|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.88.240.246
In Reply to: RE: Are music critics to be ignored? posted by tinear on November 16, 2014 at 07:43:50
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.
Follow Ups:
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…).
Edits: 11/16/14
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
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
"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
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?
Edits: 11/17/14
d
. . . 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!
dd
Where is your sense of PC?
dh
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?
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.
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
http://jimtranr.com
your main concern is critics' writing ability? If I wanted to read well written fiction I'd find a good novel.
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
http://jimtranr.com
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.
Edits: 11/18/14
"I've never read any of his writing."
You might find his American Music Since 1910 an instructive, and pertinent, read.
Jim
http://jimtranr.com
nt
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
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.
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.
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.
Edits: 11/18/14
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 :-)
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.
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.
. . . "magical authority" - that's it! - through the miracle of "critical consensus"!
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.
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?
Edits: 11/17/14 11/19/14
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Oh, tin! If only you knew!
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.
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
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: