John, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you’ve written here. But there are two parts to this story: the performance itself and the quality of the recording. Should a music critic be critiquing both? Is it their responsibility to *be* critiquing both?

Tom Fine has put forth that most music labels are sending lossy format files to be critiqued. If this is what the label is sending to be critiqued, should it be the duty of the critic to say that they will not base their judgement on what the label is sending them? When labels were pressing lousy Lp’s, did critics go to the label and insist on a reel-to-reel taped version if it was available?

These same type of questions haunted the drama critics as well. Should a critique be based on a preview performance or an opening night performance?

Am I just being au contraire?


> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:07 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, Stewart.  I'm not buying that heavy metal rap music requires less
> fidelity.  There is probably more actual high frequent content in such
> music (a lot of it is electronic) than in a classical recording.  As long
> as recording studios are not recording to i-tune format (thank God we
> haven't sunk to that level already), and recordings are issued in non-lossy
> formats, they should be reviewed in the best format in which they are
> issued, because that's how you can hear what they really sound like.
> All this dumbing down is a terrible thing.  And shameful for a so-called
> music critic.  I would agree with you if I-tunes is the only format in
> which something is released.
> Somebod,y somewhere really has to have some kind of standards about all
> this.  If a so-called, "self-identified" music critic admittedly has none,
> he/she really ought to be doing something else for a living.
> Best, John