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 :o 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.)
Some very good questions there, Cato. Looking forward to what the experts have to say.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
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? :-\
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
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?
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2008, 03:52:09 AM
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 :D, 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:
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 08, 2008, 07:50:50 AM
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:
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AMWhich 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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AMShould 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."
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AMShould political theory not be involved in music criticism (as opposed to politics), unless (Socialist :o 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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AMDoes/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
Marvinbrown wrote:
QuoteWhat 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:
QuoteI 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:
QuoteIn 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!
Quote from: Cato on May 08, 2008, 08:54:02 AM
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.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 08, 2008, 07:50:50 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Jezetha on May 08, 2008, 09:11:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Cato on May 07, 2008, 10:35:15 AM
...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 :o), 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.
Fine post,
bhodges.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 08, 2008, 07:50:50 AM
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.
Quote from: bhodges on May 08, 2008, 08:16:42 AM
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.
Adorno was an idiot.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 08, 2008, 05:06:51 PM
Adorno was an idiot.
Thanks. I'll add one to my list.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 08, 2008, 04:20:00 PM
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.! 8)
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.
Quote from: Cato on May 09, 2008, 06:24:21 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: Don on May 09, 2008, 06:40:39 AM
On the political front, that's pretty much Hillary Clinton's argument. ;D
Aye! Note the use of the word "might" ! 8)
Quote from: Cato on May 09, 2008, 07:15:12 AM
Aye! Note the use of the word "might" ! 8)
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.
Quote from: Don on May 09, 2008, 07:39:00 AM
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.
I have read reviews where the reviewer starts to sound like a wine connoisseur, "a forward taste, yet slightly reserved, evoking the spirits of the ancient Tuscans, but without disturbing the mintiness of their spears."
He offers you his opinion, but you still have no idea what the performance is like! ???
An example using sports metaphors by Sally Vallongo of the Toledo Blade about a performance of the Tchaikovsky Second Piano Concerto:
"A commanding presence physically, (William) Wolfram also brought authority to the keyboard, particularly during the long first movement, Allegro Brillante. A consummate ensemble player during tutti passages, he stepped up during an extended, cadenzalike solo in the same movement. There, it was simply pedal to the metal, although speed and dexterity never overtook clarity and definition.
The tenderest moments came during the second movement, an Andante, in which Wolfram was joined by concertmaster Kirk Toth and principal cellist Martha Reikow, as soloists with the orchestra - a later version of the concerto grosso.
Opening with one of Tchaikovsky's most heartfelt chords, the Andante proceeded delicately from solo violin to duo to trio. Each player melded with the orchestra, then emerged for a brilliant turn of musical phrase.
The final movement, Allegro con fuoco, lived up to the tempo marking that translates, with fire, once more casting Wolfram in the starring position.
It seemed his hungry fingers were eating up the keyboard, spinning out complex runs on all 88 keys, then breaking for a powerful melodic statement.
After the final thundering chord, the large audience drew him back for three curtain calls."
My emphasis above.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080510/ART10/805100438
It occurs to me that I have not ever heard the Second Concerto, and I cannot think why.
Quote from: karlhenning on May 13, 2008, 03:56:53 AM
It occurs to me that I have not ever heard the Second Concerto, and I cannot think why.
This definitely needs rectified, then, as I think it's one of his most underrated works. Unfortunately most recordings cut out large parts of the slow movement (blame Siloti for this piece of butchery, which removes some of the most lyrical music Tchaikovsky ever wrote). However Scherbakhov on Naxos, Pletnev on Virgin and Donohoe on EMI all give good accounts of the complete score (though IIRC a few minor cuts are retained in the case of the first two). I don't think any of them are quite up to the level of Gilels in the outer movements, though.
Serendipity! I have noticed that another topic brought up Eduard Hanslick, the (in)famous critic from the last half of the 19th century in Vienna.
Here is an excerpt from his review of the premiere of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony.
"The new symphony surprised us, first of all, by its peculiar form.
In the first movement, an introductory Adagio leads to a nervous,
passionate Allegro. This gives way to a dreamy Andante in D major
which, following a short interlude, dominates to the end. Thus it
happens that in this first fast movement a slow tempo prevails.
Another peculiarity is the Scherzo, in five-four time. This disagree
able rhythm, actually a continual wavering between simple and
compound time, is used rarely and only episodically (as in Delibes'
Le Roi l'a dit and in the third act of Tristan and Isolde). Consistently
retained through a long symphonic movement, it is disturbing to
listeners and players alike. The ear is always substituting more
comfortable measures, dividing five-four into two and three parts,
or into three and two -- an intolerably worrisome procedure. It is,
moreover, superfluous, since the piece could be adapted to six-eight
time without damage."
The 5/4 time concerns the second movement, not the "Scherzo" which he dislikes for its "Cossack" atmosphere. But on the whole the review is not unsympathetique, so to speak!
Would a modern critic dare to advise a composer on how to handle the tempi in his composition? :o
Quote from: Cato on May 14, 2008, 04:02:10 AM
The 5/4 time concerns the second movement, not the "Scherzo" which he dislikes for its "Cossack" atmosphere. But on the whole the review is not unsympathetique, so to speak!
Would a modern critic dare to advise a composer on how to handle the tempi in his composition? :o
You mean meter, not tempi, right? 8)
Quote from: Hanslick"Another peculiarity is the Scherzo, in five-four time. This
disagreeable rhythm, actually a continual wavering between
simple and compound time, is used rarely and only episodically
(as in Delibes' Le Roi l'a dit and in the third act of Tristan and
Isolde). Consistently retained through a long symphonic
movement, it is disturbing to listeners and players alike. The
ear is always substituting more comfortable measures, dividing
five-four into two and three parts, or into three and two -- an
intolerably worrisome procedure."
This snapshot of Hanslick's discomfort with quintuple meter is fascinating.
And a reminder that the unthinking belief that one's own musical experience is normative for everyone, is a misprision not unique to
(* ahem *) some among us 0:)
Quote from: karlhenning on May 14, 2008, 04:25:10 AM
You mean meter, not tempi, right? 8)
This snapshot of Hanslick's discomfort with quintuple meter is fascinating.
And a reminder that the unthinking belief that one's own musical experience is normative for everyone, is a misprision not unique to (* ahem *) some among us 0:)
Duh, meter! Right! I have always found that objection so fascinating: is it possible he was hearing something differently? I thought, when I first read this review over 4 decades ago that perhaps the conductor did not handle the 5/4 correctly, but Hanslick thinks the meter is by definition unpleasant.
What would he have thought of the very definite 5/8 in
Rachmaninov's Isle of the Dead ?On the other hand, Hanslick was an acolyte of
Brahms in the
Kampf gegen Wagner!On the other
other hand, he was sniffily dismissive of
Bruckner and not just because
Bruckner was included in the
Wagner camp-Kampf!
Quote from: Cato on May 12, 2008, 04:07:42 AM
I have read reviews where the reviewer starts to sound like a wine connoisseur, "a forward taste, yet slightly reserved, evoking the spirits of the ancient Tuscans, but without disturbing the mintiness of their spears."
He offers you his opinion, but you still have no idea what the performance is like! ???
Has it not dawned on you? They are drinking while reviewing. A deadly combo, with sleep being the only winner.
Quote from: BorisG on May 15, 2008, 06:25:25 AM
Has it not dawned on you? They are drinking while reviewing. A deadly combo, with sleep being the only winner.
Oy! Oenophilia strikes again!
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 08, 2008, 05:06:51 PM
Adorno was an idiot.
I
thought I should familiarize myself with Adorno's writings before making another contribution on this thread. Thank you for the much-needed impetus,
David!
Quote from: Cato on May 12, 2008, 04:07:42 AM
I have read reviews where the reviewer starts to sound like a wine connoisseur, "a forward taste, yet slightly reserved, evoking the spirits of the ancient Tuscans, but without disturbing the mintiness of their spears."
He offers you his opinion, but you still have no idea what the performance is like! ???
This is why I mentioned in my first post that a reviewer needs to be proficient on the linguistic front, in order to avoid resorting to vague and inappropriate analogies... Has it occurred to you, in any case, that the reviewer is perhaps being intentionally vague, in order to mask his lack of opinion and put on airs of sophistication at the same time? Perhaps I'm being too cynical here, but then the profession of music criticism has had more than its fair share of charlatans over the years.
Quote from: Cato on May 09, 2008, 06:24:21 AM
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.! 8)
The best answer to that will of course be: "Only if you're a socialist yourself, fella."
M.C = Monsieur Croche, right?
Quote from: Cato on May 14, 2008, 06:50:14 AM
Duh, meter! Right! I have always found that objection so fascinating: is it possible he was hearing something differently? I thought, when I first read this review over 4 decades ago that perhaps the conductor did not handle the 5/4 correctly, but Hanslick thinks the meter is by definition unpleasant.
What would he have thought of the very definite 5/8 in Rachmaninov's Isle of the Dead ?
On the other hand, Hanslick was an acolyte of Brahms in the Kampf gegen Wagner!
On the other other hand, he was sniffily dismissive of Bruckner and not just because Bruckner was included in the Wagner camp-Kampf!
Almost everyone was dismissive of Bruckner at that time. I won't go into detail about Bruckner's music itself as I feel that there are many other threads on this forum where one can discuss this topic. Just a minor, perhaps banal, observation: Bruckner's symphonies are enormously long, and he wrote them at the time where the prevailing symphonic tradition dictated any symphony beyond a certain length would inevitably be doomed to failure. There's no preventing lazy critics from taking cheap shots at the works' lengths, and to level charges normally associated with overly long pieces - incoherence, for example - rather than trying to evaluate them on their own merits. His image as a country bumpkin certainly doesn't help much either.
I'm not fully sure if calling Hanslick an "acolyte" of Brahms is a really fair assessment of the man. Most of what we know (or at least, what
I know) of Hanslick are bits and pieces from the biographies of other composers, which perhaps tend to spotlight him at his most extreme. Is there a published collection of his writings somewhere? I have three volumes of writings by George Bernard Shaw (Haven't finished reading the entire thing, to be honest) and I get this impression that Shaw was generally more perceptive than his more famous quotes would indicate.
I am more interested in knowing Hanslick's reaction to Stravinsky's
Rite of Spring. I imagine he would just drop dead out of shock.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 15, 2008, 06:42:26 PM
I am more interested in knowing Hanslick's reaction to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I imagine he would just drop dead out of shock.
He had a pre-shock - he died in 1904. ;)
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on May 15, 2008, 06:42:26 PM
Is there a published collection of his writings somewhere? I have three volumes of writings by George Bernard Shaw (Haven't finished reading the entire thing, to be honest) and I get this impression that Shaw was generally more perceptive than his more famous quotes would indicate.
I am more interested in knowing Hanslick's reaction to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I imagine he would just drop dead out of shock.
Yes, there are collections of reviews and his books on aesthetics available on Amazon.
The original German is also available there, if you can read Deutsch.
If Hanslick had ever heard
Stravinsky's Firebird, let alone
Le Sacre , he would have been fulminating about "Coassack barbarism" for sure!
Quote from: Jezetha on May 15, 2008, 11:40:31 PM
He had a pre-shock - he died in 1904. ;)
What a tragic incident, and oh, what a cowardly thing to do by Mr. Hanslick! One would think that after all those mean-spiritedness and maliciousness towards fellow musicians throughout his career, he could at least have the dignity of dying, as Shostakovich put it, 'with a clear conscience'! I am deeply distressed by this knowledge; I wonder if there are any members here who are intelligent and courageous and kind-hearted enough to defend
Herr Doktor Hanslick, such that I may feel better?
Quote from: Cato on May 16, 2008, 05:49:12 AM
Yes, there are collections of reviews and his books on aesthetics available on Amazon.
The original German is also available there, if you can read Deutsch.
If Hanslick had ever heard Stravinsky's Firebird, let alone Le Sacre , he would have been fulminating about "Coassack barbarism" for sure!
Thanks, I will check those books out.
Conrad Osborne offered this obituary about
Richard Dyer, music critic for
The Boston Globe.(This might interest
@Karl Henning! )
Quote
I must open on a sad note by recording the death of a longtime colleague and friend, Richard Dyer, who for thirty years was the highly respected chief music critic for The Boston Globe.
Though we wrote for several of the same magazines (notably High Fidelity) from the 1960's onward, and Richard even reviewed me twice (once as novelist, once as actor) we did not actually cross paths except in passing until the last decade or so, when we finally had a couple of luncheon meetings up in the Berkshires (Tanglewood having been on his beat for all those years) and began a regular correspondence.
Richard's letters were full of keen observations and reminiscences, both professional and personal, and of a love of music and an optimism he somehow maintained to the end despite full awareness of the worsening trends. He was as knowledgeable about theatre as about music, and eagerly shared obscure materials in both areas. I'll miss Richard, as will all who knew him, and the world of classical music at large.
See:
https://conradlosborne.com/2025/01/18/the-mets-new-aida/ (https://conradlosborne.com/2025/01/18/the-mets-new-aida/)
Never met him but yes, I remember reading his column.