Classical Section...

[taylormemer]

Dilemma.

I intend to do lots and lots of classical music reviews. I love the genre, I study it, I play it, I follow it blah blah blah.

Now my dilemma with reviewing classical CD's is that they are

1). Not always available worldwide. For instance if I review from ABC classics, you Yankies wont be able to buy it in your local store, let alone have the time ordering it from AussieLand.

2) Offer a playing performance which is different to someone else's interpretation and therefore, insignificant in its own way. If we were to submit a review for every rendition of Beethoven's 9th, then we would have at least 1000 different recordings to choose from...

It is far more applicable to review from a more genralised point of view. For example, the review section for Mozart will have entries for each and every one of his individual compositions, including single pieces, which are their own piece, and own importance. Take Beethoven's Fur Elise for example. Why review it in conjunction with his Violin Sonata No. 4, it makes no sense, they are their own individual items and for that matter different genres.

I am asking this because, I don't want to begin reviewing (I actually already have partially) in this manner only to be thrown off guard with, "sorry but this form of reviewing isn't appropriate and therefore will be removed etc."

I am asking for opinions and comments.

Cheers.

[FlawedPerfection]

I actually agree with this a lot. I was going to do a Shostakovich symphony and I wasn't entirely sure what to do. We should review the actual composition, not necessarily the performance. Although, you should mention the recordings you are basing your judgment off of.

[Bordello]

aw man my post disappeared

[taylormemer]

Yes, my sentiments exactly Flawed. There are certainly notable recordings of any piece, and of course these can be mentioned.

[IsItLuck?]

Yeah there should be a classical section. I am going to review Gustav Holst's Planets in the near future.

[Iluvatar]

I wanted to review the Rite* of Spring

[taylormemer]

IsItLuck... oops. I'm nearly done that one myself. Hmm.
Iluvatar... see above.

But this is indeed good, because it shows that the site users indeed share a common interest for classics, it just seems we don't have a common direction for how to review them.

Another issue for me is ratings. I mean seriously, how could you rate anything from these eras 1 star, let alone 2.5. It would mean that most of the pieces will fall above 3.5 (maybe 3) stars, at least in my eyes. It's quite hard to place ratings within music from a time where most pieces were composed not just for entertainment, but as individual art forms. Not many critics out there, let alone any, put stars on classical music.

[rasputin]

We've had a number of classical reviews before, go into the Classical section in the Other section of the site, and you can look at how some of the previous classical reviews have been done. It's great you're doing this, by the way.

[taylormemer]

Thank you for your appreciation. I am aware of the current reviews (the few of them there are) and I have noted their lingual content. Quality-wise, each are quite well done. The review for Pictures at an Exhibition is great, as is the one for Scriabin's "Preparation for the Final Mystery."

What I have noticed in some reviews (not just classical) is that people seem to get into he mindset of "this is the only review that this artist will have and therefore I shall include a myriad of general information of the composer." Now, this is great, if its for a description for the composer, but certainly not the piece. Feel free to add a little bit of historical info if it applicable towards the piece, but otherwise stick in in the composers overview page.

[cometuesday]

I think the myriad of information comes with reviewers assuming nobody will know anything or care much about the work in question otherwise. I mean you don't need to talk much about a Linkin Park review for someone to know what's going on... but in a classical review a little bit of background can, I think, add a bit in regards to the nature of the piece, the medium used, etc...

That said I agree that they shouldn't be biographies of the composer or anything.

[taylormemer]

I think the myriad of information comes with reviewers assuming nobody will know anything or care much about the work in question otherwise. I mean you don't need to talk much about a Linkin Park review for someone to know what's going on... but in a classical review a little bit of background can, I think, add a bit in regards to the nature of the piece, the medium used, etc...

That said I agree that they shouldn't be biographies of the composer or anything.

Indeed, not many know a lot about composers. However, a lot of people also don't know about bands, hence the reason behind the description page.

EDIT

Misread your comment.

Yes, I think we stand on the same platform here - Include any necessary info about the composer, if it enhances the general conception of the piece, and review.

[Iai]

I asked about this a while ago and Jom agreed that compositions should be added as albums are, under year of composition. The difficulty is that some people have gone ahead and reviewed recordings already.

[Eliminator]

um albums aren't added under year of composition

[Iai]

That sentence look weird in text. The emphasis was meant to be on the word 'composition'; as in compositions should be added rather than albums.

[taylormemer]

Indeed, people have begun to review albums, however I plan to remedy this by trying myself to expose the "new" approach, which hopefully people will catch onto. There also needs to be more information regarding the classical section in a sticky topic where newbies can get info.

[Poet]

I was happy enough to review a classical album that had a pretty easy setup for reviewing. Thank you Vivaldi for splitting up Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter.

[taylormemer]

Revived, due to ongoing debate over at Sputnik.
Some individuals are requesting that I (in particular) submit "album artwork" alongside my classical reviews. I see a few issues regarding this, and sorry if I am repeating myself.

1). If I were too add the album cover, this would imply that I have reviewed the recording. Take Fur Elise for example. 10,000+ recordings to choose from, and I have picked one, if we were to review all those recordings Beethoven's list would be insanely immense, and I see no need for it - I am sure most of you agree. That's why I review from a general point of view, and consequently rate the music, in terms of the music itself, not the recording. This is completely different for say a band, who own their music, and subsequently own copyright for it, meaning that there is usually only one authentic recording of say, Led Zeppelin's Kashmir. What I am getting at here is that while the artwork for pop culture albums retain some physical importantance, for both the group's image, and recognition, classical music (from older generations) on the other hand doesn't require such artwork.

On top of that, classical albums are often compilations. So, how would you define an album that said this.

FAURE - Requiem

Vierne - Andantino
de SEREVAC - Tantum ergo

http://www.naxos.com/SharedFiles/Images/cds/550765.gif

IsItLuck, or someone tell me who exactly does that cover apply to? Not one, but three people. So what shall I do? Submit a various artist review, and review the recording? I certainly could, but that would be like reviewing Watershed, Darkside of the Moon, and Reign In Blood and trying to collate them, in turn increasing the ever enlarging Various Artist list. Or I could review all three, in separate reviews, and include the recording information in each, and in turn submitting the cover three times to the site. It just seems pointless.

2). It makes the site look "ugly." I'm a visual artist, I totally agree. I don't want to crumble the place's site design to bits with generic "missing-image" icons. Work-arounds to this include, submitting the image of a composer, which is not in copyright (most aren't), submitting, some sort of general blank image, like a white square or alike. I personally believe, that the reviews would benefit from having the image of the composer. But in the case of the composer's album list page, it would look a bit strange seeing their picture reoccur over and over for multiple compositons. Is there a possibility that we could just not have the album image show while a user is scrolling through the album list?

3). This point is contentious. I often purchase recordings from a single label, meaning most of my collection is fairly label orientated. Such labels are in competition, naturally, and therefore if I were to submit the album art from those recordings, couldn't that be viewed as a form of passive endorsement for the label? I know I am sounding very singular here, without thinking about other users and what they many have, but seeing as I am pretty much the only one who does this, I feel compelled to place my arguments as is. But, the same could apply for anyone wishing to review classical.

Many of you seem to mistake classical music for just the same as Band X's album Y. It's not like that at all. It's recorded, and sold without any royalties offered to the composers (they're mostly dead), except for those who are alive and well today, and are usually signed, meaning that their is only one available recording, and therefore one cover, not 100 covers.

So after all that, I still maintain that probably the best thing to do is add a composer image. But, the problem is that I don't want to add more of the same image, and just waste valuable server space. What am I to do about this?

[IsItLuck?]

You are making this sooooooooooooo much more complicated than it has to be.

-If it's one piece of music, google 'gustav holst planets' and find an album art.
For instance http://www.shetline.com/covers/_holst-karajan-planets.tn.jpg
-If it's a compilation, more than likely you actually own that album so either scan in or use the google method again and enter like people enter splits into the system.
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=26993

IsItLuck, or someone tell me who exactly does that cover apply to? Not one, but three people. So what shall I do?
Well you bought an album with three composers, so review all three or find an album art of just the one and review one.
http://www.andante.com/images/Articles/FaureRequiemTortelier170x16.jpg

This point is contentious. I often purchase recordings from a single label, meaning most of my collection is fairly label orientated. Such labels are in competition, naturally, and therefore if I were to submit the album art from those recordings, couldn't that be viewed as a form of passive endorsement for the label
Honestly, who cares
So after all that, I still maintain that probably the best thing to do is add a composer image. But, the problem is that I don't want to add more of the same image, and just waste valuable server space. What am I to do about this?
Now you're just making stuff up. Since when does adding album art hinder the entire site? You're over analyzing this way too much.

Bottom line: If you can find it for one specific piece, use it. If not, add the composers picture. If it's a compilation, use that album artwork and review every composer on the compilation.

[taylormemer]

You are making this sooooooooooooo much more complicated than it has to be.

How, I am trying to ascertain how I am to go about this. You're telling me to review an album. Do you even own one classical CD to understand where I am coming from with this.

-If it's one piece of music, google 'gustav holst planets' and find an album art.
For instance http://www.shetline.com/covers/_holst-karajan-planets.tn.jpg

Upload album art for an album I don't own, and that I haven't reviewed from?

-If it's a compilation, more than likely you actually own that album so either scan in or use the google method again and enter like people enter splits into the system.
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=26993

Splits are ridiculous, and unprofessional method for representing the music from a composer, who is their own individual, not a couple who have mutually agreed to release a bipartisan recording. Such releases aren't even generally regarded to be relevant to classical music.

'[...]find an album art of just the one and review one.'
http://www.andante.com/images/Articles/FaureRequiemTortelier170x16.jpg

Again, "just find the art for one, and chuck it up." Who cares it if doesn't even still exist, or is currently in circulation, or if the recording is hard to find, or if it is a digital recording as opposed to an analogue one.

Now you're just making stuff up. Since when does adding album art hinder the entire site?

Making stuff up? If I wanted to become an attention whore I'd goto the GD forum. And I'm not saying it does hinder the site. I think you may have misunderstood what I meant there.

You're over analyzing this way too much.

I am in no way over analysing this, nor am I making stuff up. How long have I been here for? Ask yourself (omit the fact that I joined in 04, I wasn't around for about 4 years as you can see). I am not aware of the site complexities, and I am simply trying to understand the best method of approach. You seem have have an extremely simplistic "just bung it together" like attitude that in my opinion would make the site more difficult to use. Why are you so fascinated with albumart? What is so special about it, other then the fact that it makes the site look better, and apparently makes a review more credible...? Don't get me wrong, I would hate to see people not include the album art in their reviews, but for a section like classical, why does it matter so much...

Bottom line: If you can find it for one specific piece, use it. If not, add the composers picture. If it's a compilation, use that album artwork and review every composer on the compilation.

Again you are asking me to just chuck up art to make it look cool. I want to classical section to be a well organised collection of the correct information. Not a mish-mash of irrelevant art, or misused information regarding recording performances, to which there are millions.

[IsItLuck?]

honestly I'm not even reading this, do what you want, I don't care.

[taylormemer]

Look, I am not trying to piss you off. I'm just trying to gain opinions, engage in constructive discussion, etc. I apologise.

[Jim]

thread = uuugggggghhhhhhhh

[cometuesday]

tbh i don't think the majority of the site cares enough about the classical section for minor details to matter...

that said, anyone who does care enough will probably take into consideration any of this and likely isn't going to call you out for uploading any particular artwork over another.

edit: and in regards to compilations, i don't see the practicality in reviewing them in the first place...

[DFelon204409]

Let's put it this way Taylor. The Hardcore/Emo forum didn't exist until a 5000+ thread for emo in the other music forum had reached critical mass and hardcore was a huge part of the discussion in the punk forum. There was demand so there was a subforum made. If you want this forum to be made, you should review as many albums as you can, and if this picks up a bit then I'm sure mx will gladly add a sputnik subsection. You can't expect something big like this to happen without a strong foundation.

[masada]

ya that is going to happen

[descendents1]

taylor take a chill pill homey

[taylormemer]

Yeah, ok I understand. Look I just wanted to just get a foundation for things. I wont bring this up any further. Thankyou to you guys for the discussion, and advice.

[Iai]

Taylor, there is nothing wrong with what you're already doing.