IMHO I think it is important to keep in mind that one critic's
viewpoint
is just that: one person's OPINION. Yes, maybe they are "right", but
sometimes there is no "black and white" viewpoint. One person's trash
is another person's treasure, so to speak. I think we should feel free
to
enjoy what we want to enjoy, despite somebody else's (sometimes VERY
narrow and limited) focus. ( Remember - THEY KNOW MORE than you do,
because THEY HAVE A DEGREE! {or do they?} [ I bought mine online
from Indonesia... ] )
Personally, I don't let anybody tell me what music not to like / buy
and
vice versa: something I learned in high school. In Don Campbell's
book,
"The Roar of Silence" he talks about sitting in Carnegie Hall as a
music critic,
having an absolutely miserable time because he was listening for the
slightest
mistake, while the person next to him was having a religeous
experience.
If you like Karajan's Brandenburgs buy them, listen to them, love
them,
bask in their lush soundscapes, and to &e11 with the critics!
ENJOY Music!
Tom
> 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
Tom Draughon
Heartistry Music
http://www.heartistrymusic.com/artists/tom.html
714 9th Avenue West
Ashland, WI 54806
715-682-9362
--
