent writing and observations, Mr. Harris!
Yes, Mr. Moore, you are right. I perhaps should have worded my comments differently, as there are many reviews here which point out deficiencies as applicable. As a matter of fact, a recent review written by you is another one which I remember being refreshingly honest and forthright - that of Beethoven Symphonies 1-3 with the Australian Chamber Orchestra. More succinctly to my point, I think there is something about the passion in the way you and Mr. Harris write which is especially meaningful to me, and thus I perceive it as being "honest" - which is perhaps a bad choice of word on my part. On the other hand, I remember several reviews which were so effusive in praise, they sound almost as if generated by A.I. technology! But, you're right, most reviews here are truthful and insightful, and exhibit true integrity, especially when compared to what we read in other publications.
Previous Message
Mr Rowe's back-handed compliment regarding Nigel Harris' review made me think again whether the reviews on MusicWeb really are lacking honesty when it comes to indicating flaws in recordings, as we pride ourselves on being independent and unafraid to deliver opinions which might be...unpalatable....unwise? if we were dependent on sponsorship and advertisers. As a result, I trawled through some of the straplines for more recent reviews to test that assertion and while I concede that many are highly complimentary, that is surely more a testament to the quality of what we choose to review - and of course one tends to gravitate towards things which will please rather than be an eternal curmudgeon. Here are some verdicts: "Readings that don’t match up with the best"..."The main works are ill-served by eccentric tempi and phrasing"..."Virtuosic but not exceptional"..."unfortunately let down by singing"..."suffers from a lack of personality and variety"..."blighted by the conductor’s very audible vocal intrusions" (mine!)..."rather disappointing"..."There are better choices"..."too often heavy and ponderous"..."Too strident for my liking"..."lacking in power"..."Best avoided – there are many far superior options" (mine again!) - and they are all from just this month so far. Maybe the accusation is rather harsh?
Previous Message
Nigel Harris's review of the Saint-Saens/Glazunov violin concertos is excellent. It is refreshing to read a review which is thorough and honest about a recording's strengths AND weaknesses - the latter being conspicuously absent, or severely minimized, in too many other reviews on this site. Excellent writing and observations, Mr. Harris!
Very good of you to reply so promptly and in such conciliatory fashion, Mr Rowe - much appreciated and I am glad we can agree. Nonetheless, your point is taken that, by implication, we reviewers should be chary of "gushing".
Previous Message
Yes, Mr. Moore, you are right. I perhaps should have worded my comments differently, as there are many reviews here which point out deficiencies as applicable. As a matter of fact, a recent review written by you is another one which I remember being refreshingly honest and forthright - that of Beethoven Symphonies 1-3 with the Australian Chamber Orchestra. More succinctly to my point, I think there is something about the passion in the way you and Mr. Harris write which is especially meaningful to me, and thus I perceive it as being "honest" - which is perhaps a bad choice of word on my part. On the other hand, I remember several reviews which were so effusive in praise, they sound almost as if generated by A.I. technology! But, you're right, most reviews here are truthful and insightful, and exhibit true integrity, especially when compared to what we read in other publications.
Previous Message
Mr Rowe's back-handed compliment regarding Nigel Harris' review made me think again whether the reviews on MusicWeb really are lacking honesty when it comes to indicating flaws in recordings, as we pride ourselves on being independent and unafraid to deliver opinions which might be...unpalatable....unwise? if we were dependent on sponsorship and advertisers. As a result, I trawled through some of the straplines for more recent reviews to test that assertion and while I concede that many are highly complimentary, that is surely more a testament to the quality of what we choose to review - and of course one tends to gravitate towards things which will please rather than be an eternal curmudgeon. Here are some verdicts: "Readings that don’t match up with the best"..."The main works are ill-served by eccentric tempi and phrasing"..."Virtuosic but not exceptional"..."unfortunately let down by singing"..."suffers from a lack of personality and variety"..."blighted by the conductor’s very audible vocal intrusions" (mine!)..."rather disappointing"..."There are better choices"..."too often heavy and ponderous"..."Too strident for my liking"..."lacking in power"..."Best avoided – there are many far superior options" (mine again!) - and they are all from just this month so far. Maybe the accusation is rather harsh?
Previous Message
Nigel Harris's review of the Saint-Saens/Glazunov violin concertos is excellent. It is refreshing to read a review which is thorough and honest about a recording's strengths AND weaknesses - the latter being conspicuously absent, or severely minimized, in too many other reviews on this site. Excellent writing and observations, Mr. Harris!