"I'm right and they're wrong !" LoL The great British arts critic Bernard Levin once wrote a theatre review in the (London) Times saying (approximately) "You may disagree but, look, I watch more plays than you do, and I'm right"
About correcting parts and editions in general. It is the responsibility of EVERY conductor using ANY edition to make sure that the parts and the score agree and that audible details of the score are marked in the parts in a way that conveys to the players what they need to do. It is a colossal waste of time to pass out parts that are incorrect or that omit necessary information. The conductor must supply the librarian with whatever information is needed to put things into shape well in advance of the first rehearsal. That this sort of thing is routinely ignored these days is no reason to act like doing the BARE MINIMUM constitutes something revelatory.
Lack of specificity about details of the performance, a focus on edition and identity of performers, etc. are often, to my mind, ways to avoid talking about flaws in a recording that a critic recognizes but cannot acknowledge. Sometimes prior commitments to the "home town team" or other factors take precedence over simple honesty.
When critics go awry, it’s when they begin with their opinion first (which, as DH points out, is the least important facet of a valid review) and then seek to shore up their favorable or unfavorable opinion with extra-musical irrelevancies, fancy language and academic trivia. This one is a clear case of “I kinda liked it when I skimmed it, so I’ll say some flowery and irrelevant stuff in support of my first favorable impression.” It’s not good criticism. Dave just points out the truth.
I've asked ChapGPT to write me a review of a CD recording of Ravel's Daphe & Chloe. Here are some paragraphs: "From the opening notes, the orchestra painted a vivid sonic canvas, capturing the essence of Maurice Ravel's intricate score. The conductor skillfully navigated the dynamic shifts, allowing the music to breathe and soar with an ethereal quality. The delicate balance between the woodwinds, strings, and percussion created a rich tapestry of sound that transported the listener to a world of pastoral beauty." "One of the highlights of this performance was the precision and expressiveness of the musicians. The intricate polyrhythms and lush harmonies of Ravel's composition were executed with finesse, showcasing the technical prowess of the orchestra. The seamless transitions between the different sections of the piece were a testament to the musicians' mastery of their craft." "The CD captured not only the grandeur of the orchestral sections but also the intimate moments of the composition. The solos, particularly from the flute and clarinet, were exquisite, adding a personal touch to the overarching narrative. The subtle nuances and emotive phrasing brought out the emotional depth of the music, making it a truly immersive experience." "Ravel's ability to blend traditional tonalities with impressionistic colors was brought to life in this performance. The orchestra explored the vast sonic palette of "Daphnis et Chloé," from the shimmering delicacy of the dawn scenes to the pulsating energy of the Bacchanalian dance. The CD effectively captured the sonic textures and intricate details, allowing the listener to appreciate the subtleties of Ravel's genius." Now, add in some extra notes and context and we might have a serious candidate to be a Grammophone reviewer.
That sounds exactly how most reviews read in Gramophone and MusicWeb and elsewhere. I doubt many of them ever even listen to the recordings they "review"!
Being a resident of the sceptred isle, for many years I read the hallowed pages of Gramophone and granted it’s reviews an authority that you have shattered over your many videos. This one has been especially welcome and useful on that path to enlightenment.
One factor in this gramophone review in my opinion is the need to find new and fantastic recommendations among new releases, which has become much more difficult as the number of new releases by top level groups has diminished over the years. Couple that with the focus on elevating the local enterprise that the British critics have favored for years, and you get reviews like this. I also noticed a parallel hype on the Proms UA-cam videos of this ensemble and conductor, with the hosts absolutely raving before and after the performances about how this was absolutely the best thing going on in the music scene, while my ears told me that they were performances with little individual character that were shaped by Wilson in ways that didn't serve the music particularly well, for example often substituting fast tempi for musical development.
I agree. The flowery language of the review Dave is reading is a dead give-away that the critic himself knows better, but has to write SOMETHING that sounds positive anyway. Even the “complements” are half-hearted nonsense.
These magazine-based reiewers have an interest in pushing new recordings instead of telling people that "Karajan is better", "Szell is better", "Klemperer is better", or even "Wand is better" (I mention him for being alive later and I could have also mentioned Mackerras. Telling people to reassess what they have and listen to it anew sells no new CD's. Without the sales of new CD's or downloads the record business declines and so does the quantity of music to review. So does the cushy job disappear . Figure that the new recordings that you trash are sold individually at full price, and that Szell's Beethoen symphonies box is available at a bargain price... Which one would I go for? Write a glorious review of Szell's Beethoven, or even contrast the three Karajan sets, and you are selling nothing new. Dave is free to say "This is trash" because nobody is going to cut off his career if the recording industry dies.
Dave, one of the things I appreciate about you is your ability and courage to cut through politics and other bullshit in the world of classical music, as you also did with the Shostakovich/Storgårds recordings. Thank you for that.
Perhaps because I am insecure and there is not enough commitment/competence/means from myself, I somewhat feel the need for critics as for doctors. To read or listen to Dave Hurwitz means from time to time (because I am sporadic) to reap superlative entertainment: just felt this after listening to Elgar's Introduction and Allegro by Munch on that Boston Symphony Serenade recording Dave mentioned when going through his Tchaikovski collection. Couldn't believe it. Distance, impartial arguments, musical knowledge and talent are distinctive of Dr Hurwitz's advice. You want to come back and it is very accessible. Is that so different from the subjectivity, 'knowledge', argued partiality or wit of Baudelaire or Debussy as critics in their ages, as long as they could hear and think better than I could dream of, I do not know. I also reckon past advice and support media like Gramophone or BBC music magazine could bring in the pre digital era. If you live in a far distance. But also remember how amusing was a feature in the late Monde de la Musique French magazine, during the 1980's, Arièle Butaux's "Revue des critiques", which confronted a whole bunch of them on the same recordings. Thank you again, Sir.
Leading with the liner notes so early in the review reminds me of a similar restaurant review I read once. The critic chose to write about the lovely subway tiles and sinks in the restroom before actually talking about the food. It's a restaurant! What do I care about the bathrooms if the food is no good! Oy.
Dave, I agree with you 100% on every point. I even question whether Gramophone actually listens to the recordings they "review". We can be sure they're going to just *love* (!!) them no matter what, after all these labels pay a bunch for advertising in their rag and they sure wouldn't want to say anything disparaging about their releases. I suspect Gramophone relies on A.I. for a bunch of the nonsensical babble in "reviews".
Very helpful! I love the Gramophone Magazine and BBC Classical Music, but I've read many reviews steeped in B.S. Usually, the reviewer identifies benchmark recordings and does SPECIFIC comparisons. These are usually helpful., especially if I know the benchmark. The quality of the so called benchmark recordings is also important. If the critic does not want to trash the recording too much, he/she uses substandard "benchmark " recordings. We all have a good idea which recordings are held in the highest regard. The worst reviews don't use the best recordings fior comparison purposes and are definitely not specific. Thanks for your analysis and, yes, I've purchased too many recordings based upon the moniker "editors choice" or 5 stars from BBC that weren't really up to snuff. I'd love to hear about your biggest mistakes, lol!
Wonderful analysis. I haven't heard the Wilson, but I had no idea of what the reviewer was talking about. In other words, as you say, it didn't help me. The over-reliance on adjectives and the vague "marketing" phrases really put me off. One of the things I like about your reviews (aside from their wit) is how specific the descriptions are - what you call the appreciation of musical facts. It's a hard skill to acquire.
Thanks Dave for a very interesting talk. I will read these reviews we find on the web and in specialezed magazines with a different outlook from now on. I feel, thanks to you, that I know what to look for now.
Great video Dave ! I have a suggestion based on what you said in this video, could you do a list of bad recordings that teach you something about the work in question ?
This is completely spot on. I read the Gramophone review and found it very lazy indeed and, as you point out, contradictory and an unfaithful representation of the actual sound of the recording, in the few moments where the performance is addressed. I am English and grew up with Gramophone, BBC Music Magazine et al and one thing that has always irritated me is the assumptions of quality in these publications based on the fame of a performer or the latest flavour of the month. So often my aural experience of a disc has nothing to do with the review I read. I think an interesting experiment would be a “blind” listening for these reviewers so that they can’t be biased by a name. I know we are all affected by our own biases but a reviewers job is surely to cut through this and talk about the actual sound that is produced. And the pomposity, my God! You have a wonderful approach to reviewing that is utterly without bullshit. Thank you!
If someone really cares about Daphnis and Chloe, one thing they need to do is prepare string parts for the last 5 minutes of the piece where every desk has its own separate part with all of the divisi lines removed except for the parts the players on that desk play. That way each pages has 3 times as much usable music. All the extra lines for divisi cause the need to turn pages about every 10 seconds, so half the players drop out over and over again. Fixing this kind of thing takes hours and hours of work. It's a shame to play top professional players to spend more time turning pages than playing. People who bother about such things are a dying breed.
I am late to the party here, but since you are now doing a series on written criticism, I wonder if you might do a chat on critics, alive or dead, you recommend/admire. We know of Tovey, but not much of why he was so great, and I myself love Ernest Newman, but you are so much more informed of so many others...
To my point of view, an element of explanation of critics divergence is because, basically, objectivity in art is an illusion. Every critic has his own taste and preferences which have necessarily some influence on his judgement. In your case, Dave, your musical culture is absolutely incredible. But, having seen your 3,000 videos, I got the impression that you have a particular love for the large symphonic structures of the 19th century, which is, of course, not the case for other critics and music lovers. Am I wrong ?
They are trying to get big sales for Chandos. Boulez will be far better. Conventional ensembles have great ensemble. I love very occasionally disagreeing with you, dare I mention Pfitzner, but really love your reviews of Mahler and Shostakovich especially and Ravel. The new Elder Delius Mass of Life is very heartening and interesting. It shows great musical imagination throughout. It is a great interpretation. Love to cat or cats.
Shit, I just bought this album based on the Gramophone review. Well, I won’t waste my time listening to it. I lost some money, but time is money so I guess I’ll get back some of it.
In my comments to Dave's video review, I noted the horn cracking repeatedly. It turns out that this is the precise spot (the rising figures in the Danse légère) that the Gramophone reviewer singles out for praise & lack of wobble. I'm prepared to differ with someone else as to whether they find some aspect compelling, but not whether a cracking horn is to be praised for its steadiness. Utterly bizarre.
From yesterday's (Nov 9, 2023) Guardian review: "Generations will thank John Wilson for this glorious recording". I think Dave makes some telling points about the edition of the score, and the playing of the orchestra, which divides the critics.
@@gavingriffiths2633 If a conductor is to NOT follow the score he needs some compelling reason. He might see something that others never saw within the score. Cuts are often an option aptly taken, and some optional repeats add or detract. A conductor who deviates from the score without valid reason is marring the performance.
One big red flag in any music review (something that it's taken me years to figure out) - lots of pretentious, flowery language that tells you only about what the reviewer was feeling when he/she listened to the recording and nothing about the quality of the performance or sound recording. Also, lots of references to other composers and recordings, instead of taking the subject of the review on its own terms. These can be pretty unhelpful (especially when trying to explain how the work sounds of a composer whom you're unlikely to know) and usually are just the reviewer trying to show off his/her knowledge. Where references to past recordings are concerned, alarm bells ring particularly loudly in my head where the comparisons are negative (e.g. 'This is not the swift tempo taken by conductor 'x' and orchestra 'y''), which often are an oblique way of telling you that the recording actually sucks, and the reason why he makes a negative comparison is that the recording doesn't withstand direct comparison with anything good!
When I was (a lot) younger, boy, did I sop up everything Gramophone had to say. Hook, line, and sinker, they had me. Gradually I came to realize that their contributors -- the vast majority anyway -- couldn't discern the magnificent from the pedestrian. (A couple of cases in point: they never, ever recognized the brilliance of Ivan Moravec or Ernest Ansermet, to cite only two.) Then I came to understand how dismissive they could be of many artists who weren't English, for what seemed no other reason than that, while fawning over those who were. Ultimately, the insularity of British critics led me to ignore them completely.
To be fair, after applying the “raciest” label, the critic then attributes the feeling of “a lack of erotic charge” to “Munch enthusiasts,” not to himself.
That's just a literary conceit. How would he know what Munch enthusiasts think? It's a quality he detects and describes. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide One would assume that Munch enthusiasts view Munch's qualities (such as raciness) favorably. The implication is that they these enthusiasts are an extreme case, whereas normal people would be satisfied. If the raciness is objectively absent, then yes, the whole argument is meaningless.
I’m just glad I know a critic who’s objectively right! Wonderful video, Dave. It’s fun to read prose which sounds like sense as long as you don’t think about it. Writing it is a skill of sorts.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your method. I posted some snippets of other reviews because i was surprised at their reactions vs yours. I subscribe to Classicstoday, not the Gramophone. 'Nuff said 🙂 Did anyone mention Joyce Hatto ? Is John Wilson the new Joyce Hatto ? I like your argument about starting with the facts before moving to opinion. Is it that too many critics jump straight to opinion with all the risks of unconscious or implicit bias?
Not that any blurb from any "prestigious" music magazine would have any effect whatsoever on a classical release these days, but as you make clear, this review has a lot of contradictory information that adds up to nonsense. In listening to some excerpts, this is a very weird performance indeed.
The critic fell foul as well by his attempt to be 'literary' or'poetic'. Such flowery writing can be endemic, and really say nothing except to tout the emotions of said critic and his literary ambitions. I have always hated such overstatement as unmusical pablum. I remember back in early 70's hippy times, a Rolling Stone rock critic was hired to do back of album notes of classical records (I believe his name was Lester Bangs) that were so excessively flowery and fights of verbal fantasy that they were enervating! I thought at the. time he wrote them he must have been on acid. But I think they were trying to get a younger audience to buy such 'unhip' music (I also recall the album art was in a very psychedelic style), so hence he was writing for the perceived target audience. This Englishman must feel he is doing the same; Gramophone pretentiousness and posturing types...
@@jimcarlile7238 My aging recall can be wrong, but the combo of his name and the ridiculous essay were burned into my brain 50 years ago! (It was a Beethoven album) I did not know then he was a very respected Rock critic. Yet you are also correct; Rockwell may have also written one, as I recall it was a series of such psychedelic albums covering multiple composers.
Dave, I watch your channel because you are RIGHT and they are wrong! Thanks for being the opinionated wit (I changed that) you are, and please do keep advancing my education.Thank you!
The review seemed mired in the murky double-speak of a politician. It sounds so committed on the surface, but it's in fact absolutely non-committal. Do critics at Gramophone receive strong pressure to favorably review their countrymen, at the cost of factual representation?
"I'm right and they're wrong !" LoL The great British arts critic Bernard Levin once wrote a theatre review in the (London) Times saying (approximately) "You may disagree but, look, I watch more plays than you do, and I'm right"
About correcting parts and editions in general.
It is the responsibility of EVERY conductor using ANY edition to make sure that the parts and the score agree and that audible details of the score are marked in the parts in a way that conveys to the players what they need to do. It is a colossal waste of time to pass out parts that are incorrect or that omit necessary information. The conductor must supply the librarian with whatever information is needed to put things into shape well in advance of the first rehearsal. That this sort of thing is routinely ignored these days is no reason to act like doing the BARE MINIMUM constitutes something revelatory.
Lack of specificity about details of the performance, a focus on edition and identity of performers, etc. are often, to my mind, ways to avoid talking about flaws in a recording that a critic recognizes but cannot acknowledge. Sometimes prior commitments to the "home town team" or other factors take precedence over simple honesty.
When critics go awry, it’s when they begin with their opinion first (which, as DH points out, is the least important facet of a valid review) and then seek to shore up their favorable or unfavorable opinion with extra-musical irrelevancies, fancy language and academic trivia. This one is a clear case of “I kinda liked it when I skimmed it, so I’ll say some flowery and irrelevant stuff in support of my first favorable impression.” It’s not good criticism. Dave just points out the truth.
I've asked ChapGPT to write me a review of a CD recording of Ravel's Daphe & Chloe. Here are some paragraphs:
"From the opening notes, the orchestra painted a vivid sonic canvas, capturing the essence of Maurice Ravel's intricate score. The conductor skillfully navigated the dynamic shifts, allowing the music to breathe and soar with an ethereal quality. The delicate balance between the woodwinds, strings, and percussion created a rich tapestry of sound that transported the listener to a world of pastoral beauty."
"One of the highlights of this performance was the precision and expressiveness of the musicians. The intricate polyrhythms and lush harmonies of Ravel's composition were executed with finesse, showcasing the technical prowess of the orchestra. The seamless transitions between the different sections of the piece were a testament to the musicians' mastery of their craft."
"The CD captured not only the grandeur of the orchestral sections but also the intimate moments of the composition. The solos, particularly from the flute and clarinet, were exquisite, adding a personal touch to the overarching narrative. The subtle nuances and emotive phrasing brought out the emotional depth of the music, making it a truly immersive experience."
"Ravel's ability to blend traditional tonalities with impressionistic colors was brought to life in this performance. The orchestra explored the vast sonic palette of "Daphnis et Chloé," from the shimmering delicacy of the dawn scenes to the pulsating energy of the Bacchanalian dance. The CD effectively captured the sonic textures and intricate details, allowing the listener to appreciate the subtleties of Ravel's genius."
Now, add in some extra notes and context and we might have a serious candidate to be a Grammophone reviewer.
Wow!
That sounds exactly how most reviews read in Gramophone and MusicWeb and elsewhere. I doubt many of them ever even listen to the recordings they "review"!
Being a resident of the sceptred isle, for many years I read the hallowed pages of Gramophone and granted it’s reviews an authority that you have shattered over your many videos. This one has been especially welcome and useful on that path to enlightenment.
One factor in this gramophone review in my opinion is the need to find new and fantastic recommendations among new releases, which has become much more difficult as the number of new releases by top level groups has diminished over the years. Couple that with the focus on elevating the local enterprise that the British critics have favored for years, and you get reviews like this. I also noticed a parallel hype on the Proms UA-cam videos of this ensemble and conductor, with the hosts absolutely raving before and after the performances about how this was absolutely the best thing going on in the music scene, while my ears told me that they were performances with little individual character that were shaped by Wilson in ways that didn't serve the music particularly well, for example often substituting fast tempi for musical development.
I agree. The flowery language of the review Dave is reading is a dead give-away that the critic himself knows better, but has to write SOMETHING that sounds positive anyway. Even the “complements” are half-hearted nonsense.
These magazine-based reiewers have an interest in pushing new recordings instead of telling people that "Karajan is better", "Szell is better", "Klemperer is better", or even "Wand is better" (I mention him for being alive later and I could have also mentioned Mackerras. Telling people to reassess what they have and listen to it anew sells no new CD's. Without the sales of new CD's or downloads the record business declines and so does the quantity of music to review. So does the cushy job disappear .
Figure that the new recordings that you trash are sold individually at full price, and that Szell's Beethoen symphonies box is available at a bargain price... Which one would I go for? Write a glorious review of Szell's Beethoven, or even contrast the three Karajan sets, and you are selling nothing new.
Dave is free to say "This is trash" because nobody is going to cut off his career if the recording industry dies.
Dave, one of the things I appreciate about you is your ability and courage to cut through politics and other bullshit in the world of classical music, as you also did with the Shostakovich/Storgårds recordings. Thank you for that.
Perhaps because I am insecure and there is not enough commitment/competence/means from myself, I somewhat feel the need for critics as for doctors. To read or listen to Dave Hurwitz means from time to time (because I am sporadic) to reap superlative entertainment: just felt this after listening to Elgar's Introduction and Allegro by Munch on that Boston Symphony Serenade recording Dave mentioned when going through his Tchaikovski collection. Couldn't believe it. Distance, impartial arguments, musical knowledge and talent are distinctive of Dr Hurwitz's advice. You want to come back and it is very accessible. Is that so different from the subjectivity, 'knowledge', argued partiality or wit of Baudelaire or Debussy as critics in their ages, as long as they could hear and think better than I could dream of, I do not know. I also reckon past advice and support media like Gramophone or BBC music magazine could bring in the pre digital era. If you live in a far distance. But also remember how amusing was a feature in the late Monde de la Musique French magazine, during the 1980's, Arièle Butaux's "Revue des critiques", which confronted a whole bunch of them on the same recordings. Thank you again, Sir.
Reminds me of Shostakovich's irritation over Stalin's talk of "symphonic soundings." "What are these mysterious 'symphonic soundings'?'"
I've enjoyed my months as a subscriber of both ClassicsToday and the Ultimate Music Guide and found this video one of the most useful. Thanks, Dave!
Leading with the liner notes so early in the review reminds me of a similar restaurant review I read once. The critic chose to write about the lovely subway tiles and sinks in the restroom before actually talking about the food. It's a restaurant! What do I care about the bathrooms if the food is no good! Oy.
Dave, I agree with you 100% on every point. I even question whether Gramophone actually listens to the recordings they "review". We can be sure they're going to just *love* (!!) them no matter what, after all these labels pay a bunch for advertising in their rag and they sure wouldn't want to say anything disparaging about their releases. I suspect Gramophone relies on A.I. for a bunch of the nonsensical babble in "reviews".
Very helpful! I love the Gramophone Magazine and BBC Classical Music, but I've read many reviews steeped in B.S. Usually, the reviewer identifies benchmark recordings and does SPECIFIC comparisons. These are usually helpful., especially if I know the benchmark. The quality of the so called benchmark recordings is also important. If the critic does not want to trash the recording too much, he/she uses substandard "benchmark " recordings. We all have a good idea which recordings are held in the highest regard. The worst reviews don't use the best recordings fior comparison purposes and are definitely not specific. Thanks for your analysis and, yes, I've purchased too many recordings based upon the moniker "editors choice" or 5 stars from BBC that weren't really up to snuff. I'd love to hear about your biggest mistakes, lol!
Wonderful analysis. I haven't heard the Wilson, but I had no idea of what the reviewer was talking about. In other words, as you say, it didn't help me. The over-reliance on adjectives and the vague "marketing" phrases really put me off.
One of the things I like about your reviews (aside from their wit) is how specific the descriptions are - what you call the appreciation of musical facts. It's a hard skill to acquire.
Thanks Dave for a very interesting talk. I will read these reviews we find on the web and in specialezed magazines with a different outlook from now on. I feel, thanks to you, that I know what to look for now.
Great video Dave !
I have a suggestion based on what you said in this video, could you do a list of bad recordings that teach you something about the work in question ?
This is completely spot on. I read the Gramophone review and found it very lazy indeed and, as you point out, contradictory and an unfaithful representation of the actual sound of the recording, in the few moments where the performance is addressed.
I am English and grew up with Gramophone, BBC Music Magazine et al and one thing that has always irritated me is the assumptions of quality in these publications based on the fame of a performer or the latest flavour of the month. So often my aural experience of a disc has nothing to do with the review I read. I think an interesting experiment would be a “blind” listening for these reviewers so that they can’t be biased by a name. I know we are all affected by our own biases but a reviewers job is surely to cut through this and talk about the actual sound that is produced. And the pomposity, my God!
You have a wonderful approach to reviewing that is utterly without bullshit. Thank you!
Thank YOU!
If someone really cares about Daphnis and Chloe, one thing they need to do is prepare string parts for the last 5 minutes of the piece where every desk has its own separate part with all of the divisi lines removed except for the parts the players on that desk play. That way each pages has 3 times as much usable music. All the extra lines for divisi cause the need to turn pages about every 10 seconds, so half the players drop out over and over again. Fixing this kind of thing takes hours and hours of work. It's a shame to play top professional players to spend more time turning pages than playing.
People who bother about such things are a dying breed.
That's why God made music librarians. With modern music publishing you can fix that with the touch of a button.
I am late to the party here, but since you are now doing a series on written criticism, I wonder if you might do a chat on critics, alive or dead, you recommend/admire. We know of Tovey, but not much of why he was so great, and I myself love Ernest Newman, but you are so much more informed of so many others...
To my point of view, an element of explanation of critics divergence is because, basically, objectivity in art is an illusion. Every critic has his own taste and preferences which have necessarily some influence on his judgement. In your case, Dave, your musical culture is absolutely incredible. But, having seen your 3,000 videos, I got the impression that you have a particular love for the large symphonic structures of the 19th century, which is, of course, not the case for other critics and music lovers. Am I wrong ?
I don't know.
This type of obfuscation in writing style points to the possibility that the writer is under a direct order to say something against his true opinion.
Too bad you can't play audio samples. A direct comparison of Wilson and maybe Munch or Boulez would be more enlightening.
Yes, it would.
The beautiful destruction of an inane review.
They are trying to get big sales for Chandos. Boulez will be far better. Conventional ensembles have great ensemble.
I love very occasionally disagreeing with you, dare I mention Pfitzner, but really love your reviews of Mahler and Shostakovich especially and Ravel. The new Elder Delius Mass of Life is very heartening and interesting. It shows great musical imagination throughout. It is a great interpretation.
Love to cat or cats.
Dave I just love you.
Shit, I just bought this album based on the Gramophone review. Well, I won’t waste my time listening to it. I lost some money, but time is money so I guess I’ll get back some of it.
I like when Dave swears. I'll take profanity, backed by no-nonsense understanding, over wooly pretentiousness any day.
I swear so much routinely and watch other content creators who do to the point that I don't even hear it anymore.
Breath of fresh air. The classical music snobs need to disappear into the ether. You know them the ok yar crew
Yes. I like it when he calls BS BS.
My god, this “review” reads like it came from the public relations department of the label. So much shame, so little time.
In my comments to Dave's video review, I noted the horn cracking repeatedly. It turns out that this is the precise spot (the rising figures in the Danse légère) that the Gramophone reviewer singles out for praise & lack of wobble. I'm prepared to differ with someone else as to whether they find some aspect compelling, but not whether a cracking horn is to be praised for its steadiness. Utterly bizarre.
From yesterday's (Nov 9, 2023) Guardian review: "Generations will thank John Wilson for this glorious recording". I think Dave makes some telling points about the edition of the score, and the playing of the orchestra, which divides the critics.
This is just insane.
Could it be your worries about Wilson's inability to follow the score, in your review of the disc, is a result of his 'new' edition.....?
No.
Well, that's concise!
@@gavingriffiths2633 If a conductor is to NOT follow the score he needs some compelling reason. He might see something that others never saw within the score. Cuts are often an option aptly taken, and some optional repeats add or detract. A conductor who deviates from the score without valid reason is marring the performance.
One big red flag in any music review (something that it's taken me years to figure out) - lots of pretentious, flowery language that tells you only about what the reviewer was feeling when he/she listened to the recording and nothing about the quality of the performance or sound recording. Also, lots of references to other composers and recordings, instead of taking the subject of the review on its own terms. These can be pretty unhelpful (especially when trying to explain how the work sounds of a composer whom you're unlikely to know) and usually are just the reviewer trying to show off his/her knowledge. Where references to past recordings are concerned, alarm bells ring particularly loudly in my head where the comparisons are negative (e.g. 'This is not the swift tempo taken by conductor 'x' and orchestra 'y''), which often are an oblique way of telling you that the recording actually sucks, and the reason why he makes a negative comparison is that the recording doesn't withstand direct comparison with anything good!
When I was (a lot) younger, boy, did I sop up everything Gramophone had to say. Hook, line, and sinker, they had me. Gradually I came to realize that their contributors -- the vast majority anyway -- couldn't discern the magnificent from the pedestrian. (A couple of cases in point: they never, ever recognized the brilliance of Ivan Moravec or Ernest Ansermet, to cite only two.) Then I came to understand how dismissive they could be of many artists who weren't English, for what seemed no other reason than that, while fawning over those who were. Ultimately, the insularity of British critics led me to ignore them completely.
That was FUN!
To be fair, after applying the “raciest” label, the critic then attributes the feeling of “a lack of erotic charge” to “Munch enthusiasts,” not to himself.
That's just a literary conceit. How would he know what Munch enthusiasts think? It's a quality he detects and describes. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide One would assume that Munch enthusiasts view Munch's qualities (such as raciness) favorably. The implication is that they these enthusiasts are an extreme case, whereas normal people would be satisfied. If the raciness is objectively absent, then yes, the whole argument is meaningless.
I’m just glad I know a critic who’s objectively right! Wonderful video, Dave. It’s fun to read prose which sounds like sense as long as you don’t think about it. Writing it is a skill of sorts.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your method. I posted some snippets of other reviews because i was surprised at their reactions vs yours. I subscribe to Classicstoday, not the Gramophone. 'Nuff said 🙂 Did anyone mention Joyce Hatto ? Is John Wilson the new Joyce Hatto ? I like your argument about starting with the facts before moving to opinion. Is it that too many critics jump straight to opinion with all the risks of unconscious or implicit bias?
Too many critics have no clue what criticism is in the first place.
Not that any blurb from any "prestigious" music magazine would have any effect whatsoever on a classical release these days, but as you make clear, this review has a lot of contradictory information that adds up to nonsense. In listening to some excerpts, this is a very weird performance indeed.
The critic fell foul as well by his attempt to be 'literary' or'poetic'. Such flowery writing can be endemic, and really say nothing except to tout the emotions of said critic and his literary ambitions. I have always hated such overstatement as unmusical pablum. I remember back in early 70's hippy times, a Rolling Stone rock critic was hired to do back of album notes of classical records (I believe his name was Lester Bangs) that were so excessively flowery and fights of verbal fantasy that they were enervating! I thought at the. time he wrote them he must have been on acid. But I think they were trying to get a younger audience to buy such 'unhip' music (I also recall the album art was in a very psychedelic style), so hence he was writing for the perceived target audience. This Englishman must feel he is doing the same; Gramophone pretentiousness and posturing types...
I think it was John Rockwell. Lester Bangs, that's kind of funny. He may have, but I think it was Rockwell.
@@jimcarlile7238 My aging recall can be wrong, but the combo of his name and the ridiculous essay were burned into my brain 50 years ago! (It was a Beethoven album) I did not know then he was a very respected Rock critic. Yet you are also correct; Rockwell may have also written one, as I recall it was a series of such psychedelic albums covering multiple composers.
Dave, I watch your channel because you are RIGHT and they are wrong! Thanks for being the opinionated wit (I changed that) you are, and please do keep advancing my education.Thank you!
Gutman’s prose is so purple that you have to wonder if Gramophone
has laid off all of its copy editors, let alone, section editors.
They don't need editors; A.I. does all the writing!
The review seemed mired in the murky double-speak of a politician. It sounds so committed on the surface, but it's in fact absolutely non-committal. Do critics at Gramophone receive strong pressure to favorably review their countrymen, at the cost of factual representation?