Started by Scion7, January 11, 2016, 06:42:39 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 07:45:43 PMFirst of all, the OP should delete reference to animals with a certain reputation in relation to another human being (and other putdowns). There is no need for personal attacks behind someone's back, especially when that person is not here to defend themselves. It is really uncalled for and diminishes the poster.It's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not. Dislike it? Say it and move on. The reviewer's job is NOT to provide verbose opinions of the composer, but of the disc/performance at hand. Some reference is good: 'sounds like', 'contemporary of', and other references that help the reader understand what type of music the composer composed. But then I guess history is riddled with music critics who think putting others down raises themselves up. Finally, a lot of people seem to enjoy taking unsubstantiated potshots at British reviewers. It seems to be a filter many have.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 07:45:43 PMIt's a pet peeve of mine, but I really detest when critics go on and on about whether the music should be of interest to me or not.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 07:00:17 PMWell, it's the intention behind Sibelius' comment that remains important, which to me is pretty simple: forget the critics, they simply don't matter.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:56:05 PMa) Hurwitz is a public figure. He is not protected from comments, pro or con, simply because he is not a member of this group.b) There is no code of rules a reviewer must follow. I see no reason why a reviewer should not offer opinions on the music, especially if it's unfamiliar stuff, and I don't see how this constitutes self-aggrandizement. Again, everyone here does that sort of thing all the time.
Quote from: Daverz on January 11, 2016, 07:58:14 PMIt does annoy me when a critic keeps getting assigned music they are obviously not in sympathy with, but that's an editorial issue.
Quote from: Rinaldo on January 11, 2016, 08:00:05 PMI politely disagree. Critics are a healthy part of the whole 'artistic cycle'. It's just that some of them are lousy at their job, just like there are lousy composers or lousy plumbers.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on January 11, 2016, 08:04:00 PMa) So what. This is common courtesy/etiquette.b) I disagree. An opinion about the performance is one thing, but I am talking about repeated comments about how a composer is not worth listening to, the piece is crap, that they are 'second-rate', etc. This is not the place of the reviewer, in my opinion, and this will inevitably be the reason I stop reading a reviewer or a publication.
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:09:07 PMSo don't read. I like reading reviewers who possess the insight to see the flaws in a work. That doesn't mean they're always on target, but I learned more (say) from John Simon's analysis of the flaws in Bergman's "Cries and Whispers" (a film from a director he often reveres) than from other blandly laudatory comments.
Quote from: Mirror Image on January 11, 2016, 08:07:55 PMLet's ask Mr. Henning these questions since he's most definitely a part of an artistic cycle and I am not: what part does a critic play into your musical process and do you think their criticism of any of your work has been an asset or a liability to getting more of your work heard?
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 07:24:52 PM It is a defensive over-reaction to the famous accusation of Britain as "das Land ohne Musik,"
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:15:21 PMIt absolutely can work that way. Critics bring works they love or hate into public awareness. Barber was permanently crushed by the negative reviews of Antony and Cleopatra, for example. Conversely, a supportive review can do much for a creative figure's reputation: every one now wants to see Hamilton on Broadway following rave critical reviews; and directors like Martin Scorsese, Werner Herzog, and Ramin Bahrani have expressed public gratitude to Roger Ebert for championing their films. I think this notion that a critic is superfluous is fundamentally inaccurate.
Quote from: Brian on January 11, 2016, 07:15:18 PMIgnoring your strange homophobic remark about pink and which way Hurwitz "swings" (which was uncalled for and frankly offensive):
Quote from: (poco) Sforzando on January 11, 2016, 08:04:12 PMA critic out of sympathy with a work may still offer valid insights about it, perhaps more valid than another critic who regards the work uncritically.
Quote from: Gordo on January 11, 2016, 07:23:16 PMWell, I guess the adjective "professional" is implicit here; not related to any special qualification, but in the sense of doing something as a paid job rather than as a hobby.
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 27 queries.