Bias in Penguin and Gramophone
Simon Roberts
I wish this were mine, but what follows is an article by Bill Dirks, who
is presently unable to post directly to the group himself (he forwarded it
to me by e-mail and I'm passing it along at his request). I am pleased to
do so for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I generally
agree with what he says (though I dare say I shall chime in with some
comments of my own later).
Bill Dirks writes:
Recently the mention of "house bias" in this newsgroup, in relation to a
Gramophone list of recommended recordings, got me thinking again about a
subject that has long bothered me. What follows are some observations
on that list, and secondly, on the Penguin Guide to recordings;
observations which reveal a pattern showing something far less that the
highest critical standards--I believe other, worse things are revealed
as well, but I will simply put forth my observations and let readers
draw their own conclusions. This is a subject which concerns us all,
since even as far away as here in Taiwan, where I now live and work--and
thus around the world--the recommendations made by these publications
influence what CDs are stocked in stores, and therefore which ones are
likely to remain in print and be available in the future. Beginning
listeners will also have their opinions, knowledge--and biases--shaped
by these publications. Many readers will have their own observations to
make on this subject; some may also have strong arguments against what I
am saying here. I welcome the expression of both.
To begin with the Gramophone list, I believe in discussing bias we ought
properly to begin not with performers, but with the choice of composers.
Works by Walton, Tipett, and Delius are listed--five of Walton's works
are included--but we find only Nielsen's 4th listed, for example, and
not his 5th, and not even one recording of music by Hindemith. To test
whether it was my own sympathy for Hindemith and Nielsen that made me
feel they came up short in this listing, I turned to the latest Schwann
catalog. I found there over four and one-half pages of listings of
Hindemith recordings; for Nielsen, almost three pages. Checking Walton,
I found just under two and one-half pages; for Delius, two pages; for
Tippett, about one page. Clearly, musicians, recording companies--and
presumably, therefore, listeners--seem more interested in Hindemith's
music, or even Nielsen's, than in these British composers. (We can also
ask, of course, were it not for the persistent and powerful boosting of
the Gramophone, would these British composers even fare this well in the
catalogues?) These listings also only tell us which works are being
recorded, and nothing about the esteem in which individual works may be
held by musicians or listeners. Can the works of these British
composers match a masterpiece on the order of Hindemith's opera Mathis
der Maler, or the symphony of the same name? Or the best of the Nielsen
symphonies? To put it another way, are their works the equal of those
by Bach, Brahms, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and others in whose company
they find themselves? While the Gramophone obviously has its British
readership, it just as obviously has its foreign readership, and I
sometimes wonder: is it expected that if we see these names juxtaposed
often enough, phrases like "Mozart, Haydn, Tippett . . ." will begin to
roll smoothly off our tongues? It has been said that "All history is
revisionist," but this seems to be going a bit far. If the Gramophone,
as a British publication, wishes to run special articles on Walton every
month, that*s fine with me; but in a short list of essential recordings,
any magazine capable of crassly proclaiming itself "THE BEST classical
music magazine in the world" ought to do better than this. If their
reviewers have personal favorites, for nationalistic or other reasons,
they can promote them, as I probably would if I were a reviewer. But it
ought not to be done in a way that does an injustice to music itself,
through deliberately slighting and ignoringimportant composers. At
certain times, what I see here as nationalistic bias seems merely
ridiculous; at other times it seems far worse.
Where it often seems worse is in the Penguin Guide. A recent Fanfare
review noted the many obvious flaws of this guide, but ended by saying
that it was still basically useful and worth buying. These days I have
my doubts about that. I am not going to presume that I know what the
reviewers were thinking, or what their motives may have been, but I
believe that simply quoting from some reviews in both past and present
Guides, and noting some rather significant omissions, will make obvious
some tendencies that might escape notice if we are just browsing for
information on a specific work. These observations, of course, will be
based on my own listening preferences, but judging from that recent
Fanfare review, they are representative of the whole.
In the introduction to their latest edition, the authors of the Penguin
Guide write a special note "To American Readers," in which they
acknowledge criticism for an "orientation" toward European and British
recordings and performances. They then note that they give preference
to "the output of international companies," and that their sole concern
is excellence in performance. They also note the importance of Europe
in the musical tradition that they are concerned with, and that London,
with its outstanding orchestras, has itself has been a significant
recording venue.
This disingenuous denial of bias is fine as far as it goes, but I find
it somewhat humorous that, for evidence of bias, we need look no further
than the very first page of the preface to the 1996 edition. Discussing
great performers of the past, the authors list a pantheon of conductors
which includes such luminaries as Furtwangler, Toscanini, Strauss,
Weingartner, and Walter, and none of them with so much as a single
adjective to grace their names. Yet when we come to British conductors,
enthusiasm gushes and adjectives glow: Beecham is "inimitable," Sir
Henry Woods, "that great musical innovator," Boult, "modestly
unassuming." Many listeners would imagine that Furtwangler might even
more deserve the "inimitable" label, both for his conducting technique
and its results; or that Toscanini, with his legacy of reforms in
performance practice and his influence on interpretive outlooks, might
better be called "a great innovator." No criticism of a conductor such
as Wood is intended here; knowledgeable American critics have praised
his recordings. However, a beginning listener reading this guide would
almost get the impression it was this relative unknown who stood at the
center of musical life in this century, rather than these other, far
more influential figures. Certainly, pride in one*s own countrymen comes
naturally, and no one can object to that. But many readers will be
offended by even quite understandable enthusiasms when they tilt the
authors away from a balanced and fair treatment of their subject, which
unfortunately happens often in the Penguin Guide.
Here*s one example of the type of thing I*m talking about. The
objectivity and concern with excellence of performance that the authors
claim for themselves does not always extend even to a straightforward
presentation of historical facts. In their review of Toscanini*s La
Boheme in past editions of their CD and opera guides, for example, they
seem rather bashful about revealing this conductor*s special
relationship with this score and its composer. They surely knew,
assuming they possess the minimum level of knowledge that reviewers
ought to have, that Toscanini gave the world premiere of this opera, yet
they only go so far as to say that "he knew [this score] from its
earliest performances." Put this way, it sounds as if Toscanini only
casually attended one of those early performances, rather than giving
the premiere and conducting it on so many other occasions. Toscanini,
furthermore, was the foremost proponent of Italian opera of his time:
it was Verdi and Boito who advocated Toscanini heading La Scala at age
31, and Puccini praised Toscanini in extraordinary terms: "He conducts
not what we wrote, but what was in our hearts when we wrote it, though
our hands may have failed us when we took up the pen." Clearly, despite
poor sound quality, and the fact that it was probably performed
differently for broadcast than it was in the opera house, this recording
has an overwhelming authority and historical interest. An unbiased
reviewer would surely recommend it as an important document for anyone
interested in mono or historical performances of this opera, or opera in
general. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that for a number
of years the chief competition in such mono recordings of "Boheme" was
provided by a certain British conductor, on a certain British label. It
is not my intent to deny the excellence of that performance. However,
any truly great performance ought to be able to stand on its own merits,
without the need to hide or distort the merits of others. There are
also some interesting contradictions in this review: Albanese is "held
in an expressive straightjacket" by Toscanini, yet she sounds
"delightfully fresh" and "even better" than her earlier recording with
Gigli. Toscanini seems to have done much for this unfortunate singer,
in other words, while putting her in that "straightjacket." Though
Toscanini is "heavy-handed and often rigid in his direction," his love
for the score "shines out all through." Odd, isn*t it, how those rigid,
heavy-handed performances can seem so loving? To me, this looks like
nothing so much as the contortions of critics struggling to maintain a
position even they know is untenable.
Another interesting review concerns the Steinberg/Pittsburg Symphony
"American in Paris." The reviewers note that Steinberg makes use of
Parisian taxi horns such as Gershwin himself brought home to use in the
orchestra, and they claim that this "dates the piece irretrievably."
Why? Because "horn-tooting" is now forbidden in Paris by law. This is
an interesting point of view: my own take is that Gershwin, in the
1920*s, was in fact depicting the Paris of the 1920*s and not the
1990*s, and that the use of these horns is perfectly appropriate. But
if the logic of the Penguin authors prevails, I believe we must
similarly dismiss any recordings of the "Symphonie Fantastique" which
include "March to the Scaffold"-since, as we all know, public beheadings
are now forbidden by law in France. Fortunately for Gershwin listeners,
there are still several recommendable recordings of this American music,
including some very warmly reviewed performances by British artists,
which are not disqualified by questionable practices such as attempting
to emulate what Gershwin himself considered a proper approach to
performing his music.
Before talking about which labels the Penguin authors choose (or not) to
review, here*s another sample of critical writing, a review of the
Sibelius Symphony No. 2 by James Levine, which appeared in the 1994
Penguin Guide. " . . . his [Levine*s] account is well-paced
throughout. There is a sense of the music being borne along on a vital
current so essential in good Sibelius playing, and the Allegretto tempo
of the first movement is really idiomatic-brisk but not hurried."
However, after these comments-note that they all emphasize the ideal
control of pacing and tempo in Levine*s reading, and its
naturalness-they conclude with this comment: "But generally Levine
tends to drive things along at full throttle . . . " ???!!! I have not
heard this recording, so I do not know if their point of view (whatever
it is) makes sense or not-but if we read the critics in a critical
fashion, we quickly sense that something is very wrong here. This begins
to sound a lot like the review of Toscanini*s "Boheme." Oddly, the
worst instances of such confused writing that I have noticed have been
in discussion of performances by non-British performers on non-British
labels (although I wouldn*t want to imply that their capacity for
confusion ends there), in which any positive qualities mentioned are
ultimately negated by sweeping and sometimes completely contradictory
criticisms.
A few observations can also be made about recording labels. In the
Penguin Guide, we frequently run across historical labels such as
Dutton, Biddulph, and Beulah. Yet if selections are based only on
excellence of performance, and preference is given to major
international labels, I have to wonder, why no Music and Arts? As far
as excellent performances go, Toscanini*s 1940 Missa Solemnis would
certainly qualify as a prime example, a valuable documentation of the
great conductor at or near his height, conducting a true masterpiece,
and with soloists of the first rank such as Jussi Bjorling. The
recording is also better than we might expect, given the general run of
Toscanini recordings, so if Holst recordings from as early as 1926 can
be included, or mono Nielsen symphonies, one thinks this one could be
too. Performances such as this deserve to be better known, but the
Penguin guide, through exclusion, is helping to drive it into oblivion.
And if the availability of this label in Taiwan and Japan is any
indication, then it also qualifies as an international label. The only
thing disqualifying this label from inclusion in the Penguin Guide, as
far as I can see, is the fact that it is an American label. However,
just to demonstrate that its not my own biases as an American which are
showing here, then what about other labels (not necessarily historical
ones) such as Erato, also distributed internationally, with big name
performers (Rostropovitch, Boulez, Barenboim); or the Auvidis Astree
label, with important recordings such as Paul Badura-skoda*s traversals
of the Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven sonatas? These also qualify as
important international labels, but are not British, and do not appear
in the Penguin Guide. (The only exception I*ve noticed is the Mosaique
Quartet*s Haydn on Astree.)
One or two more examples: Hindemith*s Mathis der Maler symphony has
been continuously available--on the DGG label--for a number of years, in
a performance from 1972 by William Steinberg and the Boston Symphony.
Most recently it has appeared on their budget Classikon series. Despite
being one of the finest (in my opinion, the finest) recordings of this
work ever, on a major label, I have not seen it mentioned in editions of
the Penguin Guide that I have bought. Yet as soon as Steinberg*s
earlier, 1957 recording of the same work with the Pittsburg Symphony
appears (on, let*s see, EMI . . . ), there it is, with a **(*) rating,
and with no mention of the gritty, glaring treble sound that would
probably put off many listeners. Instead, they praise the recording as
being amazing for its time-though it clearly is not when we compare it
to Reiner*s Hebride*s Overture from a year earlier, or Ormandy*s
Sibelius 2nd from the same year. It goes without saying that DG*s 1972
recording is better, and the Boston Symphony hardly takes a back seat to
the Pittsburg Symphony, so if one of these were to be omitted, it
clearly ought to be the EMI version. But what can we expect?
Worse, apparently, when performances of British music are under
consideration. Despite the claim that they focus on major international
labels, somehow Levine*s Chicago Symphony performance of The Planets on
DGG escaped their notice, and has not appeared . . . Perhaps in this
case neither conductor, orchestra, nor label were "major" enough to
warrant their attention. There is, unfortunately, a long history to
this sort of thing: the original LP version of the William
Steinberg/Boston Symphony "Planets" was criticized by the Penguin Guide
for the alleged omission of a number of bars in one movement. This is
one of the most exciting and beautifully played versions of the Planets,
and anyone caring to observe tempos and other features would find it
closer to Holst*s own recordings than many by British conductors. While
my ears are not infallible, I was never able to hear that omission when
I compared the LP version with other ones; and in their reviews of the
CD transfers, I have never seen either a note that this problem was
corrected, or an apology or admission of error on the part of the
Penguin authors. (I have not read all editions of the Guide that have
appeared, however.) But with the damage already well done, and with
many newer digital recordings on the market to give it competition, the
later DG CD release was finally given three stars-transferred, as far as
I*ve been able to tell, exactly as on LP. Was it really so hard to let
an American orchestra (on a German label) have its moment of clear
success with British music? If the London Symphony made a great
recording of Roy Harris* Third Symphony, no American critic would be
carping about it-they*d likely be delighted to see the work further
popularized. One wonder*s whether the critic*s sheer dismay at seeing
Americans perform this music so well, under a non-British conductor, on
a non-British label, had them finding lacunae where there were none,
hoping to find something, anything wrong. There must be hard choices to
make in such a situation: is it better to try to destroy the
recording*s potential appeal, or merely omit mention of it altogether?
Sometimes the critics do their work not through omissions, or deliberate
swipes at a particular recording, but through subtle shifts of
emphasis. A set of Sibelius symphonies by Bernstein gets about the same
treatment as Levine*s Sibelius, except that here the detractions come
first: "Whatever their failings, Bernstein*s Sibelius . . . " In fact,
they lavish praise on his Sibelius performances in many ways; but with
the immediate negative pall cast over the proceedings by emphasizing
"failings" straight off, few readers will go much further or be much
impressed by the positive aspects of the review. The impression remains
that, no matter how many superlatives are used-"marvelous," "powerful,"
"majestic"-there are always those nasty "failings" to deal with. Isn*t
a rather different tone used when dealing with British or European
conductors? Davis* set of Beethoven symphonies, for example, is given
the same rating as Bernstein*s set of the later Sibelius symphonies.
But no such word as "failings" is ever used here, and the shortcomings
which are mentioned (near the end of the review) are lovingly
transformed into positive features: lack of vigor or "bite" becomes, for
example, "the mature responses of a conductor in his late sixties."
Having gone on just about long enough, I can just briefly mention some
problems with the criticism in general. In many cases, sweeping or
vague terminology leads us into difficulties: recordings differing
significantly in tempo (Abbado*s and Solti*s Schubert 9th) are all
described as being "beautifully paced" or having "well-chosen tempos."
Some recordings are given a lukewarm review, yet receive the full three
stars; other reviews include little negative , yet less than three stars
are given, with no explanation. We need to understand better just what
criteria are in operation here--assuming that there are in fact some
kind of criteria being consistently applied.
I won*t even comment on their ability to use English for effective
description, except to say that readers themselves will have to figure
out what is meant by creations such as the word "thrustfulness" (I think
they must mean "thrust") or seeming oxymorons such as "pinpoint
atmosphere."
This is not to say that the Penguin Guide has never clued me in to good
recordings. On my own, I never would have imagined that Eugene Ormandy
would conduct Carmina Burana well; I found his reading just as good as
they said it was (though they could have been more clear about the sound
quality). At any rate, as I believe everyone clearly knows, we have to
take the bad with the good when it comes to the Penguin Guide. My point
here is to show just how bad the bad can be. And while there may be no
real alternative to this book at present--in book form, at any
rate--there are many other forums, including this newsgroup, that are
just as useful. There are well informed listeners here, with good
taste, who can give their opinions on every Bruckner symphony, or Mahler
symphony, or Mozart opera; and I have found them to be just as helpful,
if not more so, than the Gramophone or the Penguin Guide. Lastly, as an
alternative to buying these publications, there is always the
alternative of NOT BUYING them. If that is too radical for some people,
then I would suggest expressing any views about bias directly to the
authors of these publications. We can always hope (against the best
evidence, unfortunately) that eventually the message will get through.
--Bill Dirks
Alain DAGHER
Although I agree with you, you pick some strange examples. One need
only mention that the Penguins rank Tan/Norrington as the best Emperor
and Fischer/Furtwangler the worst.
But this doesn't bother me since I don't buy Gramophone. What does
bother me is the decline of a once great American magazine. Reading
this week's issue of the New Yorker is really depressing. If it was
still an American magazine would it have joined the grotesque rush to
cash in on Diana's tragedy, or made itself into a forum for some of
the many Brits now coming to the fore to claim "I knew her, she was my
friend".
(The saddest part is Rushdie's pathetic rehashing of old cliches about
the monarchy - but I blame Khomeini for that.)
--
Regards,
"De la musique avant toute chose"
Alain Dagher, M.D.
Montreal Neurological Institute -Paul Verlaine
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <341c9f96...@noc.van.hookup.net>, rocks...@rock.net
is alleged to have said...
>
>I follow an approach that I hope will shield me from biased opinions
>in Penquin in Grammophone:
^^^^^^^^^^^
One dollar, please!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
rockspider
On 14 Sep 1997 01:37:00 GMT, si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon
Roberts) wrote:
>
>I wish this were mine, but what follows is an article by Bill Dirks, who
>is presently unable to post directly to the group himself (he forwarded it
>to me by e-mail and I'm passing it along at his request). I am pleased to
>do so for a number of reasons, not least of which is that I generally
>agree with what he says (though I dare say I shall chime in with some
>comments of my own later).
>
>Bill Dirks writes:
>
>Recently the mention of "house bias" in this newsgroup.....
>.................etc
>.................
>....... We can always hope (against the best
>evidence, unfortunately) that eventually the message will get through.
>--Bill Dirks
>
>
I follow an approach that I hope will shield me from biased opinions
in Penquin in Grammophone:
I completely ignore ANY and ALL reviews off recordings that use
british artists (as well as artists of uncertain nationality that seem
to enjoy more favor than I suspect to be normal).
So far this approach yielded good results.
I. Neill Reid
In article <5vha32$8...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca (Alain DAGHER) writes...
>
>Although I agree with you, you pick some strange examples. One need
>only mention that the Penguins rank Tan/Norrington as the best Emperor
>and Fischer/Furtwangler the worst.
Maybe they can't stand Furtwangler in Beethoven - some people
can't, you know.
>
>But this doesn't bother me since I don't buy Gramophone.
Which has very little to so with the Penguins - 3 reviewers vs. 15+
and which might explain why you're out of touch.
>What does
>bother me is the decline of a once great American magazine. Reading
>this week's issue of the New Yorker is really depressing. If it was
>still an American magazine would it have joined the grotesque rush to
>cash in on Diana's tragedy,
You must have missed the 24-hour coverage in CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC et al
et al et al. Seems entirely in keeping for an American magazine. Seems
to me that the US kicked out royalty a couple of centuries ago, but
is plagued by this nagging little doubt that it's missing out on
something.
[I know they're not - and continue to celebrate the results of 11/9/97]
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
I. Neill Reid
In article <19970916010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, pgold...@aol.com (PGoldst515) writes...
>The only thing more ridiculous than the Gramophone/Penguin's obvious and
>overwhelming bias in favor of certain British musicians
...one of whom, of course, was Karajan....
>is the lengths to which some people will go to deny that this bias exists, or to paper it
>over with obnoxious and gratuitous insults.
No obnoxious or gratuitous insults, but please document that bias quantitatively.
For reference, about 74 out of 254 Critic's Choice selections from 1996 have
a British connection - i.e. at least one performer is, I think, British.
Only one of those cds in by JEG. There's a comparable number of "French"
selections - but only about 20 or so American.
I suggest that one tends more often to notice when praise is given to performers
that one does not care for than when those performers receive less favourable
reviews. One also, perhaps, pays more attention to puff pieces and adverts (and
selective quotations from reviews) than the actual reviews themselves.
For example, the _review_ of Gardiner's Beethoven cycle is less than
overwhelming in its appreciation of the performances. All in all, I think
the renowned pro-Brit bias exists more in the perception than the reality.
Which is not to say that I regard Gramophone as a Delphic fount of wisdom
and truth - vide their Karajan fetish in the 70s. But I strongly suspect that
the number of reviewers was much smaller then, so the wishes of a few could
influence the magazine as a whole. Now it's a series of reviews by about 40
critics, some of whose opinions I agree with some of the time, and differ
from at others. No different from any other like publication
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>
>Paul Goldstein
Andrew Clarke
rockspider wrote:
> I follow an approach that I hope will shield me from biased opinions
> in Penquin in Grammophone:
>
> I completely ignore ANY and ALL reviews off recordings that use
> british artists (as well as artists of uncertain nationality that seem
> to enjoy more favor than I suspect to be normal).
>
> So far this approach yielded good results.
Firstly, may I suggest that you change your nom de clavier? I don't know what
"rock-spider" means where you live, but in Australian slang, it means a child
molester!
Secondly, speaking of children, my-son-the-trombonist is Australian born of an
Australian mother, speaks Australian English, has shoulder-length auburn hair
and carries a trombone case with a big white "Art Blakey Lives!" sticker on it.
But when he visited California last year he found that quite a few of the
natives were giving him the cold shoulder initially, because (in their own
words) *they thought he was British*. So you see, a good number of people who
are coming out with all this bilge about Britain do not even know what the
British *sound* like. The general rule appears to be that if it don't sound
American, it might be British so let's steer clear of it in case it poisons our
potatoes. Whether these people could point to Britain on a word map is highly
conjectural. Recent surveys indicate that a lot of 'em can't find the USA ...
Thirdly, I would avoid *at all costs* all recordings by Herv'e Niquet and the
Concert Spirituel, as I imagine they are "of uncertain nationality" to people
like yourself, and all their recordings have been highly praised in "The
Gramophone", a journal whose name is customarily spelt, by the way, with only
one "m". The same goes for the English-sounding Norbert Kraft, who, as it
turns out, is a Canadian. The Gramophone's review of Mr Kraft's disc of Sor,
Aguado and Tarrega said that these works have never been better played or
recorded, so there is obviously something wrong with the man.
Fourthly, I am afraid that the rest of the planet finds a certain irony in
Americans accusing any other country of bias, chauvinism and cultural
insensitivity, because, rightly or wrongly, the USA enjoys a pretty good
reputation for that kind of thing itself.
Fifthly, I occasionally listen to a radio programme by one Karl Haas, in which
the orchestras are frequently American, and the conductors and soloists almost
invariably Jewish. This does not bother me. Mr Haas is primarily broadcasting
to an American audience, many of whom will be Jewish because Jewish people,
pace "Seinfeld", tend to be great lovers and performers of classical music. I
suppose I could carry on about US imperialism or Jewish secret deals in
smoke-filled rooms. I suppose I could always switch off every time Mr Haas
announces Isaac Stern or the Pittsburg Symphony. But I do none of these things,
because to my perverse English-born mind, such actions, however nobly
intended, are beneath contempt.
Finally, may I suggest you visit Mr Alain Dagher's neurological institute for a
free MRI scan, because I'm pretty sure there's a wire loose somewhere. And as
Mr Dagher seems to think that the "New Yorker" is a British magazine because it
has an English editor, perhaps he might care to join you!
Andrew Clarke
Matthew B. Tepper
In article <341DD315...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au>,
a...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au is alleged to have said...
>
>
>Fifthly, I occasionally listen to a radio programme by one Karl Haas,
>in which the orchestras are frequently American, and the conductors
>and soloists almost invariably Jewish. This does not bother me. Mr
>Haas is primarily broadcasting to an American audience, many of whom
>will be Jewish because Jewish people, pace "Seinfeld", tend to be
>great lovers and performers of classical music. I suppose I could
>carry on about US imperialism or Jewish secret deals in smoke-filled
>rooms. I suppose I could always switch off every time Mr Haas
>announces Isaac Stern or the Pittsburg Symphony. But I do none of
>these things, because to my perverse English-born mind, such actions,
>however nobly intended, are beneath contempt.
We're here, we're kosher, get used to it! :--)
^^
(I have a long nose)
PGoldst515
The only thing more ridiculous than the Gramophone/Penguin's obvious and
which some people will go to deny that this bias exists, or to paper it
over with obnoxious and gratuitous insults.
Paul Goldstein
Simon Roberts
Andrew Clarke (a...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au) wrote:
: Secondly, speaking of children, my-son-the-trombonist is Australian born of an
: Australian mother, speaks Australian English, has shoulder-length auburn hair
: and carries a trombone case with a big white "Art Blakey Lives!" sticker on it.
: But when he visited California last year he found that quite a few of the
: natives were giving him the cold shoulder initially, because (in their own
: words) *they thought he was British*. So you see, a good number of people who
: are coming out with all this bilge about Britain do not even know what the
: British *sound* like. The general rule appears to be that if it don't sound
: American, it might be British so let's steer clear of it in case it poisons our
: potatoes. Whether these people could point to Britain on a word map is highly
: conjectural. Recent surveys indicate that a lot of 'em can't find the USA ...
It's interesting how so many Americans have a strong bias in favor of
things Australian (and of course Australia); because of my odd upbringing
I lost almost all of my Australian accent and acquired a basically English
one (enough Australian remains for perceptive English snobs to detect and
slightly sneer); Americans thus assume I'm English. When I tell them I'm
Australian their attitude changes dramatically in my favor. (They also
don't seem able to distinguish English accents very well: mine is vaguely
classic "Oxford" English, but some American friends trying to imitate me
often resort to Cockney, apparently unable to tell the difference.) One,
though, who has a degree from a university, on being told that I was
Australian, found that hard to believe because my English was so good (she
is not an English pronounciation snob sneering at Australian accents....).
: Fifthly, I occasionally listen to a radio programme by one Karl Haas, in which
: the orchestras are frequently American, and the conductors and soloists almost
: invariably Jewish. This does not bother me. Mr Haas is primarily broadcasting
: to an American audience, many of whom will be Jewish because Jewish people,
: pace "Seinfeld", tend to be great lovers and performers of classical music. I
: suppose I could carry on about US imperialism or Jewish secret deals in
: smoke-filled rooms. I suppose I could always switch off every time Mr Haas
: announces Isaac Stern or the Pittsburg Symphony. But I do none of these things,
: because to my perverse English-born mind, such actions, however nobly
: intended, are beneath contempt.
Yes; a better reason to turn off Karl Haas is that he's rather a fool.
He once was doing a historical survey of some sort and got to the
transition (in symphonies) from minuets to scherzi. He seemed to think
that this happened with Beethoven's first symphony, and to prove his point
managed to play a recording of a Haydn "minuet" (which was nothing of the
sort) played unusually fast, followed by what must be the slowest
performance on records of the third movement of Beethoven 1....
Simon
Repeated Automatic Urinal Flushing Mechanism
Bill Dirks writes re the Penquin Guide:
>To begin...with the choice of composers.
>Works by Walton, Tipett, and Delius are listed...
Ah, yes, Delius. I have a lot of recorded Delius, but the truth is that
he was a very minor, close to incompetent, composer. His great flaw --
and it *is* a great one -- was a lack of rhythmic plasticity. I think
it's in a "laughing" chorus of the Mass of Life where the rhythm is so
four-square it makes you think of an automobile with square wheels.
And the Gramophone and Penguin go on and on and on about "ecstasy" and
such.
Yes, I fully agree with Bill Dirks: the Gramophone's main usefulness to
me lies in the listing of new releases. If I could find another
regularly published source of the same information, I would probably
stop buying The G.
And their "North American" supplement is worse than a joke...
Is there anyone else who shares my reaction when The G's critics start
really gushing away? I break out in hives and make a mental note to
beware the performer or recording so adulated.
----
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
on beautiful Vancouver Island
Alain DAGHER
Andrew Clarke (a...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au) wrote:
: But when he visited California last year he found that quite a few of the
: natives were giving him the cold shoulder initially, because (in their own
: words) *they thought he was British*.
OTOH I've heard other Brits say that Americans immediately add 10
points to your IQ if you have a British accent.
But in any case I hope you don't equate criticizing the Gramophone or
the new New Yorker with anti-British bigotry.
Living in Quebec, I'm very aware that some people find it somehow
acceptable to be prejudiced against the English. I am not one of them.
On the other hand, we don't play cricket in North America - we've got
to bash you at something else.
Some people also find it acceptable to call Americans ignorant and
without culture (i.e every single European I've ever met).
: Finally, may I suggest you visit Mr Alain Dagher's neurological
: institute for a : free MRI scan, because I'm pretty sure there's a
: wire loose somewhere.
A loose wire in the head is a contra-indication to MRI.
:And as Mr Dagher seems to think that the "New Yorker" is a British
:magazine because it has an English editor, perhaps he might care to
:join you!
Well, a tendency to hyperbole doesn't show up on MRI.
And it's not only the English editor. It's the tastelesness too.
BTW, I hear Martin Amis has written a little hagiography in Time
Magazine. Please tell me it isn't so. He's such a good writer.
rockspider
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:30:13 +1000, Andrew Clarke
<a...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>rockspider wrote:
>
>> I follow an approach that I hope will shield me from biased opinions
>> in Penquin in Grammophone:
>>
>> I completely ignore ANY and ALL reviews off recordings that use
>> british artists (as well as artists of uncertain nationality that seem
>> to enjoy more favor than I suspect to be normal).
>>
>> So far this approach yielded good results.
>
>Firstly, may I suggest that you change your nom de clavier? I don't know what
>"rock-spider" means where you live, but in Australian slang, it means a child
>molester!
>
I am certainly not an Aussie, and where I come from child-molesting is
so rare that we have not yet invented a label for it. So rockspider is
fine with me.
>Secondly, speaking of children, my-son-the-trombonist is Australian born of an
>Australian mother, speaks Australian English, has shoulder-length auburn hair
>and carries a trombone case with a big white "Art Blakey Lives!" sticker on it.
>But when he visited California last year he found that quite a few of the
>natives were giving him the cold shoulder initially, because (in their own
>words) *they thought he was British*. So you see, a good number of people who
>are coming out with all this bilge about Britain do not even know what the
>British *sound* like.
I have no problem with British artists or British sounds - I simply do
not trust the British to review ANYthing British objectively. And
judging from posts in this newsgroup, my mistrust is justified.
>The general rule appears to be that if it don't sound
>American, it might be British so let's steer clear of it in case it poisons our
>potatoes. Whether these people could point to Britain on a word map is highly
>conjectural. Recent surveys indicate that a lot of 'em can't find the USA ...
I am not American either, and have no specific bias towards anything
American.
>
>Thirdly, I would avoid *at all costs* all recordings by Herv'e Niquet and the
>Concert Spirituel, as I imagine they are "of uncertain nationality" to people
>like yourself, and all their recordings have been highly praised in "The
>Gramophone", a journal whose name is customarily spelt, by the way, with only
>one "m". The same goes for the English-sounding Norbert Kraft, who, as it
>turns out, is a Canadian. The Gramophone's review of Mr Kraft's disc of Sor,
>Aguado and Tarrega said that these works have never been better played or
>recorded, so there is obviously something wrong with the man.
You are coorrect - Norbert Kraft is Canadian - I actually own some of
his work.
>
>Fourthly, I am afraid that the rest of the planet finds a certain irony in
>Americans accusing any other country of bias, chauvinism and cultural
>insensitivity, because, rightly or wrongly, the USA enjoys a pretty good
>reputation for that kind of thing itself.
As I said before, I am not American.
My complaint against the reviews under discussion is that they are
*biased*. If they were biased pro American I would igore there
American content. Since they are biased pro-British I ignore their
British content. Quite logical if you think about it.
>
>Fifthly, I occasionally listen to a radio programme by one Karl Haas, in which
>the orchestras are frequently American, and the conductors and soloists almost
>invariably Jewish. This does not bother me. Mr Haas is primarily broadcasting
>to an American audience, many of whom will be Jewish because Jewish people,
>pace "Seinfeld", tend to be great lovers and performers of classical music. I
>suppose I could carry on about US imperialism or Jewish secret deals in
>smoke-filled rooms. I suppose I could always switch off every time Mr Haas
>announces Isaac Stern or the Pittsburg Symphony. But I do none of these things,
>because to my perverse English-born mind, such actions, however nobly
>intended, are beneath contempt.
>
But what does this have to do with ignoring pro-British bias?
>Finally, may I suggest you visit Mr Alain Dagher's neurological institute for a
>free MRI scan, because I'm pretty sure there's a wire loose somewhere. And as
>Mr Dagher seems to think that the "New Yorker" is a British magazine because it
>has an English editor, perhaps he might care to join you!
>
You drink too much of that good Aussie beer, man!
My wires might be loose, but I can assure you my logic is intact.
>Andrew Clarke
>
>
Simon Roberts
Bill Atkerson (mrb...@hal-pc.org) wrote:
: PGoldst515 wrote:
: > The only thing more ridiculous than the Gramophone/Penguin's obvious and
: e.g., the Lindsay String Quartet, aka "The Lindsays". These guys are
: mediocre at best, yet the praise never stops, with Gramophone coming up with
: new ways to praise them. . ."their delicate, sensitive playing from measures
: 102 to 110 in the Adagio", or something like this, ignoring the fact that the
: rest of the damn performance is boring, out of tune, and sloppy.
: Sorry about the flaming. But being a violinist, the Lindsays belong more in
: an X-Files episode than on a CD.
I wish people would stop apologizing for the forceful expression of their
opinions (especially when I agree with them).
Simon
Simon Roberts
Bill Baldwin (rev...@gte.net) wrote:
: How many of you out there (honestly now) noticed this bias on your own? (I
: suspect many, but I'm interested to see.) It would also be fun if you told
: us your cultural homeland.
Well, I did, while living in England (as did several English friends;
Gramophone's biases used to be a joke amongs some of my acquaintances) and
considering myself, at the time, to be as much English as anything else
(born in Australia, where I lived a total of 9 years; lived in
London/Oxford until I ceased being an undergraduate).
Simon
john harkness
John Harkness writes:
Bill Atkerson wrote:
> PGoldst515 wrote:
> > The only thing more ridiculous than the Gramophone/Penguin's obvious and
> > overwhelming bias in favor of certain British musicians is the lengths to
> > which some people will go to deny that this bias exists, or to paper it
> > over with obnoxious and gratuitous insults.
> > Paul Goldstein
> e.g., the Lindsay String Quartet, aka "The Lindsays". These guys are
> mediocre at best, yet the praise never stops, with Gramophone coming up with
> new ways to praise them. . ."their delicate, sensitive playing from measures
> 102 to 110 in the Adagio", or something like this, ignoring the fact that the
> rest of the damn performance is boring, out of tune, and sloppy.
> Sorry about the flaming. But being a violinist, the Lindsays belong more in
> an X-Files episode than on a CD.
> Bill Atkerson
Absolutely right.
Bill Atkerson
PGoldst515 wrote:
Bill Atkerson
Houston
Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid suggested:
> All in all, I think the renowned pro-Brit bias exists more
> in the perception than the reality.
I, for one, can vouch that I noticed that bias on my own (both in Penguin
and in Gramophone). They consistently gave top recommendations to British
conductors and orchestras in recordings that were elsewhere panned. I was
pleased to see that observation confirmed when I began reading this
newsgroup.
How many of you out there (honestly now) noticed this bias on your own? (I
suspect many, but I'm interested to see.) It would also be fun if you told
us your cultural homeland.
--
Bill Baldwin
Stan Szpakowicz
Simon Roberts <si...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Bill Dirks writes:
> To test
>whether it was my own sympathy for Hindemith and Nielsen that made me
>feel they came up short in this listing, I turned to the latest Schwann
>catalog. I found there over four and one-half pages of listings of
>Hindemith recordings; for Nielsen, almost three pages. Checking Walton,
>I found just under two and one-half pages; for Delius, two pages; for
>Tippett, about one page. Clearly, musicians, recording companies--and
>presumably, therefore, listeners--seem more interested in Hindemith's
>music, or even Nielsen's, than in these British composers.
Not to refute Bill's other (most interesting) points, but this measure
is not trustworthy. The number of pages in Schwann depends not only on
the composer's perceived worth on the market -- that's what recording
companies care about, don't they -- but also, and quite directly, on
the number of works in the composer's output. Now, Hindemith was, one
hears, a fairly prolific composer; this may perhaps explain his over
4.5 pages versus, say, Walton's less than 2.5.
There's something in Bill's argument, but it should rather be taken with
a grain of salt.
I am also not at all sure that recording companies' interest is much to
do with listeners' interest. They want, it seems to me, to _shape_ the
tastes, not cater to them. At any rate, "clearly" is too strong a word
in this context. (:-)
--
Dr. Stan Szpakowicz, School of Information Technology and Engineering
University of Ottawa, phone +613 562 5800 (6687), fax +613 562 5187
email: sz...@site.uottawa.ca, WWW: http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~szpak/
Chuck Nessa
john harkness wrote:
>
> John Harkness writes:
>
> Bill Atkerson wrote:
>
>
> j...@netcom.ca
Writing stuff like this eventually lets you put Sir in front of your
name.
CN
Matthew Silverstein
I suppose I noticed the bias, as well, but I must admit, that in many
cases, I share their tastes. I don't know if that means I have a "British"
aesthetic (if there is such a thing) or if I'm just easily swayed by a good
review. Nonetheless, I enjoy many that they support, even when others are
nearly unanimous in criticism (Gardiner's Beethoven, Abaddo's Brahms, etc.).
Matty
john harkness
Russell DeAnna
Bill Baldwin <rev...@gte.net> wrote:
>How many of you out there (honestly now) noticed this bias on your own? (I
>suspect many, but I'm interested to see.) It would also be fun if you told
They have an obvious bias in favour of Simon Rattle and Gardiner.
Those two are obvious, though Gardiner may be the superstar they
claim. They also seem to favour any British composer, especially
20th Century composers.
Other than their bias, I believe most of their writers have quite
trenchant comments. I read it to learn, not necessarily for
purchasing recommendations.
-Russell
--
-Russell DeAnna (to...@lerc.nasa.gov)
Anthony Sloan
Bill Atkerson wrote:
> PGoldst515 wrote:
>
> > The only thing more ridiculous than the Gramophone/Penguin's obvious
> and
> > overwhelming bias in favor of certain British musicians is the
> lengths to
> > which some people will go to deny that this bias exists, or to paper
> it
> > over with obnoxious and gratuitous insults.
> >
> > Paul Goldstein
>
> e.g., the Lindsay String Quartet, aka "The Lindsays". These guys are
> mediocre at best, yet the praise never stops, with Gramophone coming
> up with
> new ways to praise them. . ."their delicate, sensitive playing from
> measures
> 102 to 110 in the Adagio", or something like this, ignoring the fact
> that the
> rest of the damn performance is boring, out of tune, and sloppy.
>
> Sorry about the flaming. But being a violinist, the Lindsays belong
> more in
> an X-Files episode than on a CD.
>
> Bill Atkerson
> Houston
Hmm..I *like* the Lindsay Quartet. Since they have been recorded, and
lent a fairly impressive collection of instruments, I think others might
like them too.
Thank goodness I'm not a violinist, I might not be able to enjoy music ;
)
Anthony
--
"Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great
Dane."
Smiley Blanton
Alain DAGHER
Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: ... that was our social correspondent from Disneyworld (keep tugging
: those coat-tails, Mickey! - you'll get noticed one day) :-)))
Are you implying American culture has no impact in Europe? Last time I
was in Italy my friends desperately wanted me to go see "Up close and
personal" with them. I told them the movie would suck.
These same friends believe, as you seem to, that America is a cultural
wasteland. I was unable to convince them of the irony of their
cultural choices, and we had to go to the movie. (It was worse than I
thought it would be.)
Anyway, your statistics don't prove anything. The factors that go into
corrupting a review (any arts review) depend on an inextricable
network of allegiances and counter-allegiances, dinner-party snubs,
exchange of favours, sycophancy, etc, etc ... that Machiavelli himself
could never understand.
It's not a paradox then, that in such an advanced state of cultural
sophistication, the second-rate, as I said, are always the most praised.
Please tell me in the upcoming weeks if I'm wrong about the reviews
that await the new Martin Amis novel.
That being said there's no better place in the world for classical
music than London.
--
Regards,
Alain Dagher, Londonophile.
Paul Turok
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BCC5CD.E3769BE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can't resist entering this discussion. There is no such thing as fully =
objective criticism; if you know enough to criticise beyond "I know what =
I like" you have already internalized certain prejudicial leanings. The =
trick is to be aware of them, and not let them contribute unfairly to =
your reviews. A lot harder than it sounds, but in TUROK'S CHOICE, I try. =
If this link doesn't work, try http://www.concentric.net/~tchoice.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BCC5CD.E3769BE0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1008.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=3D2> Can't resist entering this discussion. There is =
no such=20
thing as fully objective criticism; if you know enough to criticise =
beyond=20
"I know what I like" you have already internalized certain =
prejudicial=20
leanings. The trick is to be aware of them, and not let them contribute =
unfairly=20
to your reviews. A lot harder than it sounds, but in <A=20
href=3D"http://www.concentric.net/~tchoice">TUROK'S CHOICE</A>, I =
try. If=20
this link doesn't work, try <A=20
href=3D"http://www.concentric.net/~tchoice">http://www.concentric.net/~tc=
hoice</A>.</FONT></P></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01BCC5CD.E3769BE0--
Rick Hayward
The message <342171...@aol.com>
from Paul Goldstein <pgold...@aol.com> contains these words:
> Rick - thanks for providing still more compelling evidence of the
> correctness of my original proposition on this subject:
May I return the thanks for further evidence of how paranoid
perceptions and cultural bias are self re-inforcing.
Whilst the X-Files is good entertainment (for some), one does need to
distinguish it from reality. The corrective is the evidence, which
will not go away as a result of a bug-eyed attachment to the wilder
realms of fantasy.
A random count of a recent Gramophone "Orchestral" section shows the
following:
- Total Recordings: 59
- Recordings containing at least one work by a British composer: 7
- Recordings using some British artists: 18 (remarkably few
considering how much recording is done in London)
I looked in vain for the purported bias towards the local in the
content of reviews: there was none.
A hypothesis should have some minimal predictive power if it has any
validity - so, if the bug-eyed conspiracy theory has something in it,
one would safely expect, for instance, that the new Solti 'Don
Giovanni' would receive notable acclaim in the pages of the latest
Gramophone.
Read the review.
So, as I have previously said, the problem is one owned by the
perceivers - not the object perceived and reflecting a child-like
resentment that the entire world doesn't reflect their particular
provincial tastes. A more interesting cultural phenomenon than the Gramophone.
I rest my case. Off to look for more UFOs.
--
RH
Rick Hayward, Wakefield, West Yorkshire
rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk
Rick Hayward
The message <5vrovp$7...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
from al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca (Alain DAGHER) contains these words:
> Except that your argument is fairly multi-purpose, and can be applied
> to just about any side of any debate.
.. but actually pointed at the conspiracy theory, for which it is totally apt.
> I fully concur that there is no sinister conspiracy underfoot in
> Britain (or even the rest of Europe). It isn't bad faith or dishonesty
> that makes European critics untrustworthy - but rather decades of
> continuous cultural decay.
... that was our social correspondent from Disneyworld (keep tugging
those coat-tails, Mickey! - you'll get noticed one day) :-)))
Do I hear echoes of another transatlantic peddlar of second-hand/rate
cultural analysis? - an old man in a dry month. - Or, perhaps,
Professor Channing-Cheetah?
Simon Roberts
Alain DAGHER (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: Rick Hayward (rick.h...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: : ... that was our social correspondent from Disneyworld (keep tugging
: : those coat-tails, Mickey! - you'll get noticed one day) :-)))
: Are you implying American culture has no impact in Europe? Last time I
: was in Italy my friends desperately wanted me to go see "Up close and
: personal" with them. I told them the movie would suck.
: These same friends believe, as you seem to, that America is a cultural
: wasteland. I was unable to convince them of the irony of their
: cultural choices, and we had to go to the movie. (It was worse than I
: thought it would be.)
It's an amusing phoenomenon (pathology?), isn't it? In the late 1970s
BBC2 (the "classy" TV station) showed reruns of Dallas every night on
summer; who killed JR made the front page of the Times; in the next decade
"Falcon Crest" and "Dynasty" were the most popular shows in Europe on TV;
"The Bold and the Beautiful" has fan clubs throughout Europe (these are
genuine fans, not collections of sneering snobs); and on and on.
Moreover, so much of the culture which supports the snobbery is theirs by
mere luck of birth-location: most Europeans don't patronize classical
music (a higher proportion do than in the U.S., but it's still a tiny
minority), most of the best architecture and music is not of recent
generations (is there one truly distinguished building in London more
recent than 1945?) -- in short, there's a lot of "coasting" going on.
: That being said there's no better place in the world for classical
: music than London.
Live, yes; it's quite astonishing (and, except for opera, not
particularly expensive). The CD stores don't come close to New
York or even Philadelphia, however (and the prices....).
Simon
I. Neill Reid
In article <6048ce$bda$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, si...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Simon Roberts) writes...
>I. Neill Reid (i...@deimos.caltech.edu) wrote:
>
>: No obnoxious or gratuitous insults, but please document that bias quantitatively.
>: For reference, about 74 out of 254 Critic's Choice selections from 1996 have
>: a British connection - i.e. at least one performer is, I think, British.
>: Only one of those cds in by JEG. There's a comparable number of "French"
>: selections - but only about 20 or so American.
>
>stronger in Penguin) than their fondness (again stronger in Penguin) for
>what I think of as harmless, middle of the road recordings. They are, of
>course, entitled to their biases; what alarms me is the way their
>recommendations are treated by so many as statements of objective truth.
>What prompts this message, though, is a perusal of the October
>Gramophone's list of recommended recordings, wherein the omissions of
>music suggests the project should either be scrapped (they publish a book
>of such things after all) or radically expanded. How seriously can we
>treat a list which suggests recordings for Haydn's trumpet and cello
>concertos (they're nice, but....) but of no symphonies between 8 and 82,
>of no quartets except op 76, of the Creation and Seasons but not one of
>the masses; suggests for Handel no recording of the organ concertos or
>of any opera (or other vocal work besides Messiah); and (he says rashly
>offering evidence for the defense) makes no reference to Purcell's
>instrumental music and doesn't mention Byrd or Dowland at all?
I think one should treat that list as seriously as one treats any
list of one-liner recommendations - not at all seriously.
(One particularly interesting phenomenon is the number of times
Karajan is recommended, harking back to the 60s Gramophones.)
It's very easy to find obvious omissions in any 7 page list,
while even a few minutes scanning through rmc will reveal the
ire that can be raised by selecting a single recording as
the "best" recorded performance.
But this does raise a point of perception: I generally ignore
this type of list - after all, I get the same information from
reading a record label. I buy Gramophone partly to find out what has
been recorded and re-issued, and partly for the individual reviews,
which I find both informative and calibrateable.
If one ranks the list-making as more important than the reviews of
individual disks, you're going to have a different perspective
on the publication. I'd bet that many fewer people are involved
in making the lists than the full complement of reviewers.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>Simon
Simon Roberts
I. Neill Reid (i...@deimos.caltech.edu) wrote:
: No obnoxious or gratuitous insults, but please document that bias quantitatively.
: For reference, about 74 out of 254 Critic's Choice selections from 1996 have
: a British connection - i.e. at least one performer is, I think, British.
: Only one of those cds in by JEG. There's a comparable number of "French"
: selections - but only about 20 or so American.
My problem with Penguin and Gramophone is less the national bias (which is
stronger in Penguin) than their fondness (again stronger in Penguin) for
what I think of as harmless, middle of the road recordings. They are, of
course, entitled to their biases; what alarms me is the way their
recommendations are treated by so many as statements of objective truth.
What prompts this message, though, is a perusal of the October
Gramophone's list of recommended recordings, wherein the omissions of
music suggests the project should either be scrapped (they publish a book
of such things after all) or radically expanded. How seriously can we
treat a list which suggests recordings for Haydn's trumpet and cello
concertos (they're nice, but....) but of no symphonies between 8 and 82,
of no quartets except op 76, of the Creation and Seasons but not one of
the masses; suggests for Handel no recording of the organ concertos or
of any opera (or other vocal work besides Messiah); and (he says rashly
offering evidence for the defense) makes no reference to Purcell's
instrumental music and doesn't mention Byrd or Dowland at all?
Simon
Simon Roberts
I. Neill Reid (i...@deimos.caltech.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: But this does raise a point of perception: I generally ignore
: this type of list - after all, I get the same information from
: reading a record label. I buy Gramophone partly to find out what has
: been recorded and re-issued, and partly for the individual reviews,
: which I find both informative and calibrateable.
: If one ranks the list-making as more important than the reviews of
: individual disks, you're going to have a different perspective
: on the publication. I'd bet that many fewer people are involved
: in making the lists than the full complement of reviewers.
I quite agree with you; my comments on the list of recommended
recordings really didn't have anything to do with the "bias" business; I'm
just curious why they came up with that idea, which seems out of spirit
with the magazine (unless the point is to give tips to advertisers).
Simon
evbill@gte.net Bill Baldwin
Rick Hayward wrote:
> A random count of a recent Gramophone "Orchestral" section shows the
> following:
>
> - Total Recordings: 59
> - Recordings containing at least one work by a British composer: 7
> - Recordings using some British artists: 18 (remarkably few
> considering how much recording is done in London)
>
> I looked in vain for the purported bias towards the local in the
> content of reviews: there was none.
>
> A hypothesis should have some minimal predictive power if it has any
> validity - so, if the bug-eyed conspiracy theory has something in it,
> one would safely expect, for instance, that the new Solti 'Don
> Giovanni' would receive notable acclaim in the pages of the latest
> Gramophone.
>
> Read the review.
>
> So, as I have previously said, the problem is one owned by the
> perceivers - not the object perceived and reflecting a child-like
> resentment that the entire world doesn't reflect their particular
> provincial tastes. A more interesting cultural phenomenon than the
Gramophone.
>
> I rest my case. Off to look for more UFOs.
You rest your case? On the basis of such pathetically inadequate anecdotal
evidence? Rick, why don't you just admit that YOU haven't noticed the bias,
but a lot of people seem to? (I'll be happy in my assessment of Gramophone
and Penguin to concede that some people think I'm seeing things that aren't
there. I'm big enough that that doesn't seem threatening to me.)
Ryan Hare
john harkness (j...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: Anyone who enjoys Abbado's Brahms has no taste.
Well, then let's hear it for tastelessness. I'd rather have my brand of it
than whatever it is you think taste is.
Abbado's Brahms #1 (DGG, Berlin PO) is one of the most thoughtful,
exciting, and well-played accounts I've ever heard, and I've heard quite a
few.
Considering that I am a classically-trained musician, currently working on
a doctorate in composition with many years of orchestral playing
experience on the bassoon, and have an extensive cd collection, I find it
somewhat unlikely that I have "no taste." I have deplorable taste, but
there must be some of it somewhere.
Ryan Hare
rh...@u.washington.edu
Opus47
The Penguin/Gramophone is biased towards British performers and composers.
I know they rate CD's, but they also seem give an extra measure of
how-good-that-composer-is when it comes to one of their own. Almost as if
they are trying to sell you on the composer as well as the performance.
Second they are biased towards big labels over the smaller ones. Probably
because big labels contribute more money into the magazines coffers. The
magazine has to make money through advertising. So if they do give a bad
review of a big label they tend to water it down and don't seem to give bad
reviews of big labels often.
They are biased towards new recordings for much the same reason. The
advertiser wants to sell the newer recordings over their budget line. They
unfairly treat older recordings.
Usually it is most useful to actually read the reviews rather than look at
the rankings. Reading the review will clue you in as how to a recording
stands. For instance they rank Heifetz a little ways below a new recording
with a rosette for Sibelius's Violin Concerto. But when you read the
Heifetz review it say something like he sets the standards by which all
others are judged. By saying this aren't they saying Heifetz is the best?
The hell with the rosette for the other new recording.
I think the Penguin Guide can be a useful tool if you take in to account
all of the things that I've said. You just really have to know how to read
them. The beginner would definitely get a mixed bag if going by
Penguin/Gramophone recommendations alone.
Fred....14 year Penguin Guide user.
I. Neill Reid
In article <19970924221...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, opu...@aol.com (Opus47) writes...
>
[.. big snip ..]
You're entitle to your views, of course, but..
>
>Usually it is most useful to actually read the reviews rather than look at
>the rankings.
Of course - any review presents one person's perspective on a
given work. The words tell you how they judged the recording.
>Reading the review will clue you in as how to a recording
>stands. For instance they rank Heifetz a little ways below a new recording
>with a rosette for Sibelius's Violin Concerto. But when you read the
>Heifetz review it say something like he sets the standards by which all
>others are judged. By saying this aren't they saying Heifetz is the best?
Not at all - if you say that something sets the standard, then you
can judge another item as being either worse or better than that
standard. The statement does not imply that the "standard" item is
the best possible under all circumstances. The latter is a conceit often
adopted by readers in this group, of course.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
Tripletz
>>what does bother me is the decline of a great American magazine<<
Most readers realize that the New Yorker dumped it's journalistic
and artistic values years ago when Tina brown became the
editor.
The Grammophone has a pronounced Anglophile bias in
all matters musical. It still makes fine reading, but in evaluating
whther or not to obtain a certain recording, one must filter
through that bias. Other magazines, such as Fanfare, have their
own biases, and it takes a bit of time to realize what they are
adjust ones perceptions accordingly.
Rick Hayward
The message <606cqf$iut$1...@gte1.gte.net>
from "Bill Baldwin" <r evb...@gte.net> contains these words:
> You rest your case?
Certainly - unless someone comes up with something other than vague
impressionism (the French did it better) to contradict it.
> On the basis of such pathetically inadequate anecdotal
> evidence?
Nope - on the basis of a fairly elementary count which has not been
contradicted. Several degrees less 'pathetic' than repetitious
assertion of the unsupported sighting of chimeras. If you wish to
examine a more extensive random sample - feel free. I'll provide you
with an randomly selected sample list of back issues/sections to
count if you so wish.
Where there is choice and subjective judgement exercised, every
publication will have some characteristics reflecting its cultural
background - but that is a long way from a notion of an exclusive or
sectarian 'bias'.
> Rick, why don't you just admit that YOU haven't noticed the bias,
> but a lot of people seem to?
A lot of people get excited about Roswell.
I don't.
evbill@gte.net Bill Baldwin
Rick Hayward wrote:
>
> Nope - on the basis of a fairly elementary count which has not been
> contradicted. Several degrees less 'pathetic' than repetitious
> assertion of the unsupported sighting of chimeras. If you wish to
> examine a more extensive random sample - feel free. I'll provide you
> with an randomly selected sample list of back issues/sections to
> count if you so wish.
Rick, are you expecting to convince others by your "fairly elementary
count"? I understand that you don't see the bias. I am un-surprised that
your count failed to turn up any bias that was noticeable to you. And if
all you want to do is post this news, well, you're certainly welcome, but
it's hardly news. And it hardly constitutes a sort of evidence on which one
might rest one's case.
Now, let's look at the statistics you posted and see why I called them
inadequate. (I'm sorry about the "pathetically"; that's not a helpful
contribution to the discussion.)
- Total Recordings: 59
- Recordings containing at least one work by a British composer: 7
Ok. So far we have a statistic that 12% of Gramophone's reviews deal with
recordings containing at least one British work. Now, my first thought is
it would be unfair to generalize about a publication on the basis of that
single issue. But you've invited me to do so, so here goes. 12% ?!? TWELVE
percent?!? Twelve PERCENT?!?!? You get the idea. Make me a list of the
hundred composers whose works, when performed, ought to be reviewed in
Gramophone. This says that 12 composers on that list will be British.
That's about one out of every 8. Seems high to me. Imagine an American
publication devoting half that much space (6 percent, 1 in 16) to American
composers. People would notice the bias.
- Recordings using some British artists: 18 (remarkably few
considering how much recording is done in London)
30% is "relatively few"? [I presume by "some British artists," you mean the
symphony, conductor, or soloist are British.] The statement that a lot of
recording is done in London is a smoke screen. If it's not done by British
artists, then it's not part of your statistic. So let's change your
parenthetical remark to the only thing that makes sense: "(remarkably few
considering how much recording is done by British artists)." Do you really
think that at least 30% of all classical recordings involve British artists
whose names appear on the cover? The number, again, seems high not low to
me. Are you saying that roughly one in three symphony orchestras, one in
three string quartets, one in three pianists, one in three solo violinists
are British?
Now, remember, before you start blasting my actuarial puerility (and I'll
lay odds, I'm the first person in the world ever to write THAT phrase), I'm
just playing your game. I'm not saying it's fair to draw conclusions from a
single issue, absolutizing the statistics you just gave. YOU said it was
fair. YOU claimed this issue was representative. And having presented that
evidence, you said you saw no indication of a pro-British bias. Your
argument doesn't stack up for me.
--
Bill Baldwin
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
> Andrew Clarke (a...@plusdespam.isd.canberra.edu.au) wrote:
>
> : Secondly, speaking of children, my-son-the-trombonist is Australian born of an
> : Australian mother, speaks Australian English, has shoulder-length auburn hair
> : and carries a trombone case with a big white "Art Blakey Lives!" sticker on it.
> : But when he visited California last year he found that quite a few of the
> : natives were giving him the cold shoulder initially, because (in their own
> : words) *they thought he was British*. So you see, a good number of people who
> : are coming out with all this bilge about Britain do not even know what the
> : British *sound* like. The general rule appears to be that if it don't sound
> : American, it might be British so let's steer clear of it in case it poisons our
> : potatoes.
I find this puzzling and very hard to believe. California has been my
primary residence most of my life, and my experience of the local scene
(and of the U.S. in general) is that anglophilia runs riot across the
land, and the locals will fawn over anything and anyone British to a
nauseating extent -- as if the Brits had invented Western civilization
while the Romans lived in caves. The only anti-British snobbery I've
observed is a disdain for Cockney accents -- and even then, it comes
from more educated Americans. Robin Leach can still fool the hoi polloi
into regarding him as some sort of arbiter of taste and class.
--
Best regards,
Con
*****************************************************************
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and
annoys the pig.
*****************************************************************
Please remove * from address to reply.
I. Neill Reid
In article <60dbca$gal$2...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bill Baldwin" <r evb...@gte.net> writes...
That's not the correct way of approaching this question - reviewers
review the recordings that have been issued recently, not a random
selection of all recordings ever made which they feel _ought_ to be
reviewed. It's a reactive, not proactive, profession.
>This says that 12 composers on that list will be British.
>That's about one out of every 8.
Well, if we're going to allow for Poissonian sampling statistics,
it's 12+/-4.5 percent. Now, a quick run through the list of _issued_
new releases, included in page 166-169 of the June Gramophone (which
happens to be handy at the moment) reveals some 46 recordings of musich
by British composers out for some 445 new releases. That's just over
10 percent - but well within the uncertainties associated with the
percentage estimated from the ratio of reviews. I'm not counting the
"various composer" cds amongst this set of reeases - I did count Delius,
who never really thought of himself as English, but seems to always be
listed that way.
So if you want to argue for bias, then place that bias with the record companies
who're sending their lists of new releases to Gramophone. And there is a
bias - since small British, and European, companies may well be better
placed to submit recordings for review than, say, a record company
in Albany, NY which specialises in the music of Lukas Foss. (Note
that Chandos _does_ specialise in British composers, and Hyperion have
also undertaken extensive series covering eg Purcell and his
contemporaries.)
I'm not going to go through this list and count up the fraction of
recordings which have British artists associated with them - there's
not really sufficient information, and I can't spare the time. And
if you were doing this properly, you'd want a more representative sample
than one month's issues - plus a way of dealing
with things like Kyung Wha Chung playing with Andre Previn and the LSO (file
under Korea, USA or UK? or 1/3 each?). But the answer may very well be
that a large fraction of the recordings _submitted for review_ originate
from the UK.
Statistics are funny things, you see - sometimes the numbers don't
square up with your preconceptions. Sometimes you need to consider what
are the external selection effects operating on your sample, and whether
you're actually asking the right question of the dataset.
>Seems high to me. Imagine an American
>publication devoting half that much space (6 percent, 1 in 16) to American
>composers. People would notice the bias.
I'd actually be very disappointed if an American review magazine didn't
include at least three reviews of music by US composers amongst a series of
59 reviews. Especially given the relatively high number of American composers
active in _contemporary_ music. You see, that's another selection effect:
a magazine divides up recordings into categories, allocating approximately
equal amounts of space to each category. That may very well lead to skews
in the distribution. It's not so cut and dried as you might think
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
evbill@gte.net Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid wrote:
> Now, a quick run through the list of _issued_
> new releases, included in page 166-169 of the June Gramophone (which
> happens to be handy at the moment) reveals some 46 recordings of musich
> by British composers out for some 445 new releases. That's just over
> 10 percent - but well within the uncertainties associated with the
> percentage estimated from the ratio of reviews.
This is where the subjective enters. That figure seems disproportionate to
me.
> So if you want to argue for bias, then place that bias with the record
companies
> who're sending their lists of new releases to Gramophone. And there is a
> bias - since small British, and European, companies may well be better
> placed to submit recordings for review than, say, a record company
> in Albany, NY which specialises in the music of Lukas Foss.
This is an argument I hadn't considered. This may well explain why
Gramophone reviews more British music than others. Do you think this
explains why they are disproportionately IMPRESSED by British artists as
well? (Assuming you buy that premise. I'm not trying to beg the question
here.)
This, to me, is the real cause for concern. I hadn't really thought until
recently about Gramophone reviewing MORE British music/performances than
other mags. But I HAD noticed that they (and Penguin even more so) tended
to review those performances more highly. This is really the bias that
bothers me. It means I can't trust those publications to review British
performers in a way that's helpful to me. They'll recommend too many
turkeys.
Now what's my point of reference in all this? Well, I have two: 1) My own
taste, and 2) Other published reviews.
With regard to my own taste, I realize that one might as well say that I
have a (relatively) anti-British bias because I like fewer British
performances than Penguin and Gramophone. But with regard to other
published reviews, my sense is that Penguin and Gramophone are often out of
step with the other reviews when the review is of a British performance.
And I find that my tastes are more often in step. So Occam's Razor suggests
that it is more economical to presume a pro-British bias in Penguin and
Gramophone than to presume an anti-British bias in Fanfare, American Record
Guide, Stereo Review, and others.
I am well aware that in concluding this, my reasoning is as inductive as
all get out. I'm open to being told what factors I've failed to consider.
I'm open to being told that statistics are funny animals that don't always
match our impressions. I'm open to just flat out being disagreed with. (And
when I tell people about the "bias," I am careful to mention that not
everybody believes it exists. But this is my impression confirmed by the
independent impressions of others on this newsgroup.) But I'm naturally
resistant to being told by impression is a paranoid delusion.
We would need a massive statistical study to confirm or overthrow this
subjective impression. It would need to take into account (at least) the
following factors:
1) A comparison of same-item reviews across Penguin, Gramophone, Fanfare,
ARG, etc., reducing those reviews to numerical significance (so already the
subjective has necessarily crept in). Then we could note whether Penguin
and/or Gramophone differed from the others disproportionately when British
performers were involved or whether they were mavericks across the board.
2) A comparison of what each publication DOES review that the others don't.
3) A comprehensive list of what performances were available to each
magazine to review.
4) A supernatural knowledge of what other performances of the same piece
the reviewer has heard.
You would probably be able to suggest other relevant data to gather. But
the point is that we probably won't have such a study done. So we are left
free to cite our subjective impressions and to be courteous to those whose
impressions are different.
--
Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid
In article <60e8lb$nq8$2...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bill Baldwin" <r evb...@gte.net> writes...
>I. Neill Reid wrote:
>
>> Now, a quick run through the list of _issued_
>> new releases, included in page 166-169 of the June Gramophone (which
>> happens to be handy at the moment) reveals some 46 recordings of musich
>> by British composers out for some 445 new releases. That's just over
>> 10 percent - but well within the uncertainties associated with the
>> percentage estimated from the ratio of reviews.
>
>This is where the subjective enters. That figure seems disproportionate to me.
Remember - these are new recordings. Even record companies are realising that
there's only so many times that one can record the Beethoven symphonies. That
leads to more exploration of lesser known composers - and you can point to
a few companies which have been particularly enthusiastic in this regard:
Chandos, Hyperion, BIS, ASV, Marco Polo, even Naxos. That means that the
list of new recordings will not have the same distribution as the list
of top-100 favourites submitted to a radio station.
>
>> So if you want to argue for bias, then place that bias with the record companies
>> who're sending their lists of new releases to Gramophone. And there is a
>> bias - since small British, and European, companies may well be better
>> placed to submit recordings for review than, say, a record company
>> in Albany, NY which specialises in the music of Lukas Foss.
>
>This is an argument I hadn't considered. This may well explain why
>Gramophone reviews more British music than others. Do you think this
>explains why they are disproportionately IMPRESSED by British artists as
>well? (Assuming you buy that premise. I'm not trying to beg the question
>here.)
Maybe "they" simply like those performances more. I really haven't done
an extensive comparison of reviews.
>
>This, to me, is the real cause for concern. I hadn't really thought until
>recently about Gramophone reviewing MORE British music/performances than
>other mags. But I HAD noticed that they (and Penguin even more so) tended
>to review those performances more highly. This is really the bias that
>bothers me. It means I can't trust those publications to review British
>performers in a way that's helpful to me. They'll recommend too many
>turkeys.
>
>Now what's my point of reference in all this? Well, I have two: 1) My own
>taste, and 2) Other published reviews.
From where? I'd expect mainly from US review magazines? Is there not a
clear possibility that you are comparing two datasets which are not
independent - I am, I confess, assuming both that you are American (in the
US sense) and that their reviewers are American (ditto) and that
there may well be similarities in the musical culture to which both
you and they have been exposed.
>
>With regard to my own taste, I realize that one might as well say that I
>have a (relatively) anti-British bias because I like fewer British
>performances than Penguin and Gramophone. But with regard to other
>published reviews, my sense is that Penguin and Gramophone are often out of
>step with the other reviews when the review is of a British performance.
>And I find that my tastes are more often in step. So Occam's Razor suggests
>that it is more economical to presume a pro-British bias in Penguin and
>Gramophone than to presume an anti-British bias in Fanfare, American Record
>Guide, Stereo Review, and others.
But they _are_ all American publications - and that might (not must, might)
indicate a shared outlook, and a shared preference for, say, Isaac Stern
over Iona Brown. A shared difference in taste. So, rather than claiming that
Gramophone and Penguin are biased towards British performers, maybe they
simply prefer British performance styles - and (on average and with all
the due qualifications) US-based (or brought up) music listeners and critics
are biased _against_ British-style performances.
(I know for a fact that most clarinet players in the States, being
largely taught under the aegis of the German style of performance, cannot
stand, and will make suitably inflammatory remarks, about Hilton, Johnson
et al. Their forebears were largely responsible for Reginald Kell, probably the
greatest clarinetist to have ever recorded, essentially giving up
playing and retiring prematurely. I, as you perhaps can tell, like clarinet
playing with vibrato.)
And it's all really just a matter of taste. There's a lot of
stuck up twits over there, but one should cut them a little more
slack than they're given. And, as you say, one should preserve the
courtesies (I, too, happen to like Abbado's Brahms.)
[...extensive discussions about impracticalities of doing a proper
statistical survey duly noted, agreed with and snipped..]
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
evbill@gte.net Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid wrote:
> That's not the correct way of approaching this question...
Mr. Reid,
Apparently the end of my post got cut off. Here it is again for your
convenience:
> Now, remember, before you start blasting my actuarial puerility (and I'll
> lay odds, I'm the first person in the world ever to write THAT phrase),
I'm
> just playing your game. I'm not saying it's fair to draw conclusions from
a
> single issue, absolutizing the statistics you just gave. YOU said it was
> fair. YOU claimed this issue was representative. And having presented
that
> evidence, you said you saw no indication of a pro-British bias.
IOW, the entire post was directed at someone who was claiming that one
COULD draw conclusions from the statistics presented. And further, he
claimed, that the conclusions, once drawn, did not indicate a pro-British
bias.
My FIRST response, if you recall, was to suggest that the original poster's
statistics were inadequate and therefore meaningless.
--
Bill Baldwin
Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid responded:
> From where? I'd expect mainly from US review magazines?
Naturally. I don't read any foreign language fluently, so I'm confined to
English language magazines. I don't know of any Canadian, Australian, New
Zealand, or other English language review magazines. And I don't know of
any other British magazines to compare. So I'm stuck.
> Is there not a clear possibility that you are comparing two datasets
> which are not independent
More than a possibility. I've conceded that up front, haven't I? If not,
I'm conceding it now. But my impression is that Penguin and Gramophone have
a more decided predilection for British performances than Fanfare and ARG
have for American performances. And FWIW as anecdotal evidence, I don't
recall EVER hearing a pro-American (or even anti-British) bias alleged
against Fanfare and ARG. There could be any number of reasons for this,
e.g.
1) The allegations exist; I just haven't encountered them.
2) Americans are more likely to make inflammatory accusations of prejudice.
3) More Americans read the British publications than vice versa.
4) Americans have an inferiority complex which makes them sensitive to real
or imagined slights.
5) Penguin and Gramophone actually do prefer their homegrown product more
than Fanfare and ARG do theirs.
a) because Penguin and Gramophone's homegrown product is observably
superior, or
b) even though both countries put out the same ratio of winners to duds
For reasons that undoubtedly have much to do with my culture, upbringing,
personal taste, past experiences with things and people British, etc., I
have adopted No. 5(b) as a reasonable working hypothesis.
But then the question arises: In a blind test, would the Penguin and
Gramophone reviewers prefer the same performances? Or would they actually
gravitate toward non-British performances that I would consider superior?
I'd like to think they'd gravitate toward the "superior" performances. But
I've been surprised regarding this culture gap before.
E.g. I found out on another newsgroup that the English actually PREFER
their toast cold, with UNMELTED butter on top. They use a horrifying device
called a "toast cooling rack" to get it that way. This and similar
anecdotes tell me two things: 1) An English restaurant critic is likely to
have a "bias" toward what I would call bad, or at least bland and
tasteless, food. 2) That same critic may be quite useful to an Englishman.
Is that the way it is with Penguin and Gramophone? Do they actually reflect
a British predilection for performances I would consider bland and
tasteless? Or do they actually like the same spice in their music that I
like in mine? If the latter, then it seems to me that they're recommending
performances they themselves would consider inferior if the disc were
mislabeled as George Szell conducting the Cleveland Symphony.
--
Bill Baldwin
P.S. sorry about the bounced mail. My e-mail address is fixed now.
I. Neill Reid
In article <60el8s$qki$1...@gte1.gte.net>, "Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> writes...
[... snip ...]
>
>E.g. I found out on another newsgroup that the English actually PREFER
>their toast cold, with UNMELTED butter on top.
tush, tush - I think you generalise from the particular. But not being
English, I can't be certain of that
>They use a horrifying device
>called a "toast cooling rack" to get it that way.
There is no such thing - there's just a toast rack, a device for maintaining
toasted bread in a vertical position for serving. It's just cold because
you take so long to get from bed to breakfast.
>This and similar
>anecdotes tell me two things: 1) An English restaurant critic is likely to
>have a "bias" toward what I would call bad, or at least bland and
>tasteless, food.
There are other grounds for making this assertion - e.g. vegetables
(form without substance, one might call them). But you always run the
risk of encountering an English restaurant critic who was educated in France!
>2) That same critic may be quite useful to an Englishman.
>
>Is that the way it is with Penguin and Gramophone? Do they actually reflect
>a British predilection for performances I would consider bland and
>tasteless?
And when did you stop beating your dog? But, yes, I think you're
getting the hang of this. The crucial next step is to discriminate between
Penguins (3 people with opinions which seem to have remained fixed since
about the 60s) and Gramophone (60 critics, they say, and with consequent
greater flexibility of viewpoint). Actually, I haven't looked at a Penguin guide
for about 7 years, but their views did seem well-established then.
>Or do they actually like the same spice in their music that I
>like in mine? If the latter, then it seems to me that they're recommending
>performances they themselves would consider inferior if the disc were
>mislabeled as George Szell conducting the Cleveland Symphony.
There's a certain degree of convoluted grammar in the last sentence, but
I think the answer is, yes, the Penguins don't think as much of Szell + Cleveland
as does the average US r.m.c. participant. Now, whether that represents a genuine,
musically-based viewpoint on their part or mere prejudicial bias is something only
a mind-reader can tell you, but in this case I happen to share, to a certain
extent, their viewpoint. This may well be because Szell is not a conductor
who was a strong presence during my early exposure to classical music - but
there's no piece where I'd immediately pick Szell + Cleveland as my first choice.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
>
>--
>
>Bill Baldwin
>
MWKluge
In article <19970925020...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
trip...@aol.com (Tripletz) writes:
> The Grammophone has a pronounced Anglophile bias in
>all matters musical. It still makes fine reading, but in evaluating
>whther or not to obtain a certain recording, one must filter
>through that bias. Other magazines, such as Fanfare, have their
>own biases, and it takes a bit of time to realize what they are
>adjust ones perceptions accordingly.
>
>
Matthew, aren't you going to claim your dollar?
Mark K.
Simon Roberts
Bill Baldwin (rev...@gte.net) wrote:
: E.g. I found out on another newsgroup that the English actually PREFER
: their toast cold, with UNMELTED butter on top. They use a horrifying device
: called a "toast cooling rack" to get it that way. This and similar
: anecdotes tell me two things: 1) An English restaurant critic is likely to
: have a "bias" toward what I would call bad, or at least bland and
: tasteless, food.
Well, at the risk of attracting more complaints about irrelevance, I would
point out that the point of allowing toast to cool (the point isn't to let
it get stone cold; it's called a "toast rack", by the way) in a rack is so
that it will remain crisp (that is the point, in part, of toast, which the
American habit of buttering it while hot and then stacking it up so that
it steams on itself completely defeats); texture in food is important, and
letting it cool presents sogginess (it doesn't affect the flavor much) and
allows the butter to retain its distinctive, smooth texture between the
toast and whatever gets put on top, rather than creating a homogeneous
mess. Thus, the English taste for cool toast is, I would suggest,
inconsistent with the taste of many British critics in the context of
musical interpretation, as is the tendency in British restaurants to use
more salt than their American counterparts.
: Is that the way it is with Penguin and Gramophone? Do they actually reflect
: a British predilection for performances I would consider bland and
: tasteless?
I may have said this before, but while that is generally true of Penguin
and, to a lesser extent Gramophone (which does, after all, endlessly
recommend Bernstein's Mahler), and while the British do on the whole like
understatement, there was a time when Britain had at least three magazines
whose critics had rather different taste from Gramophone's, most notably
the EMG monthly newsletter (which would, on occasion, make fun of
Gramophone reviews, sometimes scathingly) and Records and Recording. Both
died, unfortunately, in c. 1980. HiFi News and Record Review still exists
and can be found on US newsstands in big cities, as can BBC and several
others. BBC, while not very good, doesn't have the same taste as Penguin,
and occasionally offers far more scathing, or at least pithy, writing.
As for the bias thing, it's not merely a matter of preferring the home
product; domestic recordings' failures tend to be downplayed. Edward
Greenfield raved incontently about Wesler-Moest's LPO Mendelssohn 3/4, for
instance, a disc of no interpretative distinction and rather scrappy
orchestral playing. Had it been an American orchestra, I suspect the
failings would have been played up. (Indeed, the quality -- technically
-- of American performances is often itself a source of criticism,
especially if it's a string quartet which plays better than (and most do)
"the Lindsays.") This may reflect what seems to be a British fondness
for "muddling through" and distrust of sheer competence. I shall never
forget Richard Osborne's review in Gramophone in the late 1970s of the EMI
reissue of Karajan's Philharmonia Beethoven cycle, which he compared
favorably to his next cycle with the BPO, in part because of the
"thankfully fallible" playing of the Philharmonia, compared to the "blond"
Berliners....
Simon
Bill Baldwin
I. Neill Reid queried:
> And when did you stop beating your dog?
About a month ago. Why do you ask?
sue
I noticed the bias in these journals regarding British performers many
years ago when I had to read reviews for my job. I soon learned to compare
these reviews with those in American journals, and to allow for the bias in
my conclusions. Sue
Epworth Intensive Care Unit
I. Neill Reid wrote:
>
> >Or do they actually like the same spice in their music that I
> >like in mine? If the latter, then it seems to me that they're recommending
> >performances they themselves would consider inferior if the disc were
> >mislabeled as George Szell conducting the Cleveland Symphony.
>
> There's a certain degree of convoluted grammar in the last sentence, but
> I think the answer is, yes, the Penguins don't think as much of Szell + Cleveland
Yet they seem to rave about Dvorak's Slavonic Dances, Mahler's 4 & 6,
Wagner's "incidental" Ring music and Walton's 2, among others.
> but there's no piece where I'd immediately pick Szell + Cleveland as my first choice.
And yet many on this NG have recommended one or other of these if the
appropriate thread arose.
Bruno
Epworth Intensive Care Unit
Tripletz wrote:
>
> >>what does bother me is the decline of a great American magazine<<
>
> Most readers realize that the New Yorker dumped it's journalistic
> and artistic values years ago when Tina brown became the
> editor.
> all matters musical. It still makes fine reading, but in evaluating
> whther or not to obtain a certain recording, one must filter
> through that bias. Other magazines, such as Fanfare, have their
> own biases, and it takes a bit of time to realize what they are
> adjust ones perceptions accordingly.
I *am* sick of the continual support for ASMF. Sure, they have made many
interesting recordings, but are they all *that* good. Mind you, I don't
think the Grammophone has a pronounced Anglophile bias in ALL matters
musical - they have never liked Barbirolli's Mahler 6 with Philharmonia
(probably because none have bothered to listen to it since their old
mate, the late Derryk Cooke, shafted it in his original review - so they
go and recommend Karajan ??? SHIT)
Admittedly, this is the only time they don't lay eggs over JBB
Bruno
Rick Hayward
The message <24SEP199...@deimos.caltech.edu>
from i...@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) contains these words:
> Not at all - if you say that something sets the standard, then you
> can judge another item as being either worse or better than that
> standard. The statement does not imply that the "standard" item is
> the best possible under all circumstances.
... or for all people: absolutes don't operate in this area.
> The latter is a conceit often
> adopted by readers in this group, of course.
Nail on the head. The search for 'the best' or 'the definitive'
recording is the musical equivalent of indulging in Playboy inspired
onaninsm in pursuit of definitive sex. (By the way, have you noticed
the bias in favour of American red-heads?) :-))
Rick Hayward
The message <342EA0...@ozramp.net.au>
from Epworth Intensive Care Unit <epw...@ozramp.net.au> contains
these words:
> > Neill Reid wrote:
> > but there's no piece where I'd immediately pick Szell + Cleveland
as my first choice.
> And yet many on this NG have recommended one or other of these if the
> appropriate thread arose.
Indeed so.
I believe that the term used in this neck of the woods for that sort
of thing is 'bias'. :-))))
Rick Hayward
The message <60dbca$gal$2...@gte1.gte.net>
from "Bill Baldwin" <r evb...@gte.net> contains these words:
> I'm the first person in the world ever to write THAT phrase), I'm
> just playing your game. I'm not saying it's fair to draw conclusions from a
> single issue, absolutizing the statistics you just gave. YOU said it was
> fair. YOU claimed this issue was representative. And having presented that
> evidence, you said you saw no indication of a pro-British bias. Your
> argument doesn't stack up for me.
As I said at the outset, it's a simple count of a small sample. It is
taken at random, and I have no reason to believe that it is untypical.
You, on the other hand, have produced nothing beyond repetitions of
impressionistic assertions.
I have no particular candle to carry for The Gramophone and I don't
expect it to provide a definitive judgement on proper musical taste
- as has been said before: there is no such thing. It is simply a
collection of reviews - variable, but reasonably intelligent, about
the ephemera of musical performance. Any such enterprise will select:
and in making such a selection will show some flavouring of physical
and cultural circumstances. That's a long way from the notion of
'bias' in my terms, and, as I've shown, does not amount to the
exclusive or distorting selectivity that the term implies.
Your personal preferences lean towards (what you define as) the
'biases' inculcated by your culture and background. Nothing at all
wrong with that. What is wrong is that you don't recognize that you
are simply reflecting the same phenomenon that you criticize so
exaggeratedly in the big G, whilst labouring under the delusion that
it represents some objective norm.
If you want to see really blinkered selectivity, you don't have to
look very far from here!
Rick Hayward
The message <60el8s$qki$1...@gte1.gte.net>
from "Bill Baldwin" <rev...@gte.net> contains these words:
> Is that the way it is with Penguin and Gramophone? Do they actually reflect
> a British predilection for performances I would consider bland and
> tasteless? Or do they actually like the same spice in their music that I
> like in mine?
That is the crux, and the answer to the last sentence is clearly 'no'.
And that is what is about - taste, which is a peculiar animal and,
beyond certain limits, unamenable to definitive statements about superiority.
Consider two statements, one developed from your preferences:
(i) 'The British prefer bland and tasteless performances in contrast
to the spice that is my predeliction'.
(ii) 'There is a tendency in the US to rate distorting histrionics
and unsubtle overstatement, whereas I prefer performances which are
more subtle and structured'.
Two sides of the same coin.
Rick Hayward
The message <342EA1...@ozramp.net.au>
> I *am* sick of the continual support for ASMF. Sure, they have made many
> interesting recordings, but are they all *that* good.
Not always. But on the whole - yes: even if your particular taste and
cultural bias doesn't lead you to enjoy them.
Rick Hayward
The message <60e6q3$nq8$1...@gte1.gte.net>
from "Bill Baldwin" <r evb...@gte.net> contains these words:
> IOW, the entire post was directed at someone who was claiming that one
> COULD draw conclusions from the statistics presented. And further, he
> claimed, that the conclusions, once drawn, did not indicate a pro-British
> bias.
A small, but important, corrective: the point was that the
substantive hypothesis that you presented was unsupported by a small
random sample. I was not the one who was drawing conclusions - the
onus is on the originator of the hypothesis to establish that its
null is invalid.
Justin R Macfarlane
< John Harkness flames:
<
< Anyone who enjoys Abbado's Brahms has no taste.
what can i say? i've been putting too much cayenne pepper on my food?
justin
--
educatelucidatexplicatenunciateradicateliminatequivocatedentatescalate
name: justin ray macfarlane http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~justin
anagram: scant marijuana flyer @}-,-`-- jus...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
whatwasisiswhatwaswillbejapanese=>ジャスティンinnabunonnastick
Justin R Macfarlane
Opus47 decided to enlighten us thus:
<
< The Penguin/Gramophone is biased towards British performers and composers.
the only real bias i've noticed is towards the lindsay qrt. whether
this is justified is probably contentious.
< They are biased towards new recordings for much the same reason. The
< advertiser wants to sell the newer recordings over their budget line. They
< unfairly treat older recordings.
i got the impression that the penguin had a slight bias to older
recordings (esp. mono and early stereo) over more modern ones.
< I think the Penguin Guide can be a useful tool if you take in to account
< all of the things that I've said. You just really have to know how to read
< them. The beginner would definitely get a mixed bag if going by
< Penguin/Gramophone recommendations alone.
i find the penguin guide invaluable when choosing something, because
to my relatively untrained ear, they all sound pretty similar. if i
use the guide, then at least i've got some idea on what a group of
"experts" think. if the beginner would get a mixed bag going by
penguin/gramophone, what would they end up with if they just bought
blindfold? (probably picking the best sleeve design :)?
i definitely read the review, as it often indicated the quality of
recording, as well as interpretive merits, i don't just look at the
stars. almost all cds i've bought using the guide haven't
disappointed, a couple haven't lived up to the "hype", but nothing was
awful. finally often enjoy the use of english used in the guide.
< Fred....14 year Penguin Guide user.
justin ... 4 year penguin guide user.
Bill Baldwin
Rick Hayward wrote:
> A small, but important, corrective: the point was that the
> substantive hypothesis that you presented was unsupported by a small
> random sample.
I believe the small random sample DID support my point. You haven't
responded to that. You don't have to agree with me, but it seems incumbent
upon you to:
1) Explain why you think the sample did not demonstrate bias. Clearly the
raw numbers aren't sufficient.
2) Stop maintaining that the sample didn't demonstrate bias and simply say
it doesn't look like bias to you. (This involves taking a step back from
the dogmatic statement that my "substantive hypothesis" was objectively
"unsupported.")
--
Bill Baldwin