Nathaniel and John:
First, John, we don't have to agree about anything (though of course I'm glad that we like some of the same performances--it's always nice to be in the company of good people!). Let's not confuse what people agree about with what a performance does, and how accurately it is described in the context of a review. One of the things that differentiates critics from normal people (and maybe that's not a good thing!) is the fact that critics write criticism, while everyone else writes autobiography. A review should not just be about whether a performance is good or bad, or whether the critic likes it or not (although that is the ultimate judgment to which it usually leads)--it is about what the composer requires, what the performers do, and how this version compares to others. As you very correctly point out, whether I like something or not is no more useful than whether anyone likes anything--it is mere personal preference. What matters is what we might call the "non-subjective" basis that determines that preference. Anyway, the fact that science has many subjective elements not known to the general public I find even scarier than those things that ARE known to be subjective by the general public. Don't you?
In any case, in 25 years of writing professional criticism, when someone dislikes one of my reviews then 99% of the time the reason isn't because there's something wrong with the review as criticism, it is almost invariably because the person disagrees with my ultimate liking or disliking of the performance. And they get pissed that a supposed authority does not support their own personal taste. That's the gist of it, because at heart most people aren't content with just enjoying what they enjoy. They want to be RIGHT, and they want their viewpoint validated by others.
Nathaniel: Of course there are amateurs who may have better insights or greater knowledge about specific pieces than some professionals, that doesn't make them better critics. It just means they have particular knowledge which could be useful in a conversation about particular works. Having a lot of such people in one place (like in this group) can very well produce excellent and informative results. But your contention that the Gilbert review is "unconvincing" won't wash. It didn't convince YOU because you didn't like the performance. But that is an entirely different question from whether or not that article accurately describes those aspects of the performance that determined my decision to recommend it. If you find those aspects unimportant, or feel that there are others not discussed that are more important, that's your perogative, but you still have much of the essential information you need to make that determination from reading the review.
Finally, I have to note that you did not even know which performance of the Nott Mahler 9 you had heard, and yet this did not stop you from weighing in on the merits of the version you had NOT heard with complete certainty and authority. To your credit, you had the consideration and conscience to double check and explain your initial error. However, if one of my writers did that, they would be out the door faster than the end of the Rondo: Burleske. That is just one example of what professionalism means (at its most basic level). How would you feel knowing that on the basis of hearing that live performance, which may well be every bit as good as you say, a bunch of people ran out and bought the commercial release, which sucks, because you got the two confused? In your world that's an innocent mistake. In mine, it's a crime, and rightly so.
Best,
Dave H
