The FauxBear Requiem Reviews

NNNN
Amazing
The recording is a cut above. The performers are strong and the composition is consistently interesting.

NNN
Listenable
The composer has written a work that is consistent with other works of his era. The performers and recording are skilled in their craft.

NN
Bland
There is little here of interest. Occasional flashes of talent only.

N
Awful!
The composer and performers have utterly failed. Don't bother.

A requiem collection? Isn't that morbid?

Um, no? Well, to some I sure it will be. Let me try to explain how it began: Back in the dawn of time, about 1987, I started working for a major music retailer. I had never been much for classical music, finding it highbrow and dull. But at some point I started to experiment and I discovered Mozart, Faure, Durufle and Rutter. I found that, while not a big fan of opera, I did have a deep interest in vocal classical music, particularly church music, and specifically the Mass for the Dead.

As I began to assemble more CDs, and tried other compositions by composers who had written requiems, one thing began to become apparent: the requiems had something else, something more, to them. Perhaps it was just the contemplation of the abyss at the end of life, the exploration of mortality, that gave these pieces more. Perhaps they came from the deeps of the artist. Regardless, the requiems almost invariably were the most profoundly interesting and moving works by a composer.

So why rate them? Who do you think you are, some bigshot critic?

Actually, no. But I do have a lot of these recordings. And I have listened to them quite a bit. I also am fairly articulate and communicate well. I also have found very few resources which discuss these compositions. I have had to buy most of them without having heard a bit of them, knowing nothing of the composers and more often, nothing about the forces which perform them. I think I can provide some of what I have been unable to find for anyone who might be having the same bad luck in their research. Besides, I know what I like and don't like and am just vain enough to think someone might care about it.

I've settled on a rating system of one-to-five, one being worst. It's all described to the left. Please remember that these ratings are purely my opinion and you may disagree. I also will bear no responsibility for purchases based on my opinion. I'm not a huckster, just a guy with a CD collection and an opinion about it.

On what do you base your ratings? How do you know it's a good performance, or that the composition is excellent?

Well, I've listened to over 300 requiems. Blissfully, all of them have at last been released on CD. Some are very old. Some are as new as last year. Some are modern, atonal, and disonant. Some are modern, lyrical and beautiful. Some of the old ones are as difficult to listen to as the harsher new ones. In some circumstances, I even have multiple performances by a single composer. When that happens, I can compare the performances as well as how the work stands up to the body of my collection.

And that's how it works, basically. Each CD is compared to the rest of the collection, for good or ill. That means everything has to stand up to the best of the best (Mozart, Rutter, Verdi) and the worst of the worst (Bruckner). And just because one was difficult to listen to doesn't mean I'll hate it. The Ligeti is phenomenal, but complicated listening. You've heard part of it: it's the sound the Monolith made in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And as for good performances, I know when I like the singers and orchestrations. Berlioz used huge forces: multiple choirs, and brass and drum choirs as well; the Davis is great. The Berstein is unbelievable! And no one gives a weak performance of the Mozart like Sir Neville Marriner. I don't, I won't, own it.

Well, okay then! I'll read everything you've written!

Yeah, well, it's up to you. They were worth listening to and writing about. Use the email button to let me know if they were worth reading about.

Have fun! Click on the Dead Bear to continue...