# Do critics really matter? Famous chief music critics



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

Yes, they do matter, I believe. But not just because of their opinions but because they contribute with their expertise to debate and discussion (of course, with some exceptions). The critic could be an institution himself...
So, honorable colleagues and participants, who are the critics you respect?
Let me begin with some of my favorites:

Paul Bekker
Ronald Crichton
Arthur Jacobs


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

No one built a statue to a critic.*
(*may be inaccurate)


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Good, honest, and competent critics definitely do matter.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

If you read magazines and newspapers from decades ago you'll find out what a real critic is. Try to find a copy of Musical America from the 1950s. It's stunning to behold. Makes you wanna cry for how much we've lost. The NYT, Time magazine, and others used to have highly qualified, intelligent, literate critics. Stereo Review and HIgh FIdelity magazines had great classical critics. My local "news"paper had several excellent ones over the years. Now they're all gone. There are very, very few I really trust out there. Hurwitz is good, but so often I find myself at odds with his opinions. Don Vroon at American Record Guide is better, more honest I think. The guys who write for Musicweb-International are generally excellent, but too often long-winded. I've kept all of my old Penguin guides - probably a dozen of them and find them still very useful. And every American Record guide since 1984, but the lack of indexing makes them less and less useful. Gramophone has a nice online lookup system, and their reviews I usually find fair with a decided bias towards British performers and recordings.

This site should be more active than it is; too many vote-for-lists and nonsense have turned a lot of people off. Maybe it needs a new thread: CD reviews.


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> Maybe it needs a new thread: CD reviews.


Interesting idea, we could talk about new releases


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I read what they say and take little notice but reviews contain some nuggets of info that I wouldn't be aware of otherwise so for that they are useful.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

FrankE said:


> No one built a statue to a critic.*
> (*may be inaccurate)


 Apparently, Sibelius said this .


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Anyone with interesting ideas about music I listen to or styles I like is worth hearing out. For me that hasn't tended to be professional music critics like those listed in the OP, but rather theorists, aestheticians, and other musicians. If those qualify as critics then to me they matter.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

These music critics, at least a lot of them, are not familiar with various mechanical noises that emit from a pipe organ. Some pipes "chiff" as air enters the base of the pipe. On music critic for a concert I played eons ago was "completely distracted by some clacking sound while the organist was playing". I guess the natural sounding chiff is now a clack. . If they would simply look up information on a solo instrument they are going to review they would have found that such mechanical noises are quite natural!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

That's just one indicator of the problem with too many critics: they don't really know much about music. There's an interesting recording of the Widor 5th Symphony played on a pre-electric organ; instead of a blower there are bellows with people pumping them, and there's no electical means of changing the registration - it had to be done manually. It's a fascinating recording but herky-jerky and as there are some quick changes in registration that cause a momentary blip in the playing. One reviewer just rained fire and brimstone on the "grossly incompetent" and "unmusical" playing. If he had bothered to even read the booklet he would have figured it out. 

There used to be a radio show in the US, First Hearing, where some noted critics like Olin Downes and Martin Bookspan who listened to a movement or excerpt of a new recording and then commented on it before knowing who the performers were or even what label it was on. There were many, many times those professional critics were red-faced with embarrassment for their pompous, know-it-all attitude that caught them in lie after lie.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I find Benjamin Perl to be knowledgeable


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> ... There were many, many times those professional critics were red-faced with embarrassment for their pompous, know-it-all attitude that caught them in lie after lie.


Ouch! ... For me, the classical music critics I have disliked the most are the ones who also had a lot of clout behind the scenes. Nevertheless, there are some who I've looked forward to reading including Alex Ross, Andrew Porter, and Edward Rothstein. I don't know anything about the European critics including the British ones, but maybe critics and criticism are an area we could get into more, having the knowledge base there is at TC.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

I don't know much about critics, but I imagine that a good critic would focus on the objective rather than subjective qualities of the music. That is to say, instead of making value judgments like "this piece sucks" or even praising the music, a critic's review should be more descriptive. I'd like to have a good idea of what the music is like before listening.

"Objective" qualities like how much a theme is developed, what chord progressions are present. How fast or slow the performance is relative to other renditions, etc.


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> I find Benjamin Perl to be knowledgeable


Superb! He is a real gem


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Critics may not always be precise or even right.It's important with people leading busy lives to have people to guide us in the direction of good entertainment.Without critics we would not know where to look in the first place.

It's like in pro sports they have scouts sent out to college and minor league games to see new talent.Scouts are not always right but give professional teams options


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> If you read magazines and newspapers from decades ago you'll find out what a real critic is. Try to find a copy of Musical America from the 1950s. It's stunning to behold. Makes you wanna cry for how much we've lost. The NYT, Time magazine, and others used to have highly qualified, intelligent, literate critics. Stereo Review and HIgh FIdelity magazines had great classical critics. My local "news"paper had several excellent ones over the years. Now they're all gone. There are very, very few I really trust out there. Hurwitz is good, but so often I find myself at odds with his opinions. Don Vroon at American Record Guide is better, more honest I think. The guys who write for Musicweb-International are generally excellent, but too often long-winded. I've kept all of my old Penguin guides - probably a dozen of them and find them still very useful. And every American Record guide since 1984, but the lack of indexing makes them less and less useful. Gramophone has a nice online lookup system, and their reviews I usually find fair with a decided bias towards British performers and recordings.
> 
> This site should be more active than it is; too many vote-for-lists and nonsense have turned a lot of people off. Maybe it needs a new thread: CD reviews.


Totally agree about Penguin guides. Priceless By the way, one of the reasons of my high respect to Paul Bekker, is this work

Link: Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker : Schumann, Robert, 1810-1856 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Of course they matter if we are talking specifically about recordings - however I would suggest that their influence on individual listeners wanes as the listener gains experience and learns to trust their own ears.
To be fair even the most experienced and knowledgeable listener can be directed to a new or obscure name or recording by a review that piques their interest.
Having said all that a good critic can direct but ultimately its the listeners choice.

*Edit *- I did mean to say streaming has made it easier to trust your own ears which diminishes the critics influence to a degree.


----------



## espressivo dolente (7 mo ago)

The _American Record Guide_ has been mentioned several times; so should _Fanfare_ (personally, I prefer it): Fanfare Magazine Archive of CD Reviews: Archive Home I'm occasionally impressed (and often depressed) with the "critics" on Amazon. But to return to the OP's central question, yes, I think they matter a great deal, though the Internet has changed the scene to such an extent that - at least in terms of promoting awareness, say of a recording - they are less significant than formerly. Except for the major newspapers, the art of classical music reviewing (indeed, it's safe to say with all music reviewing) is in a dismal state. BTW, with older recordings I find it great fun to search the Internet Archive : Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine for _Stereo Review_ and other similar magazines for their takes on recordings - the writing is often insightful and illuminating.


----------



## Demented (8 mo ago)

Georgieva said:


> Yes, they do matter, I believe. But not just because of their opinions but because they contribute with their expertise to debate and discussion (of course, with some exceptions). The critic could be an institution himself...
> So, honorable colleagues and participants, who are the critics you respect?
> Let me begin with some of my favorites:
> 
> ...


My Favorite music critic was Jim Sveda- who had a show called The Record Shelf- he also wrote some Guides that I enjoyed 
Also Martin Bookspan (?) wrote a guide that I liked
Ardoin wrote a nice book about Furtwangler’s recordings that was helpful- Nicolas Slonimsky’s writings are funny and enlightening- he was an advocate of Edgard Varese - worked as an assistant to Serge Kousevitsky- and had a hilarious and quite profound encounter with Frank Zappa at the end of both of their illustrious lives.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

The grave of Eduard Hanslick - influential critic and chief bugbear of Anton Bruckner. Not many fresh flowers there by the looks of it, unless you count the invasive ivy.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

elgar's ghost said:


> The grave of Eduard Hanslick - influential critic and chief bugbear of Anton Bruckner. Not many fresh flowers there by the looks of it, unless you count the invasive ivy.



But at least Hanslick was correct in his assessment of Bruckner's music.


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

elgar's ghost said:


> The grave of Eduard Hanslick - influential critic and chief bugbear of Anton Bruckner. Not many fresh flowers there by the looks of it, unless you count the invasive ivy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

haziz said:


> But at least Hanslick was correct in his assessment of Bruckner's music.


Bit of a stick-in-the mud, though, don't you think? The more I read of him the more I think he wanted music to be entombed in a mid-19th century permafrost.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

haziz said:


> But at least Hanslick was correct in his assessment of Bruckner's music.


He wasn't correct at all. Here's a fact: Bruckner is currently receiving more recordings than two of your favorites: Tchaikovsky and Dvořák. This doesn't make him a "better" composer by any means, but it does mean that people find his music important and, most of all, compelling.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think critics do matter, for the following reasons. These are not mutually exclusive, and they're related to the emergence of musicology as an academic discipline in the late 19th century:

1. Documenting what happened in history. Their insights are invaluable to understanding what happened on the music scene. A couple of early examples I can think of are Charles Burney and E.T.A. Hoffmann.

2. Crystallising important debates which helped shape music. People like Hanslick and Adorno (or in visual art, Baudelaire) act as reference points for important theoretical, aesthetic and ideological currents of their time.

3. Giving an inside view of music. Berlioz and Schumann are early examples, and in the 20th century there are the likes of Virgil Thomson and Copland. I've enjoyed reading Andrew Ford, who as a composer and broadcaster can be described as being part of this strand.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> He wasn't correct at all. Here's a fact: Bruckner is currently receiving more recordings than two of your favorites: Tchaikovsky and Dvořák. This doesn't make him a "better" composer by any means, but it does mean that people find his music important and, most of all, compelling.



Let's agree to disagree. Are there worse composers than Bruckner? Yes, but not too many. Schoenberg does come to mind.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

They used to matter in the days when people read books and periodicals. Those days are in the main over and now people go to the Internet for free advice. The number of people who buy published criticism (periodicals, books, magazines, etc.) is in the thousands; it was once in the millions.

In the days when the_ Penguin Guide to Classical Music_ was published and updated every couple years it could create a best selling classical album by giving it a good review whether or not anyone had ever heard of the performance or conductor. I saw this happen with Frank Shipway's recording of the Mahler Fifth Symphony. No one had heard of Shipway before ... and no one has since.

In the 1970s when (what was then called) mass media (magazines, newspapers, other print media) would jump on a new recording en masse and give it a five star review it could sell a couple million copies and make a recording company rich. I saw that happen with Dorati's Haydn symphonies among others.

This phenomenon no longer occurs because no Internet critic or batch of critics has/ the influence.

Today a good selling classical recording might sell 5,000 downloads, streams or CDs. The company might make something from a CD sale; I've read performers make about one cent from a stream, maybe a nickel from a download.

So it doesn't much matter what a critic says anymore it's not going to lead to an avalanche or sales for a recording. The evidence is clear that, when the printing press and classical music parted ways, so did their sales as well as the influence of critics.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

larold said:


> They used to matter in the days when people read books and periodicals. Those days are in the main over and now people go to the Internet for free advice.
> 
> In the days when the_ Penguin Guide to Classical Music_ was published and updated every couple years (the last version was published 2010) it could create a best selling classical album by giving it a good review whether or not anyone had ever heard of the performance or conductor. This no longer occurs.
> 
> ...


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I also remember reading about the first wave of audiophile collectors where albums like the RCA LSC copy of "Pictures at an Exhibition" became highly valuable and sought after because one individual guy in The Ultimate Sound or whatever called it the best sounding record ever pressed. Those days are gone as well.

Critics can be valuable for providing context to a work but the days of them making and breaking careers are over. I think the only critic with that power anymore is whoever the theater/drama critic at the New York Times is.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

haziz said:


> Let's agree to disagree. Are there worse composers than Bruckner? Yes, but not too many. Schoenberg does come to mind.


Along with Stravinsky and Bartok, Schoenberg was one of the greatest composers of the 20th century; a true genius—period.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

When will people learn that because you may not like a composers work that does not make them a bad composer - it merely makes them a composer you don't care for.

Sorry to the OP for the minor diversion.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Malx said:


> When will people learn that because you may not like a composers work that does not make them a bad composer - it merely makes them a composer you don't care for.
> 
> Sorry to the OP for the minor diversion.



That goes without saying. There is no objective standard when it comes to music. That has never stopped participants on this forum from making their opinion known, myself included. It is actually the reason many hang out on this forum, again myself included.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Hanslick, with his critic hat on, made judgements as he was called upon to do. His opinions (which included negative assessments of both Bruckner and Tchaikovsky) can be read as snapshots of the era. As a theorist, Hanslick is indispensable to understanding what happened in the latter half of the 19th century. _On the Musically Beautiful _is a seminal text of the period.

Another similarly maligned critic of the period is Saint-Saens. He was passionate about following the music scene right up until the end. He attended many premieres, including Strauss' _Salome_ and works by Debussy, Prokofiev and Schoenberg. Most only remember him for his reaction during the _Rite of Spring_, but to give him credit, he stayed in his seat until the end of the ballet. In his old age, he wasn't an advocate of new music, but he certainly wanted to hear it. His writings on music still offer insight and are interesting to read.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Georgieva said:


> Yes, they do matter, I believe. But not just because of their opinions but because they contribute with their expertise to debate and discussion (of course, with some exceptions). The critic could be an institution himself...
> So, honorable colleagues and participants, who are the critics you respect?
> Let me begin with some of my favorites:
> 
> ...


Music Critics that you actually respect… | Classical Music Forum (talkclassical.com)


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Music Critics that you actually respect… | Classical Music Forum (talkclassical.com)


Yes, but please. The main question there is "Do critics really matter?" _Hamlet_ now seems to make a decision, don't you think ?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Georgieva said:


> Yes, but please. The main question there is "Do critics really matter?" _Hamlet_ now seems to make a decision, don't you think ?


My post answered your question about critics we respect.

As to your question about whether they matter, I'm tempted to answer simultaneously, "Of course", and, "No."

Performers need feedback on their work, and critics, on behalf of the audience, provide it. How else will artists know what their listeners think, since its not really practical to routinely ask Joe Public.

On the other hand, not having critics wouldn't stop performers performing.

I'm not sure where Hamlet fits in here.


----------



## Fritzb43 (Mar 29, 2020)

larold said:


> They used to matter in the days when people read books and periodicals. Those days are in the main over and now people go to the Internet for free advice. The number of people who buy published criticism (periodicals, books, magazines, etc.) is in the thousands; it was once in the millions.
> 
> In the days when the_ Penguin Guide to Classical Music_ was published and updated every couple years it could create a best selling classical album by giving it a good review whether or not anyone had ever heard of the performance or conductor. I saw this happen with Frank Shipway's recording of the Mahler Fifth Symphony. No one had heard of Shipway before ... and no one has since.
> 
> ...


Free advice is worth about as much as you paid for it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

haziz said:


> That goes without saying. There is no objective standard when it comes to music.


That is true, obviously. But one can look at the long-term consensus in a particular society on aesthetic issues and draw some general but objective conclusions about the aesthetic values that prevail or are trending in that particular society. The best art critics don't trumpet their individual opinions but have a good understanding of those prevailing values and a good instinct for those trends.


----------



## ttc359 (12 mo ago)

BH Haggin turned me on to Berlioz. That I appreciate.

That said, one of my fav composers is Bruckner and ofc Haggins hated AB, so... to each his own.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

"critics are mortification of works"


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> If you read magazines and newspapers from decades ago you'll find out what a real critic is. Try to find a copy of Musical America from the 1950s. It's stunning to behold. Makes you wanna cry for how much we've lost. The NYT, Time magazine, and others used to have highly qualified, intelligent, literate critics. Stereo Review and HIgh FIdelity magazines had great classical critics. My local "news"paper had several excellent ones over the years. Now they're all gone. There are very, very few I really trust out there. Hurwitz is good, but so often I find myself at odds with his opinions. Don Vroon at American Record Guide is better, more honest I think. The guys who write for Musicweb-International are generally excellent, but too often long-winded. I've kept all of my old Penguin guides - probably a dozen of them and find them still very useful. And every American Record guide since 1984, but the lack of indexing makes them less and less useful. Gramophone has a nice online lookup system, and their reviews I usually find fair with a decided bias towards British performers and recordings.
> 
> This site should be more active than it is; too many vote-for-lists and nonsense have turned a lot of people off. Maybe it needs a new thread: CD reviews.


I do agree with both your points.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

larold said:


> They used to matter in the days when people read books and periodicals. Those days are in the main over and now people go to the Internet for free advice. The number of people who buy published criticism (periodicals, books, magazines, etc.) is in the thousands; it was once in the millions.
> 
> In the days when the_ Penguin Guide to Classical Music_ was published and updated every couple years it could create a best selling classical album by giving it a good review whether or not anyone had ever heard of the performance or conductor. I saw this happen with Frank Shipway's recording of the Mahler Fifth Symphony. No one had heard of Shipway before ... and no one has since.
> 
> ...


Sadly, I have to agree. Our society has become less literate. Tweets, 30-second video clips, and even shorter buzz words and phrases have taken over from thoughtful, informed commentary. Today's music critics may be just as well educated and informed -- Anthony Tommasini, until recently the NY Times chief music critic, has a PhD from Yale. But you seldom see the lengthy, detailed articles the major newspapers used to run in today's mainstream media. Search the NYT archives for reviews by music critic Olin Downes or theater critic Brooks Atkinson. Virgil Thomson, critic for the NY Herald Tribune, a legendary newspaper that died in 1967, was a noted composer and wrote many books. Those were the days. 

Edit: You may notice with many of these critics of yesteryear that their personal opinions and tastes often differ from those that prevail today. But for me, what matters more is their high levels of knowledge and literacy.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mara Parker, who claims to have examined over 650 string quartet works from 1750-1797 (and is much better than the overrated Charles Rosen) -








(2018)

"As so much scholarship is devoted to Mozart and Haydn at the expense of other composers, I wanted to avoid this pitfall as much as possible."

"Hickman criticizes the developmental approach, stating that the idea that Haydn invented the string quartet and single-handedly advanced the genre is based on only a vague notion of the true history of the eighteenth-century genre. In a number of articles, Hickman argues for the recognition of various types of quartet, each of which can be related to and distinguished from each other, and whose popularity and prominence rises and falls."

"The string quartet of the second half of the eighteenth century is often presented as a medium which underwent a logical progression from first-violin dominated homophony to the conversation among four equal participants. To a certain extent, this holds true if one restricts oneself to the works of Haydn and Mozart, and some of their contemporaries. My own research initially led to me believe this be to a provable and convincing argument. Once I began examining the actual works, however, I realized my assumptions were continuously being challenged, and that things were not nearly as nice and tidy as I had expected. Increasingly, I found numerous exceptions to my model and it was not long before I realized that my hypothesis was simply wrong."


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

They're valuable as an informed source (presumably) for food for thought, for looking at works in ways you might not have considered before. However when it comes to contemporary music I think their judgement generally just reflects what they think about contemporary music in the aggregate.


----------



## Dulova Harps On (Nov 2, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> If you read magazines and newspapers from decades ago you'll find out what a real critic is. Try to find a copy of Musical America from the 1950s. It's stunning to behold. Makes you wanna cry for how much we've lost. The NYT, Time magazine, and others used to have highly qualified, intelligent, literate critics. Stereo Review and HIgh FIdelity magazines had great classical critics. My local "news"paper had several excellent ones over the years. Now they're all gone. There are very, very few I really trust out there. Hurwitz is good, but so often I find myself at odds with his opinions. Don Vroon at American Record Guide is better, more honest I think. The guys who write for Musicweb-International are generally excellent, but too often long-winded. I've kept all of my old Penguin guides - probably a dozen of them and find them still very useful. And every American Record guide since 1984, but the lack of indexing makes them less and less useful. Gramophone has a nice online lookup system, and their reviews I usually find fair with a decided bias towards British performers and recordings.
> 
> This site should be more active than it is; too many vote-for-lists and nonsense have turned a lot of people off. Maybe it needs a new thread: CD reviews.


Archive of copies of Musical America for those interested:
Musical America 1898-1992 Musical America 1898-1992 : Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive via @internetarchive


----------

