Reviewing a review

[JW]

Going back to reviewing, I was a little surprised by what the reviewers had chosen to comment on, even though I haven't seen Nick's Mass. It is certainly to be regretted that the reviewers do not appear to be aware of the 'Guide for Composers'. The negative comments could mean that readers who are not familiar with Nick's work would avoid these settings despite some positive comments elsewhere in the review. That may have been the intention of the reviewers. However, the comments did seem unnecessarily nit-picky and I certainly won't be submitting my humble offering to M&L as I have no wish (or need) for it to be panned. The reviews are not anonymous and some information on the reviewers can be found using Google. M&L is not an academic publication and we cannot expect reviewers to be chosen with the same rigour as in an academic publication.

In contrast, Alan Smith's review of the latest Anne Marsden Thomas organ compilations introduced me to works that I didn't know were out there and provided sufficient information to interest me enough that I will have a look at them - surely this is what reviewing is about?

Could I suggest that settings of the new translations by significant composers (e.g. Paul Inwood, Margaret Rizza, Liam Lawton, Christopher Walker, Peter Jones etc.etc) are independently reviewed in M&L, as these settings are likely to be of interest to many of us.

[VML]

Could I suggest that settings of the new translations by significant composers (e.g. Paul Inwood, Margaret Rizza, Liam Lawton, Christopher Walker, Peter Jones etc.etc) are independently reviewed in M&L, as these settings are likely to be of interest to many of us.

Yes please! Our diocese suggests we all learn Chris Walker's 'Belmont' and 'St Paul' Mass settings, as the preferred ones for use at diocesan events.

[MaryR]

Did I read a different review? I didn't think that Nick's work was panned at all! The reviewers, who are parish musicians, have commented as they found and much of it was positive.

Concerning the criticism of the reviewers for apparently not being familiar with the Composers' Guide, I've been reflecting on this, having initially been indignant on Nick's behalf. I don't have the review in front of me but, from recollection, I think the reviewers say that, in their opinion, Nick's attempt to shoehorn the words of the Memorial Acclamation into the tune of the Sanctus doesn't work. They don't say that he should have a different tune for the Memorial Acclamation, but just that what he has done doesn't work for them. The Guide refers to a unified setting; 6C para 30 says:

Composers are free to set just individual parts of the Mass, such as the Gloria, however settings should respect complete units of text. So settings of the Eucharistic Acclamations should offer the Sanctus, Memorial Acclamations and Great Amen as a unified setting.

I'm not sure that means that the tune has to be the same, note for note, for each, but that there is a melodic connection. Perhaps the reviewers were thinking that Nick might have written something that accommodated the words better, picking up the tune from the Sanctus without repeating it note for note. From what they've written, I don't think you can assume that the reviewers don't know what the guide says.

In contrast, Alan Smith's review of the latest Anne Marsden Thomas organ compilations introduced me to works that I didn't know were out there and provided sufficient information to interest me enough that I will have a look at them - surely this is what reviewing is about?

Is it? I thought a review was meant to be a critique, or an evaluation - an honest appraisal of a piece of work. If you submit something for review, I think you must take the rough with the smooth. In any case, if I read a review, I can be encouraged, as JW was, to look at something, but I would not necessarily be deterred by a negative review as I prefer to make up my own mind! In this case, I certainly won't be deterred. We already use some of Nick's music in our parish.

[Nick Baty]

If you submit something for review, I think you must take the rough with the smooth.

Absolutely. And if they wrote "this music is crap, don't touch it with a bargepole" then I'd just shrug my shoulders and cry into my gin. What irritates is inaccuracy.

There again, I was at Liverpool Cathedral for the premiere of Karl Jenkins' Stabat Mater – around 2,000 of us rose to our feet and clapped and cheered. The next day The Times and The Torygraph slagged it off.