>> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI >> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure out >> what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan is >> supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
>> Simon
> Here's one:
[snip]
> "A disappointment, then. For a Mahler Ninth that goes to the core of > the work by paying attention to every aspect of it and delivering it > in a sound balance that lets you hear everything in equal measure, it > is still necessary to look mostly to the past. Barbirolli (EMI > Classics 5679252) remains my first choice ... "
> Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment on > Gilbert's recording at:
> >> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI > >> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure out > >> what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan is > >> supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
> >> Simon
> > Here's one:
> [snip]
> > "A disappointment, then. For a Mahler Ninth that goes to the core of > > the work by paying attention to every aspect of it and delivering it > > in a sound balance that lets you hear everything in equal measure, it > > is still necessary to look mostly to the past. Barbirolli (EMI > > Classics 5679252) remains my first choice ... "
> > Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment on > > Gilbert's recording at:
> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
> Simon
He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is also respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike some other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras "have no business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this review. If I would generally tend to agree or disagree with him is hard to say because I haven't really read many of his reviews. He leaves out the CSO/Giulini recording in his Mahler 9 survey though, that makes me unhappy because it is one of my all-time favorite recordings...
On Oct 22, 3:07 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI yet; > but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure out what > its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan is supposed to > be but isn't, and drably recorded.
> Simon
Are we hearing the same recording?
It has been a long time since I’ve listened to the Barbirolli-Mahler 9th but I remember it being very good so I was perplexed at the negative remarks here -therefore I took the CD off my shelf and gave it a re-listen.
Well, it’s better than I remember it. Barbirolli is much less disjointed and has it much more together than his Mahler 6th (but I like that too). There is an intelligent structure here, with climaxes well-judged but not burnt over, a wonderful suspended quality in the quieter passages, and articulation everywhere especially in the loud peaks where JB consistently draws a punchy quality from the brass.
As for the recording itself, I found that much better than I remembered too. In fact, it’s one of the best sounding recordings from EMI that I have heard from this era (early 60s) –and let it be known that I don’t even have the re-remastered CD (I have the original Studio issue). The orchestra is close (I usually find the EMI sound from the 60s too distant). The balances are perfect and the bass is clean and tight. Drab?? It sounds wonderful. –At least it does on my system (lower-end B&W/Macintosh).
> On Nov 3, 3:54 pm, Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> wrote: >> "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote >> innews:22805$4af07558$5e > d13b3d$3...@cache2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl:
>> > Simon Roberts wrote:
>> >> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI >> >> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure >> >> out what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan >> >> is supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
>> >> Simon
>> > Here's one:
>> [snip]
>> > "A disappointment, then. For a Mahler Ninth that goes to the core >> > of the work by paying attention to every aspect of it and >> > delivering it in a sound balance that lets you hear everything in >> > equal measure, it is still necessary to look mostly to the past. >> > Barbirolli (EMI Classics 5679252) remains my first choice ... "
>> > Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment on >> > Gilbert's recording at:
>> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
>> Simon
> He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is also > respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike some > other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras "have no > business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this review.
I was referring to his taste in musical interpretation, not the length and detail of his review(s) which, I agree, are miles better than most in that regard.
Simon Roberts wrote: >>>>> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI >>>>> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure >>>>> out what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan >>>>> is supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
>>>> [...] Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment >>>> on Gilbert's recording at: [...]
>>> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
>> He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is also >> respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike some >> other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras "have no >> business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this review.
> I was referring to his taste in musical interpretation, not the length > and detail of his review(s) which, I agree, are miles better than most > in that regard.
So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, too?
> So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other > reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, too?
Interesting to consider the two in tandem: Barbirolli has been over- rated, IMO, in part because it was released fairly early on in the "Mahler boom," when relatively few M9s were available, and because of UK critics' understandable affection for the man. The Rattle/BPO has been somewhat lost in the shuffle in the present deluge of Mahler recordings, though still receiving pretty good press in the UK especially. Playing on the Barbirolli is a bit ragged--supposedly he was "teaching" the piece to a reluctant BPO--but that doesn't so much detract from the performance as give a bit of humanity (as opposed to, say, the rather unearthly perfection of the Karajan), while the Rattle is much more polished but winds up sounding more routine for it. Audio is good for the era on Barbirolli, better than most on the Rattle. In the end, both are in the category of "good but not great," which simply isn't good enough in a piece where we have so many outstanding recordings. If Rattle or Barbirolli were the only M9's I had ever heard, I would probably be very happy with them. But in comparison to Gielen, Bernstein, Maderna, Szell, Klemperer (make mine the live VPO, please), and a few others, they are of decidedly lesser interest.
> Simon Roberts wrote: >>>>>> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI >>>>>> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure >>>>>> out what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan >>>>>> is supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
>>>>> [...] Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment >>>>> on Gilbert's recording at: [...]
>>>> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
>>> He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is >>> also respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike >>> some other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras >>> "have no business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this >>> review.
>> I was referring to his taste in musical interpretation, not the >> length and detail of his review(s) which, I agree, are miles better >> than most in that regard.
> So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other > reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, > too?
I don't think so; wouldn't call it a reference version, though. Not that it matters - my point was mainly that this is all a matter of taste, whether you explain what you like in 10,000 words or 15; who cares if he or I like it? And now that it's extremely easy to listen to recordings first hand before buying them, reviews have almost nothing going for them unless they're engagingly written; and they almost never are.
Simon Roberts wrote: >> So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other >> reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, >> too?
> I don't think so; wouldn't call it a reference version, though. Not > that it matters - my point was mainly that this is all a matter of > taste, whether you explain what you like in 10,000 words or 15; who > cares if he or I like it? And now that it's extremely easy to listen to > recordings first hand before buying them, reviews have almost nothing > going for them unless they're engagingly written; and they almost never > are.
I understood your point (or /that/ point) - I was just, mischievously and a propos of nothing in particular, trying to tease out your take on Rattle's recording... I hope that, even if we all now form our opinions on recordings online all by ourselves, you don't want to cut down on the totally irrelevant chit-chat on the umteenth Mahler 9 around here!
> > Simon Roberts wrote: > >>>>>> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI > >>>>>> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure > >>>>>> out what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan > >>>>>> is supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
> >>>>> [...] Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment > >>>>> on Gilbert's recording at: [...]
> >>>> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
> >>> He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is > >>> also respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike > >>> some other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras > >>> "have no business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this > >>> review.
> >> I was referring to his taste in musical interpretation, not the > >> length and detail of his review(s) which, I agree, are miles better > >> than most in that regard.
> > So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other > > reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, > > too?
> I don't think so; wouldn't call it a reference version, though. Not > that it matters - my point was mainly that this is all a matter of > taste, whether you explain what you like in 10,000 words or 15; who > cares if he or I like it? And now that it's extremely easy to listen to > recordings first hand before buying them, reviews have almost nothing > going for them unless they're engagingly written; and they almost never > are.
> Simon
The whole point of having a "reference" version is to have a comparison point that will either be a paragon of virtue or so widely familiar that the readers can better grasp the relative strengths and weaknesses of the new recording. It's not just an alternate recommendation.
The Barbirolli, for better or worse, is familiar to a wide audience because so many people bought it when there were few choices; the Rattle ought to be known if it's not, because it's very, very well conceived, particularly well played and polished and a good comparison in terms of modern sound as well.
No question that Tony's reviews are aimed squarely at Mahler fanatics who can't get enough no matter how much is written on the subject. He sounds as entertaining as a scientist dissecting his latest dataset. In this regard I agree with you: I rarely feel compelled to read those book-length reviews.
But I disagree that reviews are worthless if they're not entertaining. It's still interesting to hear someone explain *why* he likes or doesn't like something.
> > Simon Roberts wrote: > >>>>>> I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI > >>>>>> yet; but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure > >>>>>> out what its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan > >>>>>> is supposed to be but isn't, and drably recorded.
> >>>>> [...] Tony Duggan using 10,000 words to express his disappointment > >>>>> on Gilbert's recording at: [...]
> >>>> I'm not surprised; I hardly ever agree with him about anything....
> >>> He explains his opinion in great detail though and the review is > >>> also respectful of the performers and their professionalism (unlike > >>> some other reviewers who think they can decide which orchestras > >>> "have no business playing Mahler"), so I quite agree with this > >>> review.
> >> I was referring to his taste in musical interpretation, not the > >> length and detail of his review(s) which, I agree, are miles better > >> than most in that regard.
> > So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's other > > reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on that one, > > too?
> I don't think so; wouldn't call it a reference version, though. Not > that it matters - my point was mainly that this is all a matter of > taste, whether you explain what you like in 10,000 words or 15; who > cares if he or I like it? And now that it's extremely easy to listen to > recordings first hand before buying them, reviews have almost nothing > going for them unless they're engagingly written; and they almost never > are.
That is probably true, but I think we all value well written reviews, as rare as they are, and obviously, we also like to think about recordings and discuss them - as threads like this one here suggest. I guess it is true that "at the end of the day" it is all "a matter of taste", but taste can also be developed and we aren't just talking about which recordings we somehow happen to like. We also try to analyze and discuss why that is. It is simply in our nature to want to communicate about and discuss the things that interest us, and exchanging views with and gaining information from other people can potentially enhance our enjoyment and understanding and expand our horizons and therefore ultimately help us develop our "taste" and understanding of music. While there is no simple "right" or "wrong" in music, there is a context, especially for composed music for which there are performance and reception traditions and histories. I think that's what makes it so interesting and what provides so much food for thought and discussion.
> The whole point of having a "reference" version is to have a > comparison point that will either be a paragon of virtue or so widely > familiar that the readers can better grasp the relative strengths and > weaknesses of the new recording. It's not just an alternate > recommendation.
A reference recording /can/ be a strongly recommended one, but it could also be a widely available version that is not recommended or not a "first choice". In this case however the "reference recordings" are also the "benchmarks towards which everyone else must aspire", and the recordings on which you can "hear how it ought to sound".
On different sites the term "reference" is used as "first choice" or "best recording". I think that this is not the right use - in those cases it should be better to use the term "first choice" or "most recommended".
> But I disagree that reviews are worthless if they're not entertaining. > It's still interesting to hear someone explain *why* he likes or > doesn't like something.
I agree. When opinions by others are wothless, what are we doing here anyway?
On Oct 23, 12:41 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Simon Roberts wrote:
> (snip)
> > I'm slightly surprised that no-one's mentioned Barbirolli/BPO/EMI yet; > > but also somewhat pleased, as I've never been able to figure out what > > its admirers hear in it - as smooth and dull as Karajan is supposed to > > be but isn't, and drably recorded.
> > Simon
> I must-with regret, as I'm normally a Barbirolli fan--agree. theis > recording really is nothing special.
> Bob Harper
I must agree with regret, too. I'm another usual Barbirolli fan, but "really is nothing special" is how it sounds to me as well. Good, certainly; but others have impressed me as more communicative.
On Nov 4, 12:41 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> jrsnfld wrote:
> > The whole point of having a "reference" version is to have a > > comparison point that will either be a paragon of virtue or so widely > > familiar that the readers can better grasp the relative strengths and > > weaknesses of the new recording. It's not just an alternate > > recommendation.
> A reference recording /can/ be a strongly recommended one, but it could also be > a widely available version that is not recommended or not a "first choice".
Exactly
> In this case however the "reference recordings" are also the "benchmarks towards > which > everyone else must aspire", and the recordings on which you can "hear how it > ought to sound".
I think he makes it clear that a number of others have met those benchmarks, and that others also show how "it ought to sound", not just those two. He also, in complaining about the sound of the Gilbert recording, makes clear that he prefers to hear a soundscape engineered for better home listening, with enhanced presence for the soft and higher frequencies that lose a lot of color and presence without hall resonance. Rattle and Barbirolli are both very comfortably engineered for that purpose.
And of course, BIS is now free to quote the review of Gilbert thusly: "a superbly played, substantially recorded and well interpreted version."
> On different sites the term "reference" is used as "first choice" or "best > recording". I think that this is not the right use - in those cases it should be > better to use the term "first choice" or "most recommended".
Agreed.
> > But I disagree that reviews are worthless if they're not entertaining. > > It's still interesting to hear someone explain *why* he likes or > > doesn't like something.
> I agree. When opinions by others are wothless, what are we doing here anyway?
> On Nov 4, 12:41 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > jrsnfld wrote:
> > > The whole point of having a "reference" version is to have a > > > comparison point that will either be a paragon of virtue or so widely > > > familiar that the readers can better grasp the relative strengths and > > > weaknesses of the new recording. It's not just an alternate > > > recommendation.
> > A reference recording /can/ be a strongly recommended one, but it could also be > > a widely available version that is not recommended or not a "first choice".
> Exactly
> > In this case however the "reference recordings" are also the "benchmarks towards > > which > > everyone else must aspire", and the recordings on which you can "hear how it > > ought to sound".
> I think he makes it clear that a number of others have met those > benchmarks, and that others also show how "it ought to sound", not > just those two. He also, in complaining about the sound of the Gilbert > recording, makes clear that he prefers to hear a soundscape engineered > for better home listening, with enhanced presence for the soft and > higher frequencies that lose a lot of color and presence without hall > resonance. Rattle and Barbirolli are both very comfortably engineered > for that purpose.
> And of course, BIS is now free to quote the review of Gilbert thusly: > "a superbly played, substantially recorded and well interpreted > version."
> > On different sites the term "reference" is used as "first choice" or "best > > recording". I think that this is not the right use - in those cases it should be > > better to use the term "first choice" or "most recommended".
> Agreed.
> > > But I disagree that reviews are worthless if they're not entertaining. > > > It's still interesting to hear someone explain *why* he likes or > > > doesn't like something.
> > I agree. When opinions by others are wothless, what are we doing here anyway?
> --Jeff
I understood the "reference" recording to be that reviewer's favoured version in his collection.
> I think he makes it clear that a number of others have met those > benchmarks, and that others also show how "it ought to sound", not > just those two. He also, in complaining about the sound of the Gilbert > recording, makes clear that he prefers to hear a soundscape engineered > for better home listening, with enhanced presence for the soft and > higher frequencies that lose a lot of color and presence without hall > resonance. Rattle and Barbirolli are both very comfortably engineered > for that purpose.
I think that he has a good point here. Most listening rooms (living rooms in many cases) don't give the opportunity to listen at volumes that are appropriate for all soft and all loud parts when all dynamic possibilties of the medium are used.
I remember have read reviews of the first cds where the reviewers expressed some fear for the full use of the capacities of that medium. I also remember how I preferred (in the sixties/seventies) recordings (on LP) made by Philips in the Concertgebouw just because of being comfortably engineered for home listening.
I think people will avoid buying recordings that only can be enjoyed under extraordinary circumstances, even if those recordibgs are "perfect" soundwise. The dynamics of a concert hall cannot be reproduced in most houses (or in no houses at all).
> And of course, BIS is now free to quote the review of Gilbert thusly: > "a superbly played, substantially recorded and well interpreted > version."
> Simon Roberts wrote: >>> So what do you think about Rattle's BPO Mahler 9, Tony Duggan's >>> other reference recording next to Barbirolli's - you disagree on >>> that one, too?
>> I don't think so; wouldn't call it a reference version, though. Not >> that it matters - my point was mainly that this is all a matter of >> taste, whether you explain what you like in 10,000 words or 15; who >> cares if he or I like it? And now that it's extremely easy to listen >> to recordings first hand before buying them, reviews have almost >> nothing going for them unless they're engagingly written; and they >> almost never are.
> I understood your point (or /that/ point) - I was just, mischievously > and a propos of nothing in particular, trying to tease out your take > on Rattle's recording...
If you really care, I think I wrote something about it when it was first released. I would be surprised if it's worth reading, though....
I hope that, even if we all now form our opinions
> on recordings online all by ourselves, you don't want to cut down on > the totally irrelevant chit-chat on the umteenth Mahler 9 around here!
I don't (and even if I did, it wouldn't stop!); but I wasn't talking about chit-chat, which serves all sorts of purposes, but about reviews; and reviews have typically served as consumer guides whose principal point is to help someone decide what to do with his/her money when in a record shop. (What's more they've usually do that job badly.)
Reviews can, of course, serve other purposes. It can be interesting to see how someone else reacts to a recording (or concert, etc.) one has heard, for instance. But that assumes one cares how that particular reviewer reacted and why, and whether s/he can write interestingly or entertainingly about it; and hardly anyone falls into that category. (For me, someone who does is Richard Taruskin - check out his Beethoven and Bach reviews from Opus and elsewhere which were reprinted in Text and Act, especially his lengthy comparison of Norrington and Furtwangler in Beethoven 9.)
(And, of course, there's a certain degree of amusement to be obtained from checking out tamtam references, reading the meaningless, self-contradictory fluff provided by buffoons such as "the doyen of British piano reviewers", etc.)
AN wrote: > On 4 Nov, 21:00, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Nov 4, 12:41 pm, "Gerard" <ghen_nospam_drik...@hotmail.com> > > wrote:
> > > jrsnfld wrote:
> > > > The whole point of having a "reference" version is to have a > > > > comparison point that will either be a paragon of virtue or so > > > > widely familiar that the readers can better grasp the relative > > > > strengths and weaknesses of the new recording. It's not just an > > > > alternate recommendation.
> > > A reference recording /can/ be a strongly recommended one, but it > > > could also be a widely available version that is not recommended > > > or not a "first choice".
> > Exactly
> > > In this case however the "reference recordings" are also the > > > "benchmarks towards which > > > everyone else must aspire", and the recordings on which you can > > > "hear how it ought to sound".
> > I think he makes it clear that a number of others have met those > > benchmarks, and that others also show how "it ought to sound", not > > just those two. He also, in complaining about the sound of the > > Gilbert recording, makes clear that he prefers to hear a soundscape > > engineered for better home listening, with enhanced presence for > > the soft and higher frequencies that lose a lot of color and > > presence without hall resonance. Rattle and Barbirolli are both > > very comfortably engineered for that purpose.
> > And of course, BIS is now free to quote the review of Gilbert > > thusly: "a superbly played, substantially recorded and well > > interpreted version."
> > > On different sites the term "reference" is used as "first choice" > > > or "best recording". I think that this is not the right use - in > > > those cases it should be better to use the term "first choice" or > > > "most recommended".
> > Agreed.
> > > > But I disagree that reviews are worthless if they're not > > > > entertaining. It's still interesting to hear someone explain > > > > *why* he likes or doesn't like something.
> > > I agree. When opinions by others are wothless, what are we doing > > > here anyway?
> > --Jeff
> I understood the "reference" recording to be that reviewer's favoured > version in his collection.
That's how the term is used in many reviews implicitely. But imo it should be better to use the term "favorite" if one means the favoured version. The term "reference" has another meaning. For instance when a work has been recorded only twice, the first recording (how good or bad it may be) is the one that can be used as a reference when reviewing - and comparing - the second recording. A good example was Mahler's 10th symphonie in the first performance version by Cooke, as recorded by Ormandy. The second recording was by Wyn Morris (IIRC). Reference point for that recording was the first one by Ormandy, the only other recording that could be used for comparison. Reviewers who thought that Morris did a better job, took that recording as a reference for later recordings. That first recordings also was a reference for the different versions (of the symphony itself) Cooke has made.
Simon Roberts wrote: >> I understood your point (or /that/ point) - I was just, mischievously >> and a propos of nothing in particular, trying to tease out your take >> on Rattle's recording [of Mahler 9]...
> If you really care, I think I wrote something about it when it was > first released.
I would have thought so, but the archive doesn't let me find it right now... I remember your positive comments about the first (VPO) recording that nobody else seemed to like (and which I haven't heard).
>> I hope that, even if we all now form our opinions on recordings >> online all by ourselves, you don't want to cut down on the totally >> irrelevant chit-chat on the um[p]teenth Mahler 9 around here!
> I don't (and even if I did, it wouldn't stop!); but I wasn't talking > about chit-chat, which serves all sorts of purposes, but about reviews; > and reviews have typically served as consumer guides whose principal > point is to help someone decide what to do with his/her money when in a > record shop. (What's more they've usually do that job badly.)
> Reviews can, of course, serve other purposes. It can be interesting to > see how someone else reacts to a recording (or concert, etc.) one has > heard, for instance. But that assumes one cares how that particular > reviewer reacted and why, and whether s/he can write interestingly or > entertainingly about it; and hardly anyone falls into that category.
Probably my standards for interesting and entertaining writing about recordings are lower than yours, but for myself, I am still happy about what one can find around here from people whose "chit-chat writing" I have followed for so long that I actually do care about their reactions [and perhaps more so than about the reactions of any professional reviewers]...
Bastian Kubis <Bastian.Ku...@gmx.net> wrote in news:hcu3h7$1ss$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
> Probably my standards for interesting and entertaining writing about > recordings are lower than yours, but for myself, I am still happy about > what one can find around here from people whose "chit-chat writing" I > have followed for so long that I actually do care about their reactions > [and perhaps more so than about the reactions of any professional > reviewers]...
Again, I was referring to reviews, by which I mean the stuff one reads published in magazines and newspapers (and online equivalents). I like reading lots of what shows up here too, but it's rather different - not least because it's converstational (which review-reading obviously isn't).
|
