In response to Len's email I have read through the results of the test and I've come away somewhat confused. What exactly do the results prove? Not a lot, IMO. First off, I don't hold with the premise that reviewers are swayed by pedigree when it comes to assessing a given recording. In fact, I am just as likely to dislike a performance from a well-known ensemble/conductor as one from a B-list group.
As for the nuances of each performance we are all going to pick different things to highlight; even recording quality is highly subjective, so I would expect a wide range of responses there too.
So, well done the three testers involved. I'm just not sure the conclusions amount to much.
I shall now put on my tin hat and take cover....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the blind tests underlined something that many reviewers already know, but which is worth reminding ourselves of: that reviews are ultimately subjective, however objective they try to be. Two reviewers of the Rachmaninov said they liked the Petrenko version but the third reviewer was not so keen on it. No doubt they were all trying to be objective but they had to give their honest reactions to the recordings - and those reactions could not avoid being at least partly subjective.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a "bad" thing, as it would be rather boring if we all agreed about everything and there was only one "correct" view. We know that the proverb "De gustibus non est disputandum" (or "There's no accounting for tastes") holds true for music as it does for (nearly?) everything else. TV commercials for Marmite made the most of the fact that some people love it, others hate it.
The blind review of the Schmitt disc reminds us of another important factor in reviewing. The second reviewer said: "It is hard to comment on performance and recording without a score or previous knowledge of the music". As a jazz reviewer, I don't usually resort to a score, but it is invaluable to have some previous knowledge of the music in question.
A while ago I was taken to task on this weblog for suggesting that a particular review (not, I hasten to add, on MusicWeb!) showed the reviewer's basic ignorance of her subject. Before one hurries into print or onto the internet as a reviewer, it is highly desirable (essential?) either to have some previous knowledge or to do enough homework to fill in the necessary background. Thankfully the majority of MusicWeb reviewers seem to be genuine experts in their field, as well as aiming for high standards of integrity as well as knowledgeability.
But nobody's perfect (except, perhaps, me...).
Crimminy... did my entire post just get swallowed by the aether??? ARGH.
ReplyDeleteHere's the gist: THE ROCK blind review was great, necessary, commendable. The Schmitt review was a pointless collection of hedges.
And this quote from a recent review of mine, on which I elaborated extensively, but cannot, again:
"First impressions can be terrible things. The emotional footprint they have is so formative that it colors our perception of everything that comes after it. That’s why a date to which you showed up with a booger blissfully stuck to the tip of your nose so rarely leads to a second date. Or why every Beethoven Symphony since Toscanini has been a disappointment. (Part of the ‘Golden Age’ attitude found with frightful frequency among critics of a certain generation.)
When your first meaningful encounter with the Shostakovich string quartets was the Borodin Quartet, you are screwed, too. The intensity, the roughness, and the overwhelming sense of authenticity (ultimately a purely psychological phenomenon), there simply isn’t anything that can match that. My impression by the Borodin has been so considerable that I even, perversely, consider scratchy sound and slight distortion part of the desirable ‘authenticity’. Perhaps it helps getting into the dark, dystopian Soviet mood that facilitates our appreciation of these quartets? It’s nonsense, of course—but try arguing with perception and feelings, even—or especially—if they are your own."
Select & copy before sending - I've learned to do this the hard way too!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations for all for the hard work on this blind test. I think any such a test does have value, though with an acceptance that responses will always be subjective, and that the majority of reviewers will say something smells like a polecat if it does smell like a polecat, even if it's played by Orpheus himself (on a bad day). With these and other aspects of such a test taken into consideration I think the value is probably more a statistical one, and would need to cover a larger number of (informed) listeners - probably ticking multiple choice questions on intonation, musicality, technical quality etc. Dull yes, but that way you remove the subjective/descriptive element and even out irregularities by seeing a majority view.
Yes - 1st impressions and long-term passionate relationships with particular recordings do very much shape our perceptions. My own include an old LP of Ansermet conducting the Suisse Romande in Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring', which I played to death as a kid and can hardly listen to now - not because I don't like it any more, but because, like the smell of Play-Doh, it rips my consciousness back so many years it hurts!
However - mind and ear educated and fed regularly with alternatives, I have become rehabilitated and can now listen more objectively to recordings both recent and ancient. As for 'homework', if I find I'm dealing with music I don't know well enough I usually find a visit to YouTube helps - virtually everything mainstream has performances there for reference, ranging from sublime to sub-slime.
Interesting points, all. In the case of favourite recordings I find it helps to acknowledge these in a review, as this will provide readers with some sort of context for your findings.
ReplyDeleteAs for new works - ie without a score and/or performance history - I think one needs to feel confident enough in one's own judgment to review these pieces without feeling the need for any pointers or props. One may not always get it right, but then reviewing is not a precise art.
I sometimes re-read reviews and wish I'd changed this or elaborated on that, but really each review is like a parachute jump. If you've landed in one piece you've succeeded, so walk away and prepare for the next one.