Critical Mass

[Cato]

Recently, while pondering the contradictory desires of Adorno in music, I thought it might be nice to throw out the following questions for the GMG members:

What should be the purpose of music criticism?  Is it markedly different today from earlier decades (centuries)?

Which qualifications do you look for in a critic, i.e. is there a "minimum" of musical training somewhere involved?  One thinks of composers like Schumann writing criticism, along with characters like E.T.A. Hoffmann.


Should there perhaps be a distinction between the (specialized) critic who concentrates on the value of the music itself, versus the critic who evalutes the performance of a piece?

Should political theory not be involved in music criticism (as opposed to politics), unless (Socialist          realism) it was involved in the music to begin with?

Does/Has a composer ever benefit/ed from reading what the critics have to say about their work?  (e.g. Eduard Hanslick on Bruckner would be an example of the composer feeling absolutely persecuted by a critic.)

[ChamberNut]

Some very good questions there, Cato.  Looking forward to what the experts have to say.

Does/Has a composer ever benefit/ed from reading what the critics have to say about their work?  (e.g. Eduard Hanslick on Bruckner would be an example of the composer feeling absolutely persecuted by a critic.)

Great example.  How about Brahms?  Would he have released/published more works had he not received that glowing praise from Schumann? 

[Don]

Should there perhaps be a distinction between the (specialized) critic who concentrates on the value of the music itself, versus the critic who evalutes the performance of a piece?

That's the distinction between a critic and reviewer - just an opinion.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Recently, while pondering the contradictory desires of Adorno in music

Could you be more specific? What were Adorno's 'contradictory desires' in music? Or are you simply referring to his dialectical method?

[Cato]

Jezetha: the musings on Adorno were not particularly deep at the time.

I was simply considering his hostility to popular music, and contrasting that with his rather socialist/Marxist leanings.  One would think that such "leveling of taste" would be what a socialist wants: but as an aesthete, and an elitist of sorts (Marxist and socialist theorists are usually elitists and not really "of the people"), he was hoisted by the petard that the masses did not embrace the Schoenberg/Neue Wiener Schule.

Anyway, on the topic: I would be interested in hearing what our resident critics here (like Mr. Hodges) have to say about the questions.

[marvinbrown]

  To answer your question Cato I like critics that provide an honest assessment of a work/performance etc. no matter what their qualifications are.  It is the assessment that I value.  What puts me off is a critic who tries to put a spin on things, who tries to interpret works and performances from a speculative/unsubstantiated point of view.  While I realize a certain amount of subjective assessment is required when evaluating a peice, there are limits- don't cross them!  Every so often you get a critic who has an agenda either for or against a work/performance or even a composer (eg. Paul Lawrence Rose is so vehemently anti-Wagner)  and goes off on a tangent when evaluating a work/performance as Rose does with Wagner's Ring Cycle (especially his analysis of Siegfried).  This, to me is unacceptable! 

  marvin

[Monsieur Croche]

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but let me just offer some personal opinions (only personal opinions, mind!) 

I think that the primary role of the critic/reviewer is more to objectively describe rather than to judge. No doubt the critic will always be influenced by his own personal opinions, but sometimes we can extract certain objective facts from his writing even when it is couched in highly subjective terms (For example, a critic may write of the performance as being "rushed" while another feels that it was "lively" - from this I conclude that the work was played at a tempo that was faster than usual). I feel more inclined to respect critics who realize that they are writing to people of different tastes, and thus restrict themselves to providing basic facts about the work/performance which would aid the readers in forming their own decisions. In the past, of course, the prevalent attitude seems to be that there were some sort of "universal" laws which govern how music should be like (how else do you explain the rivalry between Brahms' and Wagner's supporters!) Naturally, in that kind of environment the role of the critic would be markedly different compared to the present-day which is much more accommodating to different aesthetic approaches!

Apart from being objective, the critic would of course need to have at least an elementary understanding of music theory and history, as well as years of listening experience under his belt. He would also need to be well-equipped with the vocabulary to accurately describe what he feels about the music/performance, and preferably gifted with a dose of wit to entertain his audience (why doesn't anybody write like Berlioz anymore!) It would be good if the critic also doubles as a musician or composer, because then they would be involved intimately in the process of music-making rather than judging from the position of an outside observer! Of course, ultimately every piece of music criticism should be judged on its own merits rather than on the qualification of the critic.

Ideally, yes, I think there should be a distinction between critics who evaluate works and those who evaluate performances, but I can think of occasions when this might be impractical; for instance, what is the latter to do when attending a world premiere, having no benchmark for comparison?

I don't really understand how political theory plays a role in music criticism. Every piece of music should first and foremost be evaluated on purely artistic considerations. Then, if indeed the piece is meant to express a political statement, it might be appropriate to assess how successfully it has served its purpose - though this, in my mind, is only a secondary perspective. The validity of that statement, in my opinion, is totally irrelevant to the quality of the music/performance.

[bhodges]

Anyway, on the topic: I would be interested in hearing what our resident critics here (like Mr. Hodges) have to say about the questions.

Cato  , sorry it took me awhile to respond...I haven't had the time to answer as fully as I'd like.  I mostly agree with Monsieur Croche's comment below:

I think that the primary role of the critic/reviewer is more to objectively describe rather than to judge. No doubt the critic will always be influenced by his own personal opinions, but sometimes we can extract certain objective facts from his writing even when it is couched in highly subjective terms (For example, a critic may write of the performance as being "rushed" while another feels that it was "lively" - from this I conclude that the work was played at a tempo that was faster than usual). I feel more inclined to respect critics who realize that they are writing to people of different tastes, and thus restrict themselves to providing basic facts about the work/performance which would aid the readers in forming their own decisions.

Speaking solely for myself, I see myself more as a "music journalist" than a "critic," per se.  Much of my writing is on contemporary music, and often it is in response to just a single hearing of a work.  It is sometimes difficult to say whether a piece is "good" or "bad" or somewhere in between, but I don't see that as my role, nor what most people are looking for when they read. 

But to get to your specific queries:

What should be the purpose of music criticism?  Is it markedly different today from earlier decades (centuries)?

I think the purpose is to enlighten, to describe, to transmit data.  If it's a concert, the writer should take the reader there; if it's a recording, the writer should describe what he's hearing as accurately as possible, including comments on the recording engineer(s) and venue.  And yes, I sense quite a bit of difference in writing about music today: there is less of a "rush to judge" (IMHO) and more tolerance (i.e., that some time may need to pass), given the wide variety of music that is being written.

Which qualifications do you look for in a critic, i.e. is there a "minimum" of musical training somewhere involved?  One thinks of composers like Schumann writing criticism, along with characters like E.T.A. Hoffmann.

It helps to be conversant in the basic building blocks of music theory, for sure, but I don't think going off on a deep musicological path is what most people want when they're reading.  For an analysis of a piece, I can go to any number of resources with that information.  If I'm reading about a concert, I want to hear about what happened on that particular evening.

Should there perhaps be a distinction between the (specialized) critic who concentrates on the value of the music itself, versus the critic who evalutes the performance of a piece?

The value of the music, again, is often difficult to judge (speaking of new, just-heard-once pieces).  That is why it is so very important to try to hear things more than once, if at all possible.  The other night the Juilliard String Quartet (with Charles Neidich) played Elliott Carter's new Clarinet Quintet twice, and the extra hearing went miles toward my further understanding (and appreciation) of the piece.  Unfortunately many pieces don't share that good fortune, and are heard once. 

But back to the distinction: I think it's important to find a balance between the two.  One can write about a "great piece, poorly performed," and conversely a "mediocre work given a splendid reading."

Should political theory not be involved in music criticism (as opposed to politics), unless (Socialist          realism) it was involved in the music to begin with?

I think anything, including politics, is fair game to mention when describing the context of a work's creation.  That's what makes Alex Ross's new book so enjoyable, is his constant return to the different environments in which 20th-century composers were working.

Does/Has a composer ever benefit/ed from reading what the critics have to say about their work?  (e.g. Eduard Hanslick on Bruckner would be an example of the composer feeling absolutely persecuted by a critic.)

Not being a composer (but having studied composition) I can't really answer that!  Hopefully an informed comment would benefit a composer as much as it would benefit any reader or listener.  But as we all know, there are plenty of instances in which an initial (usually negative) opinion about a work is later overturned.

--Bruce

[Cato]

Marvinbrown wrote:

What puts me off is a critic who tries to put a spin on things, who tries to interpret works and performances from a speculative/unsubstantiated point of view.  While I realize a certain amount of subjective assessment is required when evaluating a piece, there are limits- don't cross them!

BHodges wrote:

I think the purpose is to enlighten, to describe, to transmit data.  If it's a concert, the writer should take the reader there; if it's a recording, the writer should describe what he's hearing as accurately as possible, including comments on the recording engineer(s) and venue. 

Thanks for these comments!   To expand on the points above, I will offer the following: many years ago I spoke with the reviewer for a newspaper where the symphony orchestra of a medium-sized city was less than stellar. 

He was torn between describing the terrible number of flubs which detracted from every performance, and trying to put the orchestra in the best light to keep it from suffering a decline in ticket sales and support.

To compound the problem, he was not sure that if he did openly complain more often about the poor playing, that he might in fact force some changes, which would result in the orchestra improving.

On the other hand, is the role of the critic, especially today, so influential?  But I suppose that might depend on the nature of the orchestra and the city behind it.

Monsieur Croche wrote:

In the past, of course, the prevalent attitude seems to be that there were some sort of "universal" laws which govern how music should be like ...

I don't really understand how political theory plays a role in music criticism.

That takes me back to my opening on Adorno and others: the problem with such critics is that they tend mightily toward the fallacy of reductionism.

Using a rigid or eccentric philosophical framework to make artistic judgments (emphasis on the words "rigid" and "eccentric") could not be of much use except to those subscribing to the same philosophy.

Many thanks to all for the comments so far!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

That takes me back to my opening on Adorno and others: the problem with such critics is that they tend mightily toward the fallacy of reductionism.

Using a rigid or eccentric philosophical framework to make artistic judgments (emphasis on the words "rigid" and "eccentric") could not be of much use except to those subscribing to the same philosophy.

I am not going to attempt an introduction to Adorno's music philosophy, but I really think lumping Adorno with nameless 'critics' is undeserved and reductionist in itself. I have read a lot of Adorno, and with the passing of time some of his shortcomings are becoming easier to spot. I reject his insistence on (classical) music as monolinear in its development, so that only those composers the most 'advanced' in their use of the musical 'material' are worthy of our interest and are the only ones really 'alive' and 'valid' for the present. This high modernist attitude of Adorno's I don't accept (it led to his rejection of Sibelius). BUT - Adorno isn't so rigid that he can't be read with enormous profit. He is not an easy writer, and many have criticized his obscurity, but I have read too much that is so perceptive, that Adorno's shortcomings, in the final analysis, don't matter. The man was brilliant, and you don't have to belong to a neo-Marxist sect to recognize it... And for the Thomas Mann lovers among us - in a sense there wouldn't have been 'Doktor Faustus' without Adorno.

[Harry]

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but let me just offer some personal opinions (only personal opinions, mind!) 

I think that the primary role of the critic/reviewer is more to objectively describe rather than to judge. No doubt the critic will always be influenced by his own personal opinions, but sometimes we can extract certain objective facts from his writing even when it is couched in highly subjective terms (For example, a critic may write of the performance as being "rushed" while another feels that it was "lively" - from this I conclude that the work was played at a tempo that was faster than usual). I feel more inclined to respect critics who realize that they are writing to people of different tastes, and thus restrict themselves to providing basic facts about the work/performance which would aid the readers in forming their own decisions. In the past, of course, the prevalent attitude seems to be that there were some sort of "universal" laws which govern how music should be like (how else do you explain the rivalry between Brahms' and Wagner's supporters!) Naturally, in that kind of environment the role of the critic would be markedly different compared to the present-day which is much more accommodating to different aesthetic approaches!

Apart from being objective, the critic would of course need to have at least an elementary understanding of music theory and history, as well as years of listening experience under his belt. He would also need to be well-equipped with the vocabulary to accurately describe what he feels about the music/performance, and preferably gifted with a dose of wit to entertain his audience (why doesn't anybody write like Berlioz anymore!) It would be good if the critic also doubles as a musician or composer, because then they would be involved intimately in the process of music-making rather than judging from the position of an outside observer! Of course, ultimately every piece of music criticism should be judged on its own merits rather than on the qualification of the critic.

Ideally, yes, I think there should be a distinction between critics who evaluate works and those who evaluate performances, but I can think of occasions when this might be impractical; for instance, what is the latter to do when attending a world premiere, having no benchmark for comparison?

I don't really understand how political theory plays a role in music criticism. Every piece of music should first and foremost be evaluated on purely artistic considerations. Then, if indeed the piece is meant to express a political statement, it might be appropriate to assess how successfully it has served its purpose - though this, in my mind, is only a secondary perspective. The validity of that statement, in my opinion, is totally irrelevant to the quality of the music/performance.

Not being a expert my self I have the need to say that I totally agree with your assessment, to the letter.

[Cato]

I am not going to attempt an introduction to Adorno's music philosophy, but I really think lumping Adorno with nameless 'critics' is undeserved and reductionist in itself. I have read a lot of Adorno, and with the passing of time some of his shortcomings are becoming easier to spot. I reject his insistence on (classical) music as monolinear in its development, so that only those composers the most 'advanced' in their use of the musical 'material' are worthy of our interest and are the only ones really 'alive' and 'valid' for the present. This high modernist attitude of Adorno's I don't accept (it led to his rejection of Sibelius). BUT - Adorno isn't so rigid that he can't be read with enormous profit. He is not an easy writer, and many have criticized his obscurity, but I have read too much that is so perceptive, that Adorno's shortcomings, in the final analysis, don't matter. The man was brilliant, and you don't have to belong to a neo-Marxist sect to recognize it... And for the Thomas Mann lovers among us - in a sense there wouldn't have been 'Doktor Faustus' without Adorno.

Agreed!  I was simply concentrating specifically on one contradiction, among several, one being as you say the ability to be brilliantly wrong!

Also interesting is that he ultimately joins with conservative criticism of popular "kulcher." 

On topic: is there any information on the number of full-time music critics?  As newspapers continue to decline, I suspect she or he would be one of the first thrown overboard.

[jochanaan]

...Is it markedly different today from earlier decades (centuries)?

I feel that it is.  In the old days, there were no recordings, and composer, soloist and conductor were often the same person; so a person could judge the music on a rather holistic basis.  Now, many more people have heard recordings than have been to live concerts, the composer is almost never the conductor or soloist, and truly new music is a fraction of the total repertoire.

If I were a reviewer (I've written some reviews as a creative exercise, but someone pointed out to me that as a performing musician I might have some severe conflicts of interest if I were actually to work as a reviewer ), I would try to recreate the performance for the reader.  For music such as Beethoven or Tchaikovsky, I would say nothing about the music that was played, since most people who read music reviews are probably familiar with most of the major works by these composers; but for modern or unfamiliar music, of course I would add some description.  "Keep it short" is probably the best practice in this, to save space for the more important task of describing the performance.  And because I'm very aware that my tastes are not universal, I would try to keep them out of the review altogether; if I couldn't, I'd make the reader aware of my own prejudices insofar as I'm aware of them.  That's all a reviewer (I think "critic" is a less-satisfactory word here) can do.

[Monsieur Croche]

Fine post, bhodges.

I don't really understand how political theory plays a role in music criticism. Every piece of music should first and foremost be evaluated on purely artistic considerations. Then, if indeed the piece is meant to express a political statement, it might be appropriate to assess how successfully it has served its purpose - though this, in my mind, is only a secondary perspective. The validity of that statement, in my opinion, is totally irrelevant to the quality of the music/performance.

I think anything, including politics, is fair game to mention when describing the context of a work's creation.  That's what makes Alex Ross's new book so enjoyable, is his constant return to the different environments in which 20th-century composers were working.

Let me make a little clarification here: I didn't mean to say that political considerations were useless in trying to understand a work. I'm only stating that it's not quite right to say that a work is "good" or "bad" just because of the political message it contains, or - worse still - to try and read such messages into a work when there is obviously none.

[DavidRoss]

Adorno was an idiot.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Adorno was an idiot.

Thanks. I'll add one to my list.

[Cato]

Fine post, bhodges.

Let me make a little clarification here: I didn't mean to say that political considerations were useless in trying to understand a work. I'm only stating that it's not quite right to say that a work is "good" or "bad" just because of the political message it contains, or - worse still - to try and read such messages into a work when there is obviously none.

George Orwell reported a story about someone giving a talk about either music or art to a group of socialists.  At the end somebody asked the speaker: "Is there socialism in this piece?"

To the man with the hammer... 

and we don't mean M.C.!   

On Jochanaan: any conflict of interest could be smoothed over by an obviously objective mind-set!   0:) 

One might say that precisely because you are a performer, your reviews would be better than a reviewer who has never had the experience.

On whether Adorno was an idiot: probably not!  Was he wrong about some, or even many things?  Yes.

[Don]

One might say that precisely because you are a performer, your reviews would be better than a reviewer who has never had the experience.

On the political front, that's pretty much Hillary Clinton's argument.

[Cato]

On the political front, that's pretty much Hillary Clinton's argument.

Aye!  Note the use of the word "might" !   

[Don]

Aye!  Note the use of the word "might" !   

Duly noted.

There are two types of record reviews that tick me off.  One is where the reviewer offers objective statements without ever giving an opinion of the merit of the performances.  The other is when it's clear that the reviewer has a bias that ruins the review - like when a reviewer covers a period instrument performance but hates the sound of period instruments.