illumineerima

I mentioned a while back that I was planning on reviewing Arvo Pärt’s latest album (the one that won EPCC that Grammy earlier this year), but upon further thought, what’s the point when you have that many albums, have produced that much work, have that many fans, etc. The purpose of reviews is to sort out the wheat from the chaff, but we already know Arvo’s music is wheat because of the length and success of his career and the consistent quality of his work. And for those of you who aren’t die-hard Pärt fans, but rather people who simply like his music, doesn’t a lot of it sound the same after a while? So what difference does a review make to you?

And for you die-hards, you’re going to buy the album anyway (if you haven’t already) and you most likely have a favorite album or piece (for me it’s Miserere) that this new album can’t usurp. Because Pärt’s music isn’t just about his exploration of an idea or a sound, but about the listening experience he creates for his audience. And because that experience is subjective, I ask again, what’s the point of a review?