Reviews of recordings of music by unsung composers

[semloh]

We have been discussing in various threads the art of the CD review, and I was trailing through a few reviews of works by Nápravnik when I found this one at Allmusic.com by James Leonard, which includes the following:

The Scottish BBC plays with more passionate dedication than professional courtesy. But the music defies revivification: brilliant but shallow, emotive but empty, grand but meaningless, the notes roll off Soifertis' fingers and are immediately forgotten -- forgotten, that is, except for Nápravnik's unfortunately unforgettable Fantaisie russe that opens with the most vulgar setting of the Song of the Volga Boatman ever unleashed on the ears of an unsuspecting humanity.
(http://www.allmusic.com/album/n%C3%A1pravn%C3%ADk-concerto-symphonique-fantaisie-russe-blumenfeld-allegro-mw0001944676)

Of course, this immediately sent me scurrying to the Fantaisie russe - as it certainly didn't stand out in my memory as being so obnoxious. I am now on my third successive listen (it's only a 12 minute work) and I have to say that to my ears the declamatory opening captures the spirit of the Boatman perfectly (maybe the reviewer was thinking of punting on the Cam?!). The hard slog of the opening almost immediately melts into a charming and well-sustained fantaisie, which I found enjoyable if not memorable. OK, not great music but hardly deserving of a dismissal which would deter anyone from buying the CD (except me! )

Leonard suggests that the works on the disc, volume 37 in Hyperion's The Romantic Piano Concerto series, featuring Nápravnik and Blumenfeld, signal that they are now scraping the bottom of the barrel and should bring it to an end.

My point here is not to debate the merits of these particular works (you may agree with the reviewer, of course), or the Hyperion series, but rather to suggest that perhaps unsung composers/works generally tend to get harsher reviews than they deserve, i.e. there is a systematic, if unconscious, prejudice at work, which seeks to justify their marginalization by the music establishment.

I suppose it is impossible to establish this as a matter of fact, but I would be interested to hear what you think. 

[petershott@btinternet.com]

I haven't come across James Leonard before, but, by golly, he's almost as good (or bad?) at it as G B Shaw! Methinks he seeks the agreement of readers through the use of jibes - which isn't entirely honourable!

That aside, I'm not sure if I accept the idea that critics tend to be more severe in the case of the unsungs so as to justify the marginalisation of the unsung - and rather naughty for you support what purports to be a general statement on the basis of one sample!

If anything, I think my hunch would be the opposite, viz performances & recordings of familiar and thoroughly sung works tend to be more critical. For example, take reviews of new recordings of Bruckner symphonies across a variety of publications or sites (e.g. IRR, the penny dreadful Gramophone, Classics Today, Music Web etc etc). We seem, for good or ill, to get a veritable splurge of Bruckner each month. And it is surely quite rare when a critic gives a positive recommendation without qualification. Most seem to suppose that finding some kind of 'fault', the conducting, the tempo, the lack of weight of the strings, the nastiness of the brass, the muffled recording or whatever it is, shows the critic to be doing his job, and doing it intelligently.

By contrast, most critics seem reasonably generous or tolerant or even plain welcoming to a recording of an unsung. It received a variety of responses, but I can't recall anyone saying anything downright rude or outrageously unfair about the Chandos Rufinatscha. Most in fact very much welcomed it, and a few thought it glorious.

To conclude, I'm not entirely sure which of us is right! A lot depends on where the review appears. I think one generalisation I would offer is that where the publication is renowned for its superficiality and lazy journalism (e.g. Gramophone or Classics Today) the tendency is to be more hostile. In contrast where it aspires to some seriousness and even scholarship (IRR or Music Web) a review tends to be more positive. True, false? I don't really know! But we're talking generalisations.

[Mark Thomas]

I think that Semloh hits the nail on the head with his phrase "unconscious prejudice" and suspect that the root of it is in the unchallenged assumption that "if a composer is unknown it must be because his music is no good".

[Martin Eastick]

I would wholeheartedly agree that there has for a long time been this prejudice against 'unsung' composers, and would even go so far as to say that this prejudice seems to be at its most obvious in relation to music of the romantic era. Not only reviewers are guilty here, but also some musicians themselves have to make justification as to why neglected repertoire remains so etc. However, more recently I am sure most would agree that a more open-minded attitude seems generally to be on the increase, resulting in more realistic and accurate observations being made from some sources, and fortunately some younger artists do really want to investigate and perform forgotten music from the period we on this forum enthuse so much about (e.g. Trynkos/Waghalter etc.)!

It is though unfortunate that the generation of "unsympathetic" reviewers do still seem to hold sway with some members of the record-buying public, who in turn may miss out on the wonders of Raff, Rufinatascha, Sherwood and hundreds of others, through their ignorance and the uncompromising and biased advice offered by the former!

[petershott@btinternet.com]

Allow me to pitch in another idea, not directly related to the role of critics, but relevant to Martin's point about musicians themselves in his last post above.

Over the summer we had a quite terrific concert in our village church in Suffolk given by a young, highly accomplished and clearly very ambitious string quartet. The identity of the quartet doesn't matter, but they record up the road at Potton Hall, their recordings are released with prominent publicity by a major label, and they have begun to appear at major chamber music festivals across the world. In other words, a major player in the field of which chamber music is recorded.

Being a small local festival, there was ample opportunity to meet and talk afterwards. What an opportunity for some arm twisting, I thought. Push the idea of adding to their programmes and recordings a few carefully chosen unsung quartets. No difficulty in drawing up a list, and Draeseke was one composer at the top of my examples.

I found the response.....well, really quite dispiriting. It went along the lines of: 'Yes, no doubt these composers might be interesting, and, yes, we agree it would be good if recordings of their works were available. However we're ambitious and want to be up there at the top of our profession. And our record company wants to sell our discs. Given that then [1] we have to concentrate on recording standard well known quartets, and thus pitch ourselves up against all the top notch, well established international string quartets - and if we didn't do this our profile would slip and critics and the public wouldn't take us seriously, and [2] if we began to perform composers like Draeseke or Raff then people would begin to think we were only doing so because we couldn't compete when it came to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Brahms.'

Don't you find that just so damned dreary?

I'm beginning to wonder if, in 19th century Europe, when there were critics but their impact wasn't so pronounced because there wasn't such an instant and dominanting publicity machine, and quartets or orchestras had to fill seats but didn't have to sell CDs, musicians could afford to be more experimental, try out new and different composers, explore the less central repertoire and so on?

[Martin Eastick]

Then, of course, there is another aspect to factor in here - young aspiring musicians trying to forge out a career, unless they have a most amazing amount of self-belief allied to an investigative attitude, HAVE TO CONFORM to the (musically speaking) politically correct idea that they must concentrate their efforts (other than when they are working at the so-called "greats") on the dreaded (by me, at least!) contemporary/avant - garde output, no doubt instilled into them at various places of musical learning...........

It is almost as if these young musicians are being brainwashed, but I have to admire the few that DO tackle alternative repertoire - usually enhancing possible future prospects in the process by thus demonstrating a distinctive individuality and desire for learning etc.

[semloh]

...... rather naughty for you support what purports to be a general statement on the basis of one sample!

I was only citing the one example to stimulate a discussion, Peter, as to the possibility of systematic bias. That said, I tend to the view that bias does exist.

Although your suggestion that reviews now have greater impact than in the past, sounds right, I'm not certain. Historically, classical music was accessed by a relatively small proportion of the population, and although the number and circulation of reviews was tiny in comparison with today, they would perhaps have had a bigger impact. Reviews in the mid-19th century Parisian press, for example, might have had more impact on the trajectory of musical taste than the many thousands that can be accessed on the web today. Another factor is that of 'authority' - something with which today's global cacophony, for a number of reasons, can not speak.

Martin suggests that, nonetheless, the CD-buying public is swayed by reviews.... Exactly what prompts people to buy particular CDs is a mystery to me, but I don't think it's reviews, nor encounters at concerts. I suspect they are swayed more by what they hear on the radio, TV and via the web. If I am right, any bias against UCs by reviewers doesn't really matter too much!     

In any case, I must say that I am suspicious of reviews! In particular, when they declare the music itself to be profound, dazzling, joyous, luminous(!), etc etc.. I have ventured into contemporary music many times on the back of such reviews only to be profoundly disappointed. The reverse is also familiar - the reviews say it's the most puerile, shallow, vulgar, etc etc piece of music, and I have found it profound, dazzling, joyous, luminous(!), etc etc..  - well, enjoyable at least!

The immediate (and, indeed, continuing) aesthetic appeal of a composition is crucial to its 'success', but it is so profoundly personal and I have remind myself when reading a review that "well, that's your reaction, but it may not be mine". I also take the point made earlier (by Alan I think) that there is more to the quality of a composition than its aesthetic appeal. I do believe there are criteria which can be applied, and they may well be working without my knowing it to help produce the effect I value so much, but they are always subsidiary in my relationship to a piece of music.

Anyway, apologies for straying.... I suppose the message is simple enough: to gain the best value from a review, you need to be familiar with the reviewer's tastes and biases! 

[TerraEpon]

Of course there's also a matter of just who puts out what. I never in a million years would have expected to hear music from a video game on the classical radio station -- but they played one, because Angele Dubeau & La Pieta of the Analekta label happened to put out a disc with game music on it  (and it's a great disc, in fact -- but not especially classical)