In Reply to: It's about target audiences posted by rbolaw on May 16, 2016 at 10:42:26:
And also, classical music lovers who actually attend concerts are the educated and/or well-to-do people of the city. They are receiving concert notices in the mail and don't really need reviews after the fact, because they were there or they are already familiar with the performers. Reviews after the concerts are performed don't really bring new people into the house. They are designed to sell product.
And as another poster said, it's about advertising. The featured articles in the slick music mags are paid for by the label and it would not surprise me if the post-concert review articles in the Times for these "stars" (both pop and classical) are paid for.
If the NYT were doing real reviews of performances around the city, there would be lots of articles about the amazing array of performances at Carnegie Hall, the Y, Met Museum, the ASO, Jupiter Symphony, etc, etc.
You are right that the current state of classical music reviewing and writing is much poorer than in the past. But I don't see it as a recent phenomenon. It was pretty poor even when I lived there a decade ago.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Yes - Amphissa 14:30:54 05/16/16 (1)
- I agree, and my definition of "recent" - rbolaw 18:06:58 05/16/16 (0)