Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

Return to Music Lane

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Are music critics to be ignored?

98.232.224.41
Posted on November 16, 2014 at 07:43:50
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 I suppose the first question should be whether or not there exist some objective standards for performance. I'd say there must be because before that professional ascends to the stage, he has passed countless auditions, placed highly or won many competitions. All were judged. Are "judges" so different, then, than critics?
Consensus and time are the critical facets. If an overwhelming number of critics think a performer is excellent, I'd argue the likelihood is high. Similarly, if the performer gathers this praise over a number of years, if he shows this excellence consistently, that also is important. Lastly, if several generations of critics consider that person of great merit, I think the evidence is overwhelming. Certainly, that doesn't mean I'm going to like his style or interpretation--- but I can appreciate the talent, as I do the skill of Gulda.
Of course, no matter how great an artist, no matter how enormous the legend or reputation, there will always be individuals that blast him as overrated or of minor talent. Contrariness or just idiosyncrasy aren't unknown characteristics among appreciators of any art form.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Critics should be taken for what they are, critics., posted on November 16, 2014 at 07:57:58
David Smith
 Some are excellent and consistent, some are utterly clueless about what they're writing about. Ultimately any person should make up their own mind and not follow someone else, critic, judge or otherwise.

Dave

 

Music is too personal, posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:00:33
Awe-d-o-file
Dealer

Posts: 21037
Location: 50 miles west of DC
Joined: January 10, 2004
 Like choosing a mate. A critic liking or disliking a piece of music will do only one thing for me: bring the piece of music to my attention if I was not previously aware. A critic could never even make a dent in my feeling about any music I've heard before reading a review on said piece of music.


ET
ET

"If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking till you do suck seed" - Curly Howard 1936

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:01:08
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2012
 Objective performance standards would be worthless to me. Lang Lang has extraordinary technique, but leaves me cold, whereas Artur Rubinstein, at the end of his career, made frequent mistakes but left his audiences in a swoon.

I used to say, "No one ever made a statue to a critic," until someone here pointed out that there *is* a statue of a critic somewhere. A good critic can bring a lot to the table, such as how to approach a difficult piece; how to *get* it. Alex Ross is one of those. His book "And the Rest is Noise" on 20th century music is brilliant.

Critics can help, but use your own ears.

WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

Should Be Used As a Guide.........., posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:26:27
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I suppose the first question should be whether or not there exist some objective standards for performance."

Probably not.... I have my personal "objective" standards that someone else might believe is insignificant..... And vice versa. For example, in a classical performance, I often mention how the "melodic line" is conveyed. Someone else might think this is unimportant.

"I'd say there must be because before that professional ascends to the stage, he has passed countless auditions, placed highly or won many competitions. All were judged. Are 'judges' so different, then, than critics?"

Critics are different.... No doubt.... I've often encountered consensus stating that it's a great performance, and I just don't hear it personally. (Although it's rare that consensus stating it's a poor performance, and I think it's great.)

"Consensus and time are the critical facets. If an overwhelming number of critics think a performer is excellent, I'd argue the likelihood is high."

Stress the word, "likelihood".... My problem with consensus is too many people will parrot what the consensus states, because they're afraid of backlash if they state something different. (This problem is a lot more prevalent now than it was 30 years ago.)

"Similarly, if the performer gathers this praise over a number of years, if he shows this excellence consistently, that also is important."

Most definitely.....

"Lastly, if several generations of critics consider that person of great merit, I think the evidence is overwhelming. Certainly, that doesn't mean I'm going to like his style or interpretation--- but I can appreciate the talent, as I do the skill of Gulda."

Sviatoslav Richter and David Oistrakh are two examples for me.... Musically, they don't do much for me, but I can see why others deem them great.

"Of course, no matter how great an artist, no matter how enormous the legend or reputation, there will always be individuals that blast him as overrated or of minor talent."

For me, Martha Argerich and Carlos Kleiber come to mind...... Both tend to perform fast, and just blur everything.... But in contrast to Richter or Oistrakh, I don't see other qualities that make me want to appreciate them. (Although I admit having a bias against fast, blurry performances.)

I personally tend to appreciate critics that don't mimic consensus. Especially if I hear the performance, and perceive it in a similar way. I also like critics who lend suggestions to deviating tastes. But with the plethora of critics in the internet age, it's almost impossible to find someone reviewing enough performances to get a gauge on whether his/her tastes relate to our own.

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:39:45
bald2
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 21, 2006
 You are too kind, Bill Way. Lang Lang is a creation of DG and is a banger. I've heard him a few times in the radio, not knowing who was playing, and each time was struck by the lack of color, sensitivity and musicality of his playing.

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:42:23
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 >>Objective performance standards would be worthless to me. Lang Lang has extraordinary technique, but leaves me cold, whereas Artur Rubinstein, at the end of his career, made frequent mistakes but left his audiences in a swoon.>>

But Rubinstein, even at the end of his career still got the vast majority of the notes right. Certainly this is of some value no?

Lang Lang leaves you cold? Lang Lang is a lot of things but cold is not one of them IMO.

 

I had that same experience!, posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:47:32
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 Was driving along, turned on the radio and heard this completely amateurish performance of Kinderszenen - it turned out to be Bang Bang!

BUT, as I mentioned in a previous post, the guy does have his moments sometimes.

 

let's keep it real, posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:53:07
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 Lang Lang is hardly a creation of DG. And while he does have his moments of being a "banger" it is hardly something he does consistently. Frankly many beloved and critically acclaimed established old guard pianists were far more guilty of being bangers. But if you are old (or better yet dead) white and European or even better Russian then that banging is genius.

 

Critics are generally hired for their writing "skills" - not their musical knowledge, posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:55:52
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 Remember what Virgil Thomson said:

"Reviewing music or reviewing anything is a writing job. It's nice if you are experienced in the field you are writing about, but writing is what you are doing."

Of course there are some exceptions, but, in general, I would agree with Thompson on this. (And of course, some critics can't write either!)

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:58:38
Jim Treanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2167
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: June 1, 2003
 I wouldn't ignore them completely, but I wouldn't assign them the role of arbitrator of my tastes, either.

IME, no performer/ensemble has hit a home run with every performance. Even the generally-warmly-raved-about have their off days. On the other hand, I've heard some who have been deemed "hacks" knock it out of the park on occasion. How much that assessment depends on my tastes (and maybe mood) versus what a performer or group brings to the plate with a particular composition on any given day is anyone's guess.

In any event, I tend to treat critics' assessments as I treat equipment reviews: In the final analysis, I have to listen to the performance in order to make up my own mind.



Jim

 

Lang Lang, posted on November 16, 2014 at 09:58:58
Bill Way
Audiophile

Posts: 1884
Location: Toms River NJ
Joined: May 28, 2012
Contributor
  Since: December 14, 2012
 I know - he's got it all, but there is something about his playing and how I hear music that just doesn't connect. I've heard his recordings, and heard him play two recitals; it just doesn't work for me. Aren't you glad I'm not a critic?

WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.

 

RE: let's keep it real, posted on November 16, 2014 at 10:09:34
bald2
Audiophile

Posts: 338
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 21, 2006
 Agreed. I didn't mean to objectify my opinion or taste:)

A number of so called greats leave me cold. I can take or (mostly) leave Pollini and certainly go without Brendel. One man's meat...

 

Huh?, posted on November 16, 2014 at 10:28:17
Amphissa
Audiophile

Posts: 2717
Location: Zardoz
Joined: March 9, 2004
The judges in most major competitions are often (maybe mostly) pedagogues -- noted teachers of the instrument and often quite accomplished musicians themselves. Whereas critics, as Chris and others have noted, are mostly just writers. Some of them have a background with some instrument, but more are just music lovers who are also convincing writers. Some of the critics are very knowledgeable, with substantial depth of experience. Some are just making a living.

I quit reading reviews long ago. I go to concerts or check musicians out on the web. The ears are the best reviewer. And everyone has his/her own personal response to music, so critics can be pretty much irrelevant as you listen with your own ears.

That said, as a beginner, reviews can be useful in selecting good recordings for a basic collection. Like a lot of people, I started out with a Penguin Guide in hand. Don't like to think how long ago that was.



"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 10:29:46
fantja
Audiophile

Posts: 15524
Location: Alabama
Joined: September 11, 2010
 Only the ones who cannot write!

 

My 2 cents, with an example (a bit long), posted on November 16, 2014 at 11:24:35
rbolaw
 The best a critic can do is be an effective and efficient writer and educator on musical and cultural history, music theory when needed, stylistic trends, and technical performance issues. The thumbs up/thumbs down aspect of a review is or should be the least important if the critic is doing his/her job, and is all but meaningless if not put in the context of these other things, which help establish meaningful criteria for evaluation of a performance.

Harold Schonberg was a legendary music critic for the NY Times (and I knew him personally). He was not a professional musician (though he was an avid amateur pianist) nor did he have a PhD in musicology, as does current NY Times critic Anthony Tomasini. But he was a great writer and brilliant journalist. A chess enthusiast, he became famous for his coverage of the Bobby Fischer - Boris Spassky world championship chess match. He had a near photographic memory and encyclopedic knowledge of things that interested him, and music interested him above all. His writing skill let him pass both his passion for and knowledge of music to his readers effectively. His books, especially the Lives Of The Great series (Composers, Conductors and Pianists) are must-reads.

But I did not always agree with his opinions, to say the least. In personal conversation, he was even more opinionated and much less diplomatic than he was in the Times (and he was quite opinioned and not too diplomatic in the Times). No matter. Armed with the knowledge he and other fine writers and teachers can give us, we can form our own educated opinions, and be grateful for their help.

 

Great post. nt, posted on November 16, 2014 at 11:35:30
David Smith

 

Nice., posted on November 16, 2014 at 11:52:52
D Harvey
Manufacturer

Posts: 5563
Location: SE Michigan
Joined: May 30, 2001
 In a thread full of good posts, I have to agree with David that yours stands out.

FWIW--and what it's worth is really what we're talking about here, isn't it?--I have to go with the consensus here. That is, critics can be useful if you find good ones who can not only write, but can consistently communicate to you what is present in this music or that which may appeal to this or that type of listener, etc.. The Penguin Guides to jazz (which sadly are no longer being produced, it seems) are, I feel, excellent in this regard. I don't agree with them all the time, but I would say agreement is 90% or better in music I actually know. Strong disagreement is exceedingly rare, but does happen once in a great while. I have some idea of what to expect from a given record, and it's fun to see how my opinions sit next to theirs. They organize the jazz canon on record into something manageable, and this can be of tremendous value.

Then there are guys like Stanley Crouch (a musician, no less) who blather on uselessly projecting their own cultural biases onto everything they purport to be writing about. It's worse than useless sometimes. Reading Bill Cole's book on Coltrane comes to mind as a particularly annoying experience for similar reasons. I suppose it's fair to say that SOME critics are indeed best ignored. The trick is to know how to spot them and not waste your time reading them. This in itself requires some effort, some of which may well get spent reading garbage. You live and learn.....


dh

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 16, 2014 at 13:49:52
Diogenes
Audiophile

Posts: 315
Joined: February 17, 2014
 Them that can, play. Them that can't,
throw rocks.

 

I once read a music review in an audio magazine, posted on November 16, 2014 at 13:52:54
jedrider
Audiophile

Posts: 15167
Location: No. California
Joined: December 26, 2003
 that was a long time ago, and the first AND last, time.

Yes, so right, if one has nothing to add on a musical performance, best to say nothing at all and let everyone else enjoy it if they, in fact, do.

 

Isn't that a tad… obvious? My point is that critical opinion over time, , posted on November 16, 2014 at 20:12:49
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 consistent, and positive to a consensus should be a very good, if not absolute, judgment of a musician's worth.
There may be, in this media and entertainment hungry world, a great unknown or lesser known musician of enormous ability and talent--- but the likelihood such a person has been around very long is small; if he has, it is fairly certain that his "talent" is… profane.
We've all smiled at the fellow who gushes on about the wonderful plonk he's found at Trader Joe's for $9.99 that he swears is "equal to a $50 bottle!"

 

I'd say you're missing the point of criticism: of course it's about judging the performance!, posted on November 16, 2014 at 20:24:26
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 As I hinted, it's exactly the same as the judge at a music competition. Imagine a judge withholding… judgment?
If one mainly wishes for all the material that leads up to an opinion, one can read a musicologist!
Don't misunderstand, a bloated opinion piece with no information as you detailed truly would be worthless: we must know something of the person's standards, the way the performer met or missed them.
You seemingly would ask a restaurant critic to detail the food preparation, the history of the dish---- and omit the taste and flavor, the skill of execution.
(BTW, I think Schonberg was a fine writer and I valued his opinions, though I differed much with his--- as I have with all others. I'd mention, in passing, that G. B. Shaw was a fantastic music critic; of course, it's hard to fault his language…).

 

Some are, some aren't *, posted on November 16, 2014 at 20:27:28
Mike K
Audiophile

Posts: 13975
Location: 97701
Joined: September 23, 1999

Lack of skill dictates economy of style. - Joey Ramone

 

reminds me of this, posted on November 16, 2014 at 20:52:26
Penguin
Audiophile

Posts: 7116
Location: Delaware
Joined: August 5, 2001

dee
;-D

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.

quote by Kurt Vonnegut

 

RE: I'd say you're missing the point of criticism: of course it's about judging the performance!, posted on November 16, 2014 at 20:56:54
David Smith
 No, a critic is not a judge, nor are they qualified to be one. They offer commentary on something, and their "judgment" is, as rbolaw says, the least important part of their commentary. If they are good there is a lot more to the review than a judgment.

Dave

 

RE: Isn't that a tad… obvious? My point is that critical opinion over time, , posted on November 16, 2014 at 21:04:37
David Smith
 "My point is that critical opinion over time, consistent, and positive to a consensus should be a very good, if not absolute, judgment of a musician's worth."

Absolutely not, critics are in no position to make that judgment.

"There may be, in this media and entertainment hungry world, a great unknown or lesser known musician of enormous ability and talent--- but the likelihood such a person has been around very long is small; if he has, it is fairly certain that his "talent" is? profane."

No, there are many, many great musicians that don't get critical acclaim, the two are not really that related. Sure, there are some great musicians who are also media darlings, but they're in the minority, really.

Dave

 

Absolutely right, posted on November 16, 2014 at 21:41:03
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 I guess it's touching, in a way, how some listeners have such a trusting, naïve faith in the writings of critics.

 

Yes. Notice the quote from Virgil Thomson, posted on November 17, 2014 at 07:11:23
rbolaw
 in Chris from Lafayette's post. Thomson was both a famous critic and a famous composer, but he understood the critic's role. He did have a reputation among musicians in his day as a mean spirited guy who abused his power as an influential critic, but that would be all the more reason to focus more on his scholarship than on his thumbs up or down decisions, wouldn't it?

 

Yes. It's also a bit strange, imo., posted on November 17, 2014 at 07:56:32
rbolaw
 I mean, would you suffer through a bad restaurant meal and think, that must have been wonderful, because a reviewer gave this place a lot of stars?
The great monolog artist Ruth Draper (don't trust my opinion, listen to her records if you haven't, made near the end of her life when she was supposedly past her prime, but still brilliant) has a wickedly funny monolog where she imitates a Midwestern tourist trudging through Italy dutifully looking at things the guide book awards three stars, while wistfully thinking about how much she misses good American steaks.

 

Milton was a genius. Thanks! nt, posted on November 17, 2014 at 08:12:47
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 d

 

"…a critic is not a judge." Really? Pray, visit the last sentence in the text., posted on November 17, 2014 at 08:21:46
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 "Critic: A person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something:
critics say many schools are not prepared to handle the influx of foreign students

A person who judges the merits of literary, artistic, or musical works, especially one who does so professionally:
a film critic

Origin

late 16th century: from Latin criticus, from Greek kritikos, from kritēs 'a judge', from krinein 'judge, decide'."
oxforddictionary

 

Bollocks. Artists have a reason to fear critics and disparage them. A good critic hardly, posted on November 17, 2014 at 08:27:16
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 is an absolute judge, but good critics are professionals, spending far more time than casual, amateurs appreciators, in attending performances, researching performers' histories, and other necessary tasks. My point was that the consensus opinions of them, over time, is valuable.
It is ironic to be discussing this on a website that most probably wound't even exist were it not for two magazines that were all about criticism: The Absolute Sound and Stereophile. Imagine a lengthy review of a piece of equipment with no judgement of its worth. That would truly be worth-less.

 

So why do so many greatly successful contest winners end up forgotten and the musicians that, posted on November 17, 2014 at 08:32:22
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 fared less well go on to fame and fortune?
Judging talent is a talent, in itself. Appreciating worth and conveying why it is worthwhile is a skill. How many styles of pianism are there? How many "pedagogues" would have investiture in a certain style of playing, a rigid appreciation that would exclude rival styles?
You needn't be able to cook like a chef to appreciate good cooking.

 

"good critics are professionals", posted on November 17, 2014 at 08:52:51
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 Oh, tin! If only you knew!

 

You're welcome to believe whatever you want and revere critics as you wish. nt, posted on November 17, 2014 at 09:07:31
David Smith

 

There are no qualifications for becoming a critic. None., posted on November 17, 2014 at 09:10:12
David Smith
 Imagine reviews in Stereophile or Absolute sound that simply gave a yea or nay "judgment" and dollar value of the products' worth. Two sentences.

Dave

 

Sorry, tin - these days, music critics are mostly entertainers, posted on November 17, 2014 at 09:50:16
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 And some of them are even clowns!

When I was younger, I used to be very concerned about critics. These days, not so much (although I'm not saying that you can't occasionally still learn a thing or two from certain critics, despite the entertainment function of their writing).

Critics USED to be more important than they are now, because there was only a limited number of media sources (newspapers, magazines) from which the public could choose. The critics at that time were a virtual cartel - they had a "taste-maker" power which they've now largely lost. This is not to deny that there were (and still are) some listeners who hang on every opinion expressed by their local critic. I've never understood this, other than as a manifestation of laziness on the part of listeners who don't want to bother building up their own listening experience and study.

I rejoiced, yes, REJOICED when I began to see postings in the early days of the internet, by writers who corrected the often idiotic statements by critics in newspapers and magazines. (BTW, we had a couple of critics here in SF who resigned in disgrace when it was proven that they had not actually attended the concerts they were reviewing!) It was clear from the context of their writing in their internet postings that many of these posters were far more knowledgeable about what they were writing than many critics were. Moreover, there was a life-giving breadth of opinion on the internet (not all of it well founded, I admit!) that was unknown in the days of more limited media.

Tongue in cheek, I've said before that we're living in a golden age, with all the babe musicians now before the public. On a more serious note, I would contend that we're living in a golden age because of the tremendous diversity of the writing we have available to us on the internet, even as newspapers and magazines struggle to stay relevant. It's not all gold on the internet (far from it!), but the gold is mostly there if we want to find it.

As you said below, discussing performances/performers is for fun - it's not to set up an Eternal Pantheon of musicians who have "GREATNESS" stamped on their tuxedos. Why are you so worried about this?

 

That Thomson quote seems ridiculous to me., posted on November 17, 2014 at 10:40:48
Rick W
 Would you place much stock in a jazz review written by Anthony Bourdain, who knows zilch about jazz but is a pretty good writer? You'd look to William Manchester for a review of the dancing in a new production of Rite Of Spring? A review of a new recording of Beethoven's middle quartets by Tom Clancy? A review of a Cannondale CAAD 10 road bike by 82 year old David McCullough? Doris Kearns Goodwin's view of a CJ ART preamp would be valuable to you?

I've read enough inane, ignorant and just plain wrong statements in music reviews to fill an encyclopedia. Bourdain might be able to write something about a jazz recording/performance that is amusing simply because he's an amusing guy and good writer. But he's not into jazz at all and has no knowledge base on the subject. What jazz fan would consider his review of a Ravi Coltrane performance informed? Ya think r&r fans would look to Maya Angelou for a review of a new AC/DC reissue?

Wonder how Virgil Thomson would have reacted to a scathing review of his playing/music penned by Roger Kahn.

 

Straw men are fun to burn! Re-read my posts. I say nothing you address. nt, posted on November 17, 2014 at 12:38:28
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 d

 

Well, thank you! I trust your petard didn't damage you too much. nt, posted on November 17, 2014 at 12:40:50
tinear
Audiophile

Posts: 65782
Location: Kansas City, KS
Joined: April 9, 2006
 dd

 

But keep in mind ..., posted on November 17, 2014 at 12:44:44
rbolaw
 Virgil Thomson wasn't just a fine writer and expert music scholar, he was one of the most important American composers of the 20th century (in my humble opinion -- but also in the opinion of many others who know much more than I).

Harold Schonberg was a newspaper journalist and only an amateur musician, but he was a brilliant man with a phenomenal memory who knew and remembered absolutely everything about classical music. And I mean everything. He could have had a carnival act, he was that amazing.

Now, where Harold Schonberg went a bit too far, in my humble opinion, was in serving on the juries of major piano competitions. As David Smith correctly says, a critic is not necessarily qualified to be a judge.

 

All true., posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:04:09
rbolaw
 And the lack of a perfect correspondence between winning competitions and having a successful concert career is mainly due to the fact that the skill set requiring for one is inevitably not perfectly identical to the skill set required for the other. Also, only a small fraction of competition winners will ever have a concert career since there just aren't that many opportunities, in classical music, anyway.
Most top classical music performers got a major boost in their careers by at least doing very well at a major competition at some point, if not winning it.

 

Bad examples., posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:09:48
Rick W
 Thomson & Schonberg both knew what they were talking about when they wrote about music. My point was that being a good writer in and of itself itself doesn't qualify anyone to be critic of subjects they are not knowledgeable about.

Whose review of a clarinet soloist's performance would you expect to be more informative, knowledgeable and helpful, Ricardo Morales's (who may not be much of a writer) or Harrison Salisbury's?

 

Hah! Good examples. , posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:28:11
rbolaw
 I'm not sure where or if we disagree. In writing that line, Virgil Thomson was being appropriately modest, essentially saying his role as a reviewer was as a writer, i.e., to inform (and maybe also to entertain, as Chris from Lafayette suggests) but not to dictate tastes.
In his actual conduct, there are those who would accuse Thomson of not practicing what he preached in that statement, but it's a worthy sentiment.
Obviously, Ricardo Morales would know vastly more about the clarinet than Harrison Salisbury (?!) And note that I said Harold Schonberg, though a fine critic and writer, and an enthusiastic amateur pianist, went too far in serving on piano competition juries.

 

Sounds like "The Audio Critic", posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:41:49
D Harvey
Manufacturer

Posts: 5563
Location: SE Michigan
Joined: May 30, 2001
 When they review an amplifier, they put it on the bench and see if it measures as well as the mfg spec says it does. If it does, that's a good review. Period. Hardly seems worth writing an article around a handful of basic measurements.
dh

 

RE: Hah! Good examples. , posted on November 17, 2014 at 13:51:40
Rick W
 Didn't know Schonberg did that, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone like Nat Hentoff served as a judge for something like the Monk thing instead of an actual jazz musician.

Look for my review of a new yarn in Knitting Quartely.

 

I think you should re-read your posts yourself. . . , posted on November 17, 2014 at 14:07:54
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 . . . and try to understand what you wrote (not that your posts too often make a lot of sense!). I've already given them more attention than they deserve. After all, it was YOU who was trying to "instruct" (and I use the term very loosely) us on the definition of a critic. C'mon, tin, you know you can do it if you try!

 

But Rick - that's just the reality of the situation, posted on November 17, 2014 at 14:32:50
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 That's how these people get hired. Here in SF, the Examiner hired Scott Beach as their music critic on the basis of his name recognition: he was a locally known bit actor (I liked him as the Russian guy in "Being There"), and he also did some commercials that had classical anecdotes as their basis. That's it - and he got the job! The vast majority of readers just don't care - in fact, some even welcomed him in his new position because. . . after all. . . this is America, and you don't need no fancy learnin' to do stuff!

IIRC, even Alex Ross, whom many here like (I generally don't), comes from a rock music background, even though he writes now mostly about classical.

I once had a very mediocre piano student who, because of inside connections, got hired as a critic of one of the local newspapers. (And she wasn't even a good writer!)

These tales of woe could go on and on. It's just the reality.

 

It's not nice to imply that others are petarded. *, posted on November 17, 2014 at 15:13:05
D Harvey
Manufacturer

Posts: 5563
Location: SE Michigan
Joined: May 30, 2001
 Where is your sense of PC?

dh

 

Alex Ross, posted on November 17, 2014 at 16:02:41
rbolaw
 is, for me, a very good writer. And he does have some formal musical training, iirc, not just a "rock music" background. So, that would distinguish him from some of the others you mention, who don't sound too impressive. However, the basic point I think you are making, and with which I agree, applies to him as much as any other critic who has been named here -- his opinion counts for no more than that of any other reasonably well-educated listener, and once I've heard something for myself, I really have little use for it.

That's what I think is bizarre about tinear's position. You may find a critic with tastes so similar to your own you come to respect or even trust his opinions. But would you need to read whether a movie critic likes a movie you've already seen? Whether a restaurant critic likes a restaurant where you've already eaten? Is there some magical authority to a published critic's opinion so that I have to eat what I consider bad food because a restaurant critic liked it? C'mon.

 

RE: So why do so many greatly successful contest winners end up forgotten and the musicians that, posted on November 17, 2014 at 16:25:23
Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002
 It just shows how stilted classical competitions are.

 

Performance critics vs. music critics, posted on November 17, 2014 at 16:53:53
gregsgoatfarm
Audiophile

Posts: 4
Location: Indiana
Joined: November 12, 2014
 When I first started to enjoy classical music in the mid 1960s William Livingstone's "Guide to the Basic Repertoire" released by Hi-Fi/Stereo Review was a godsend. Not that he always had it right, but that his words seemed to ring true; and he sent me on quest after quest. He was a performance, albeit recorded performance only, critic. For close to a century people labeled as "Music Critics" are really for the most part only "Performance Critics". Real Music Critics, such as those of the late 19th Century, for example, who would regularly take a composer to task for what he had written, are essentially unheard of today. And I'm certain that contemporary classical music is still being written that may need that type of critique. It's possible that some new music may be of the "My Time Will Come" variety and needs to let the audience know that they may bring cabbage and tomatoes. I'm sure there were reviews of the orchestral performances Bruckner's and Mahler's almost universally panned symphonic output, but it the reviews of the music itself that are most remembered; and that sadly delayed their acceptance into the basic repertoire for so many years. Bring back the classical "music reviewer".
Gregory

 

Not to me..., posted on November 17, 2014 at 17:34:46
Jim Treanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2167
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: June 1, 2003
 certainly not after reading the choice gems quoted in Nicolas Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective. While his book deals with critics' responses to the works of composers, it illustrates how off-base even "qualified" criticism can be.


Jim

 

Yes - I think that's what tin is looking for. . . , posted on November 17, 2014 at 19:01:57
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 . . . "magical authority" - that's it! - through the miracle of "critical consensus"!

 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 17, 2014 at 21:54:07
learsfool
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Joined: August 4, 2008
 Hi Tinear - pretty much everything Chris and rbolaw and amphissa have said in this thread is right on. There is a VERY big difference between critics and the judges of a competition or an orchestra audition. In fact, there is almost no similarity beyond the superficial one. An audition committee is always composed of the conductor and some musicians in the orchestra - everyone on the committee is a working, professional musician, looking to hire someone that they may very well be spending the rest of their careers working very closely with. In a competition, there is sometimes (but not always!) more distance between the judges and the competitors, however the judges will also always be either performers themselves, conductors, or in some cases top notch teachers.

Very often, critics have absolutely no professional experience performing, and much more often than you would think, have almost no experience playing an instrument at all. Especially nowadays, when so many newspapers do not even carry a music critic anymore. Even if they do, they often merely write puff pieces, saying everything is wonderful - in such cases, they are very little more than free marketing for the local orchestra. Very rarely do you find a critic anywhere who actually writes objectively, based on what he/she heard that night. In my orchestra's media market, there is only one who does out of several - the others are hardly worth reading at all, as far as judges of the performance. I certainly hope you can understand that there is simply no way that even the very best critics can possibly be as good a "judge" of the actual performance as a professional musician could be. It should be equally obvious, on the other hand, that they are much better writers than the musicians are. Rbolaw's posts are an excellent summary of what sort of knowledge the critic is expected to provide - their main function is not necessarily to actually judge the performers, even though they often do (and often quite ignorantly!), but to educate the readers/audience, so that they can become more knowledgeable about the music they heard, which will help them judge the performance for themselves.

In closing, think about this - almost never do the critics writing about say a major piano competition agree with the judges thereof.

 

I'm not disputing "reality", I'm just arguing against Thomson's view that........, posted on November 18, 2014 at 10:10:55
Rick W
 writing well is the main job of a critic. Stating ignorant bs in a well written manor doesn't make it less ignorant or more deserving of being taken seriously. Its just turd polishing.

 

Huh? So because some "qualified" criticism is off base........., posted on November 18, 2014 at 11:09:10
Rick W
 your main concern is critics' writing ability? If I wanted to read well written fiction I'd find a good novel.

 

RE: I'm not disputing "reality", I'm just arguing against Thomson's view that........, posted on November 18, 2014 at 11:09:35
rbolaw
 But he really meant not just writing well in the stylistic sense, but also being a knowledgeable and articulate historian, educator, scholar and musicologist, all of which he happened to be. High caliber critics like him make an important contribution to our cultural life, and his thumbs up or down judgment of a specific performer or piece of music is by far the least important aspect of that contribution. Yes, he was paid to do that, so he did it, but I suspect he did it grudgingly, and he was reportedly a pompous a$$hole about it. So that is the least important part of his reputation. If anything it slightly tarnishes his legacy.

Edit: And keep in mind that his quote is in part an ironic jab at lesser critics. So his rep as an a$$hole may be at least partly deserved.

 

"Its just turd polishing" - Yup, that's what it is sometimes [nt], posted on November 18, 2014 at 11:14:12
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012

 

Hmm, then you're expressing what he meant better than he did., posted on November 18, 2014 at 12:53:49
Rick W
 I've never read any of his writing. I hope he was good at it - as you describe - 'cause I never cared much for "classical" organ. I'd much rather listen to Jimmy Smith or Larry Young play B3 :-)

 

Well, I'm not being ..., posted on November 18, 2014 at 13:14:53
rbolaw
 an ironic, self-important, elitist intellectual snob a$$hole. Trying not to be, anyway. But he was surrounded by people he felt were his intellectual inferior, and most of them probably were.
Anyway, as a performing pro musician, why should you read a bunch of scholarly music books? No question you know what you're doing without all of that. But look at the professional level music education and performance experience you have. Most folks don't have that, obviously.

 

RE: Critics are generally hired for their writing "skills" - not their musical knowledge, posted on November 18, 2014 at 14:11:31
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000
 In his role as a critic, I can't forgive Thomson for his negative opinions on Sibelius.

I do like the suite for Louisiana Story, but don't know too much about his other music.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

 

You're just trolling here, Rick., posted on November 18, 2014 at 16:18:09
Jim Treanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2167
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: June 1, 2003
 I said nothing about a critic's writing ability. It was the content embedded in the critics' comments quoted in Slonimsky that I deem pertinent...as it is in any criticism, whether of composition or performance, I consider.


Jim

 

Pertinent to what?, posted on November 18, 2014 at 19:54:23
Rick W
 Ahh, the subject of my post was the Thomson quote and the idea that writing ability/style is the most important aspect of reviewing rather than knowing what you're talking about. Apparently I missed your point and still do, or you missed mine and still do - or both.

I don't waste my time trolling.

 

RE: Critics are generally hired for their writing "skills" - not their musical knowledge, posted on November 19, 2014 at 00:46:46
Chris from Lafayette
Audiophile

Posts: 26477
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: February 17, 2004
Contributor
  Since: February 6, 2012
 I absolutely agree - I believe he picked up his anti-Sibelius ranting from Nadia Boulanger. (Her quote: "Sibelius - a tragic case!")

I've found most of Thomson's own music (of which I've not heard very much, I admit) to be strangely uncompelling.

 

RE: Pertinent to what?, posted on November 19, 2014 at 11:26:29
Jim Treanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2167
Location: Pacific Northwest
Joined: June 1, 2003
 "I've never read any of his writing."

You might find his American Music Since 1910 an instructive, and pertinent, read.



Jim

 

Dunno about that one, but I'm gonna get the Slonimsky. Thanks. nt, posted on November 19, 2014 at 13:29:38
Rick W
 nt

 

I was thinking the same., posted on November 20, 2014 at 09:46:51
D Harvey
Manufacturer

Posts: 5563
Location: SE Michigan
Joined: May 30, 2001
 Seems I've heard of the Slonimsky book before and taken the same note to myself in the past. Time to do something about it.

dh

 

Milton? What's that have to do with..., posted on November 20, 2014 at 21:50:46
musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31879
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
  Since: January 28, 2004
 Sid Caesar?

Or Mel Brooks, the genius behind that clip?

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure



 

RE: Are music critics to be ignored? , posted on November 23, 2014 at 17:30:23
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
 In my experience, most of them.


Jeremy

 

RE: I'd say you're missing the point of criticism: of course it's about judging the performance!, posted on November 23, 2014 at 17:35:52
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 1001
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
 IMHO (ahem!), Berlioz and Haggin were both as good as or better than Shaw, though Shaw was indeed great.

BTW, how does one make sense of criticism of a performance when (one may suspect) the critic doesn't understand the music?


Jeremy

 

Page processed in 0.062 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]