Audiogon/Asylum and magazine reviewers posts

Not to get too far off on a tangent here, but Trelja's post prompts me to comment on a sentiment I've seen expressed around here before: That most of - or at least a lot of - us A'goners could be Stereophile-calibre reveiwers. While I don't believe that there's anything uniquely special about most of those who have written for the magazine, and neither do I doubt that there are probably a few around these parts who could succeed well in that job, I think the general opinion I've found about this subject at A'gon tends to short-shrift the skill needed - and often displayed in Stereophile - to be a good reveiwer.

Personally, I do tend to be increasingly critical of the direction that magazine is taking, for a variety of reasons that I have expounded on in other posts, and so won't go into here. And yes, some of that criticism does have to do with the writing and reviewing work of individual contributors. I just want to say, however, that as many A'goners seem to be discovering in their own "reviews", writing cogently and entertainingly about component sound is apparently no easy task - and especially month after month, I would imagine. KR, for instance, while maybe not a paragon of writing excitement or wit, does a basically thorough and honest job, I feel; you can tell he puts a lot of effort into his work, and he is never less than intelligent and competent in his reporting. Ditto Brian Damkroger. Obviously, Michael Fremer is a better writer, Martin Colloms a better technician, and Chip Stern a better music critic; all of them make valuable contributions in one way or another. At all the magazines and webzines, I have read good and not so good writing, and have had complementary and not so complementary opinions of aspects of all the writers' work; there is no such thing as a perfect reviewer.

The great thing about a forum such as this is that contributors need make no apologies for their own biases and tastes, and opinion-mongering and humorous clashes can be diverting and fun to read, not to mention thought-provoking. But even the most well-informed and passionate among us need to admit, I think, that it's a different thing entirely - a balancing act, I suspect - to have to write publicly, on record, for a wide audience. A reviewer needs to build a certain amount of predictability into their work if they are to establish a credible base of information with their writing that consumers can draw upon. This may lead to a perception of boringness compared to the web forums, but it is essential, I think, to be down-to-earth and consistent, even reserved in some degree, if both consumers and manufacturers alike are going to have reason to take a reviewer seriously. The writing itself must be linear and logical, as well as correct and comprehensible - qualities often lacking somewhat not only on the forums, but also in some Webzines and smaller magazines. While there is certainly room for personality and taste, reviewers must walk a fine line, if they are to be believed, and which is akin to an art form; at its best, their work will not be controverted by a careful reader's reaching a different conclusion about any particular review subject.

My hunch is that "professional" reviewing is probably a tougher row to hoe successfully than we often give it credit for being, and that the very qualities that can make for stimulating writing on a forum are not necessarily what is desirable for a wide-circulation magazine reviewer. I suppose in an ideal world, all magazine reveiwers would be full-time audio writers, with educational and professional credentials in the literary, musical, and technical electronics fields. This describes John Atkinson, but not too many others - nor will it ever in the real world (and nor is it saving JA from making what I feel are either grave mistakes, or grave concessions, at his magazine, BTW). In short, I think it's easier to criticize the critics than it is to do what they do (not that we should all want to!). We can always have our opinions and our fun, and that includes the areas of audio reviewing and reviewers, but we ought to be cautious about positing that our Audiogon ramblings might somehow automatically qualify us as potential expert practitioners ourselves. If we tried it, we just might find that we weren't any less fallible than those whom we frequently heap our scorn upon.

Excellent post Zaikesman - I think you really nailed it, that there are a lot of people on this site who are experienced enough with audio to be a reviewer, but that being a reviewer requires having the whole package, including writing skills, endurance (ie, month after month), etc. I generally agree that there are at least several and perhaps many that _could_ become reviewers for one of the magazines, but it wouldn't happen overnight.

Personally, I think many of the people here who could become reviewers wouldn't, as I think it would suck a lot of the fun out of the hobby. -Kirk

Wow Zaikesman, that was the best writing I've seen around here in a while. Thanks for the great perspective.
I was sure you were Albert as I read your thoughts, he's the only other guy I know who is so eloquent.

One reason I rarely comment here is that there rarely is a need since you guys seem to be able to take care of yourselves just fine. It has nothing to do with any past accusation of boorishness since, frankly, I do not recall it.

I simply find it more fun to comment on AA where there is more 'shooting from the hip.'

Zaikesman, I think that your opinion was very well stated. From what I have seen, you are an intelligent, well written audiophile.

And, that is simply my point.

I would have to include you in my list.

While I respect your post greatly, I do disagree. I do not hold that the reviewers of Stereophile are in their position because they are the best at what they do. In my opinion, their position is a result of many factors. Love for audio/music, education, determination in following the path of being an audio reviewer, etc. Ability to write well, organize thought, develop the tools required for the job, etc. are skills that I believe many on this site have. And, as important as anything in life, some of it is fate/luck. Yes, luck.

One trivial example about this type of thing happening every day in life I have is about great high school friend of mine. Mickey Pergine. He was the quarterback on my high school football team. He came from a long line of quarterbacks, his uncle is John Pergine, who was a star at Notre Dame I believe. Mickey was one heck of a quarterback. A cannon for an arm, fearless in battle, the unique ability to make the right decision in the heat of the moment, 6'3" - 210 lbs. He was a Philadelphia Inquirer choice for All Area QB.

So why does no one on this site besides me know who he is? Well, Mickey wasn't the best of students. And, he kind of liked to have fun. Too much fun. Somehow, somewhere, along the way, all that he was the prototype for never materialized. Instead of talking of him in the company of QBs that came out of this area, Rich Gannon, Matt Blundin, Steve Bono, and Glenn Foley, he is just some obscure person I am using in my trivial example.

I am the first to admit I review the reviewers. I critique the critics. This is a hobby that I love. Stereophile is a magazine that I love. I have been a more or less loyal supporter/subscriber since 1987. I put my money where my mouth is. My current round of being a subscriber began in 1998, and is paid for until 2005. In my mind, I have earned the right to say what is right with the magazine. And, also, what is wrong with the magazine.

I have a very low tolerance for incompetance at what is the paragon of our hobby. I do not genuflect at a reviewer. I am upset when Michael Fremer does not have a balanced interconnect. I am dumbfounded when he expresses surprise that an Audio Research power amp is bright or forward. I complain that John Atkinson is a slave to his measurements. I do not understand how tube equipment is not a part of the ancillary components he uses to evaluate audio components. I wonder how Sam Tellig can describe the sound of a component if he evaluates it in a very small context(both system and music). I am amazed that the only piece of equipment that Jonathan Scull reviewed with a non - stratospheric price was lynched. I wonder how Kalman Rubinson can use a 1988 Pioneer PD-7100 CD player as reference equipment. I fall asleep when I read a review of his that robs every ounce of passion that this hobby fires within me, making a review sometimes feel like reading a legal docuement or textbook. I complain when people who make their living, and are held us as THE experts, make fundamental mistakes in terms of perhaps the most important aspects of audio, room interface with the system, and system synergy.

I guess me noticing these things is heightened when I read some of the insightful threads on Audiogon. As far as people not measuring up to the official reviewers, if they are anything like me, a great deal of their posts are hammered out during lulls in the action at work, or at home. I often use Audiogon, for better or worse, as a means to turn to something when I need a break.

I remain steadfast in my belief that no one at the magazines is indespensible, including Jonathan Scull, and that there are many here among us who could get the job done.