Reviewing the Reviewers

Djjd and Detlof, I think you guys misunderstand Mr. Salvatore. He is the Annointed One who holds the truth. In the truth is salvation for the misguided fools who know not better. There is no irony or hyprocrisy when you are absolutely right. Although I agreed in general principle with much of what he said, his rationalization about the motives of reviewers and their e-mail responses if not the magazines crossed just a WEE bit over the line. Especially when he goes on to name his OWN list. Talk about pompous and self-righteous.

I finally checked out his site and I gotta come down on the side of Detlof and Tubegroover on this one. I do agree with a lot of the points Salvatore makes (the refusal of Pearson to criticize Wilson speakers till well afterward when reviewing a later version has always galled me, although, unlike Salvatore, I don't think Pearson owes any of us a duty to be riding herd over his reviewers, and indeed he's been criticized in the past for doing so through his footnotes), but I think he ultimately goes overboard. His passion is admirable, but he's too much of a zealot for my tastes.

Excellent article! Everything that, most of us knew and suspected, was covered in Mr. Salvatore's questions. If he didn't 'struck the cord', the Astor and Fremer's anger wouldn't be so obvious in their immature response.

Tubegroover - You missed my point in this thread too. My question about irony and hypocrisy was not directed at Mr. Salvatore's article. My question was directed at some of the remarks made in this very thread -- and in other recent threads -- where a few of Audiogon’s “anointed" engage in precisely the kind of behavior they complain of here. I didn’t think I would need to explain, but if you read through this thread again, the hypocrisy should be obvious. If it’s not, then read the thread “Trelja in New York” in the context of this thread.

The shallowest layer of (situational) irony I see in this thread is that by trying to discredit certain reviewers, some of the posters have used the same objectionable “review” methods they so strongly object to and, in so doing, they ended up discrediting themselves -- the opposite of the intended outcome. Hoist with their own petards, so to speak. (There is also a nice example of dramatic irony here, since the posters in question could not see they were engaging in the very same conduct they complained of, while some readers in the Audiogon audience could see it.)

A deeper level of irony is that by posting “reviews of the reviewers,” the posters opened themselves up to being similarly reviewed and charged with the very same crimes -- another contrary and unintended outcome. For instance, I think the following remarks made by Trelja in his first post above apply with equal force to Trelja himself: “He is continuously on his high horse. One that lectures and patronizes, rife with condescension. As if he is somehow gifted, or better than the great unwashed. Able to hear better than others. Able to judge a component better than others. ... Bragging about his reviewing talents and experience one minute; chiding those less experienced in the field... In fact, the whole review of this product was an utter waste of time. One in which several variables were juggled without the slightest thought about them.... How could the conclusions of this review elicit anything along the lines of credibility? His anger ... is of no surprise. His indignation is a running theme of his personality. Witness his retort.... To say that he was less than courteous would be a supreme understatement.”

Not my words, nor would I choose to use such derisive language to criticize anyone else. However, because Trelja chose to use these words to attack another person, I don’t have a problem reflecting them back at the source. When in Rome....

In lieu of Trelja’s own words, I probably would have used words something like the following to review him as an Audiogon reviewer: I think many of Trelja’s posts are intelligent, insightful, and informative, and they have therefore contributed positively to the discussions here. But some of his other posts have been mean-spirited, irresponsible, and perhaps even libelous, and this has significantly undermined his credibility in my book. I think Audiogon would be a better place without those kinds of posts, though it would probably be a worse place without Trelja’s participation and the sharing of his knowledge in his more balanced posts.

In musical terms, I’d say that, at times, Trelja is way too forward and aggressive -- it's difficult to listen to such “in your face” presentation. Such an attacking presentation lends new meaning to the phrase “Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand?” Sometimes he’s very strident and harsh like a bad solid state amp; in such cases, he can veil over relevant details even though the details are probably all “in there” and capable of being presented objectively if only he didn’t have the occasional bias or imbalance in his source material. Could be made smoother, warmer, and more detailed by a relatively minor adjustment of position or orientation. Unfortunately, this adjustment isn't likely to happen since he seems firmly bolted to his present position. Too bad for us. To take the edge off, perhaps we could try running him with a set of good tubes (e.g., a six pack of NBB Fat Tire Ale).

This is my attempt at a partial review of a few of the reviewers on Audiogon (the foregoing remarks apply to some of the other posters as well). It is intended to be thought-provoking and humorous, albeit in a poignant way. Better, me thinks, than hammering away with unexplained -2,-2 ratings. Done with “reviewer” issues I hope; back to the music.

Still to come: The potential for recursive irony as other reviewers now review my hypocritical review of those who hypocritically “reviewed the reviewers.” Dizzying indeed.

Don

Given Djjd's comments the following thought comes to mind: What kind of person reads an Internet discussion group and expects the same level of journalistic professionalism as that of a highly visible author being paid to write articles whose very content can make or break a company?

No need to share the answer, just ask yourselves the question.

The air *is* heavy with irony, isn't it?