ACDA Compact Review Guidelines

What Makes a Good CD Review? (See also—and perhaps first—the basic guidelines, next page!)

Lawrence Schenbeck

As CD Review Editor, I was fortunate to follow Richard Bloesch and David Castleberry, who guided this column from infancy to healthy adolescence. David provided some especially eloquent remarks about writing good criticism; they are reproduced below. (I have condensed his words a bit and added some italic emphases.)

Conductors "review" constantly, each time we stop the music to give instructions to an ensemble. This feedback is an important part of the review process. To assume, though, that review is just about giving feedback . . . is to miss other aspects of this craft and, perhaps, to miss the larger goals. Sometimes a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down may be all that is needed. . . . However, the goals of the reviewer can be larger than simply commending a recording, a movie, etc., to one's attention. Reviewers can share the listening process, recounting not only details but, more importantly, the perspectives that influenced their reaction.

This contextualization of a recording shares numerous features with score study. Knowledge of the period, composer, genre, and work can set up expectations that may be fulfilled, unfulfilled, or that result in surprises. But where there is no context or expectation, there can be no surprise, no fulfillment, nor even failure to find fulfillment. There is nothing.

In recordings, as in performance, tradition and historical practice also influence our reactions. "How does this performance measure up?" "Which recording sets the standard against which others are judged?" "Does this version break new ground or merely redo what has been done before?" "Where does this recording fit within the performer's output?"

Yet sometimes the reviewer just needs to put all else aside and ask the basic question, "What does this performance do for me?" Depending upon the school of critical theory to which one cleaves, one's unmediated response may be as important as any prior knowledge of the work or performance.

The payoff comes when we are able to link insights into how we hear, and apprehend, music with our prior knowledge -- historical, theoretical, technical -- about a work or performance. These insights may prompt us to new ways of listening, even as they help us understand our own responses -- why we liked or disliked what we heard.

Although I have learned about many movies by reading Anthony Lane's reviews in the New Yorker, I do not read them primarily to find out what a movie is "about" or whether it is worth seeing. I read his reviews because they reveal his delight in the experience of digging into the film. They tie together things I know with things I didn't know and bring me along for an informative, entertaining ride. . . .

Not every CD affords all this, nor need every review aspire to such lofty aims. Sometimes, being told to avoid this disc, or buy it at all costs, is all that is needed. Or perhaps there is one salient feature of a CD that should be brought to our attention. Collectively, though, reviews can do all these things, and it is worthwhile, I believe, for reviewers to be aware that their contributions fit into this larger scheme of things. Imagination, creativity, and contextual framing, even in the simplest terms, can do more than just give us the facts -- it can make us want to read!

CD Reviews: Basic Guidelines

1. In the header, list the following, using this format:

   [ComposerFirstname] [Surname]: [Work]; [OtherWorks] [or album title]
   [Ensemble]
   [Firstname] [Surname], conductor
   [Firstname] [Surname], [Firstname] [Surname] [etc.], soloists
   [Label] [Catalognumber] (date issued; timing). [MSRP if multidisc set]

2. Here is the two-line signature form we use for all reviews. Please append it at the end of your reviews, using the name and town exactly as you want to see it in print. (Sorry, no titles or institutional affiliations.)
   

   Yourfirstname Yourlastname
   Yourtown, Yourstate

3. In the body of your review, be sure to identify one or two compelling reasons for hearing and/or owning this CD. Is it the repertoire or any portion of it? Is it overall performance quality or the persuasive performance of a few selections? Does it shed new light on performance practice, national or ethnic vocal styles, choral technique, or more? If the recording features repertoire central to the choral canon, what sets it apart from other available recordings?
4. Comment on the quality of the sound. Be brief and specific; avoid clichés and florid imagery. The acoustic of the recording venue may be of interest to readers. Mention the venue itself, if that information clarifies and supports your comments about the acoustic.
5. Please note that we are unlikely to run any review that is generally negative or which indicates that the disc is of little interest to choral professionals. If there are weaknesses in the music, the performance, or the recording, point them out. But if such problems dominate the CD, you should probably not review it. We want to use our limited space to share good news about good recordings. (Nevertheless we have some responsibility to let readers know about occasional train wrecks, especially when they involve professionals.)
6. Whenever possible, state a recording or performance’s deficiencies in language that implies a positive or desired standard: “The chorus often substitutes enthusiasm for tight ensemble.” I am notasking you to substitute euphemisms for blunt language when it’s appropriate.
7. Give examples. When you refer to a specific work and perhaps even to a specific passage in that work, you add vitality and clarity to your general comments. Strive to find the exemplary detail that illustrates a significant tendency. On the other hand, please curb your natural desire to tell us everything you heard in this recording or everything you know about the work.
8. Re-read your piece before sending it in, to see whether you can shorten it and still preserve what you need to say. Shorter is usually better. Look for unnecessary phrases like “there is/are,” “I feel that” (of course you feel that, etc.--it’s a review!), “the fact that” and even “the.” Cut them out whenever you can.
9. Avoid verbs of being (is, are, were) and passive constructions. They weaken a sentence by crowding out more vivid “action” verbs and by removing the agent from the field, respectively.
10. Avoid clichés. Here is a short list of words and phrases that will be stricken instantly from any review submitted to Choral Journal: “beautiful,” “wonderful,” “a gem,” “The performers [choir, soloists, etc.] really take it to another level,” “This recording belongs in every music lover’s [choral director’s] collection.” You can probably think of some more. Truly memorable descriptive words and phrases take a bit longer to write, but they make a much stronger impression on the reader.
11. It’s OK to use the first person singular—once in a while.
12. Remember thy paragraphs, to keep them short. This will make your review more visually accessible, and hence more readable, in Choral Journal’s three-column format.
13. Don’t spell out all your conclusions. Try to make points by offering relevant data, then allow readers to make inferences. This keeps them awake and respects their intelligence.
14. Major reviews should be 800-1000 words long, capsule reviews no more than 300. If you can communicate it with a capsule review, pleasechoose capsule length! That way, we can publish more reviews.
15. Because of time constraints, individual reviewers will seldom have an opportunity to revise work once submitted, or to correct galleys. Assume that your review will undergo further editing before publication. I do most of it in Atlanta, preserving your conclusions, tone, and critical voice whenever possible. Further editing is sometimes done in Oklahoma for consistency of format within the magazine. Time permitting, I will try to work with individual reviewers if major edits or recastings are needed.
16. If you are sent a recording that you don’t wish to review, please indicate to me whether you feel it’s worth another reviewer’s time and effort. If so, return the CD to me so I can ship it out to someone else.
17. It is unethical for you to review a recording in which you were a participant, whether as conductor, singer, engineer, producer, or even graphic artist. If you would like to see such a recording get a review in Choral Journal, please send us a copy, and we will forward it to a reviewer who doesn’t have a conflict of interest. Or suggest such a reviewer yourself.
18. Please honor the deadline agreed upon for submitting your review. Putting out a monthly column is hard work. I really appreciate those considerate colleagues who help me bring it in on time.
19. When you have finished your review(s), please send them to me via email in a Microsoft Word attachment, or in hard copy to my home address. See the contact information below.

Contact Information

address:            Lawrence Schenbeck
                        152 North Square Lane
                        Newnan, GA 30263

email:               LSCHENBECK (a) numail.org

office phone:     404.270.5482

home phone:     770.683.6837