Howard, you have a point. But I still think a reviewer who is professionally and thoroughly enmeshed in a particular clique is doing his feather boa dance very close to the edge of a slippery slope when he curls his lip in print at others with an alternative view. While I have no personal axe to grind, I am perturbed that this reviewer deliberately stuck it to groups who had the temerity to interpret old music using instruments instead of solo voices (even though I may agree with him). And he admits that he and other reviewers "wanted to influence the performers, the record-buying public and through them the record companies, and...we spared none of the instrument-based groups whose records came our way." In the US, Fox is effectively following the same format. I am a little uncomfortable with this sort of propaganda used deliberately to destroy the career and reputation of one group to advance the interests of another. Not that it matters anymore, since record companies no longer have much interest in early music and everyone thinks music is free... RA > Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:21 -0800 > To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Saturday quotes > > > On Feb 5, 2012, at 8:29 AM, Ron Andrico wrote: > > > While I am also a great admirer of Page's work, I am a little incensed > > that a reviewer admits to deliberately panning commercial recordings > > with the intent to advance one point of view. Ethics? > > Would you be incensed by a reviewer who panned Herbert von Karajan's recordings of Bach because the critic's "one point of view" was that Bach should be played with attention to historical performance practice? Or a reviewer who admitted that in the 1970's he had deliberately conveyed the message to buy the period-instrument recordings of Bach's cantatas by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt and "leave the rest" (modern-instrument performances by Richter and Rilling and whoever)? > > Or, closer to home on this list, is it wrong for a critic to opine that lute recordings on instruments built like modern guitars are not the ones to buy? > > Critics are paid to convey information and make judgments. If a critic writing for a publication about early music has reached a conclusion that voices-only performance is "correct," and that any instruments make it as wrong as Karajan's Brandenburgs, it isn't unethical for that viewpoint to inform his writing--indeed, how could he possibly put it aside and pretend he didn't think the performances with instruments are historically wrong (just as you might conclude, if the instruments were saxophones)? You might find his viewpoint wrong or overly limited, and maybe you're right. But it isn't unethical for a critic to approach his work with his own ideas. > > The potential ethical problems stem from the small-world nature of the early music community, where the prominent performers and scholars all know each other, and cronyism, or the reverse, is always a problem. When I was review editor for the LSA quarterly, I told some folks (all of them on this list, I think) that there were ethical problems because they were performers writing about other performers or publishers writing about other publishers ("competition" in common parlance), making for inherent conflict of interest. I don't think anyone had ever brought it up before, and while the (soon-to-be former) reviewers themselves seemed to understand, or at least accepted, my insistence on avoiding systemic conflict of interest, the responses I got from the LSA officialdom was much the same response I would have gotten if I'd said only Martians could write reviews for the Q. And maybe they were right: perhaps if the community is small enough, you have to put up with conflic! > t of interest if you want a pool of reviewers. > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
