# Favorite Music Critics



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I spend a fair amount of time reading about music and recordings. I regularly read Fanfare, irregularly read the American Record Review, and occassionally glance at Gramophone and BBC Music. I also read books about music, currently slugging through LaGrange Mahler Volumes. I assume that others on this site do so as well.
Do you have any favorite Critics? Any one that you really hate? On the Fanfare masthead I can certainly do without Jerry Dubins. The Editor of ARG, Don Vroon also writes reviews that make me cringe. And Norman Lebrecht is in a class by himself...
How about others?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I have all five volumes of Andrew Porters collected writings in The New Yorker, and would never part with them.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

For me, a good music critic is one whose opinions I understand and who is mostly objective and consistent. I don't have to agree with their take, and often don't, but it gives me a basis for understanding how I would react to a recording. Names of some critics that come to mind, both past and present, include Tony Duggan (MusicWeb), Edward Greenfield (various), John Steane, Martin Bernheimer and Mark Swed (Los Angeles Times). These days the only place that I keep track of is MusicWeb although I am still trying to come to some understanding of their critics and quirks. I haven't looked at Fanfare in ages and gave up my Gramophone subscription about 10 years ago.

As to Lebrecht, the less said, the better!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

My favorites are both dead:

Harriett Johnson of the New York Post.

Harold C Schonberg of the New York Times.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I don't keep track of many critics, but Alex Ross comes to mind. I enjoy his insights in both short articles and from his book "The Rest is Noise"


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I subscribe to Fanfare and of the 57 reviewers, I can't find one whose opinions are consistently reliable in recommending CDs.

That's the essential problem with critics. Their words are not absolutes. They are expressing individual opinions. My own is the only one I trust.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I think Sibelius had it right:
"Take no notice of critics. No-one puts up statues to critics"


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> For me, a good music critic is one whose opinions I understand and who is mostly objective and consistent. I don't have to agree with their take, and often don't, but it gives me a basis for understanding how I would react to a recording. Names of some critics that come to mind, both past and present, include Tony Duggan (MusicWeb), Edward Greenfield (various), John Steane, Martin Bernheimer and Mark Swed (Los Angeles Times). These days the only place that I keep track of is MusicWeb although I am still trying to come to some understanding of their critics and quirks. I haven't looked at Fanfare in ages and gave up my Gramophone subscription about 10 years ago.
> 
> *As to Lebrecht, the less said, the better*!


Amen to that! :lol:


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Harold C. Schoenberg is (was, rather) the gold standard for me.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

These days I mostly just follow the critics who post daily in Current Listening.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I like _all_ music critics. While listening is nice and all, the point of music is to be talked about. (No irony here, I really think this way.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I believe I am my own favorite critic. My musical instincts are keen and I know a bad, fair, good, great performance when I hear it.

The problem is it's not always easy to audition a recording before one commits to purchasing it.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I subscribe to Fanfare and of the 57 reviewers, I can't find one whose opinions are consistently reliable in recommending CDs.
> 
> That's the essential problem with critics. Their words are not absolutes. They are expressing individual opinions. My own is the only one I trust.


 I've gotten dozens of Fanfare recommended cDs on my shelves that I regret. When I get the urge now to act on one of their recommendations I search Spotify for the recording, and if I like it I may order the CD.
Lately they have been having three reviewers or more all tackle the same recording. More often than not the 3 ofthem disagree completely. It has made me very skeptical of the reviewing process.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I believe I am my own favorite critic. My musical instincts are keen and I know a bad, fair, good, great performance when I hear it.
> 
> The problem is it's not always easy to audition a recording before one commits to purchasing it.


See the Spotify reference. Other streaming services can provide the same service.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> I like _all_ music critics. While listening is nice and all, the point of music is to be talked about. (No irony here, I really think this way.)


I often like reading critics too, but this opinion to me just seems unfathomable. That the whole point of music is to be talked about? I don't even think it is possible to fully convey the meaning of music through words - the point is to _experience_ it.

In the future I predict people will find a way to communicate telepathically to over come the limitations of speech. Words are clumsy tools when used for describing abstract things. Or even regular conversation like this.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Anthony Tommasini
Alex Ross


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I remember hearing Alex Ross (almost said alex jones....lol) talk about how cool and unemotional he thought music criticism was today, in contrast to how Berlioz, Wagner and Schumann wrote about music (being open/ honest/ hyperbolic about strong emotional reactions).


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Triplets said:


> I've gotten dozens of Fanfare recommended cDs on my shelves that I regret. When I get the urge now to act on one of their recommendations I search Spotify for the recording, and if I like it I may order the CD.
> Lately they have been having three reviewers or more all tackle the same recording. More often than not the 3 ofthem disagree completely. It has made me very skeptical of the reviewing process.


Join the club! Yes. They now have multiple reviews of the same performance and they rarely agree. Skeptical indeed! 

My "favorite" ridiculous review was of the Bach Cello Suites by a Chinese cellist named Wu. The reviewer praised it for its rhythm and dancing qualities. It was the most slow, plodding performance I ever heard! I have never purchased a CD again from this reviewer. ("JD", by the way.)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Triplets said:


> See the Spotify reference. Other streaming services can provide the same service.


Yes, thanks! It may be the only way to undo the damage these "experts" do.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Robert Layton (formerly of Gramophone)
Richard Osborne (Gramophone)
Anthony Tommasini (New York Times)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the critics should really have been taken to task by the Joyce Hatto affair, which showed how utterly subjective their profession is. Recordings that had been damned with faint praise were suddenly exalted to the skies when it was thought they were Hatto's work. I did write to the gramophone at the time suggesting some of their critics might like to consider their position but I never got a reply from the editor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Orfeo said:


> Robert Layton (formerly of Gramophone)
> Richard Osborne (Gramophone)
> Anthony Tommasini (New York Times)


Osbourne seems one of the better critics. I liked the late John Steane as well.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Osbourne seems one of the better critics. I liked the late John Steane as well.


Me too. I like also David Fanning and John Warrack, although I would not count them as my favorites (I find them as rather too biased for my taste, although I find them rather scholarly and encyclopedic in their writings). David Gutman is also alright.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Join the club! Yes. They now have multiple reviews of the same performance and they rarely agree. Skeptical indeed!
> 
> My "favorite" ridiculous review was of the Bach Cello Suites by a Chinese cellist named Wu. The reviewer praised it for its rhythm and dancing qualities. It was the most slow, plodding performance I ever heard! I have never purchased a CD again from this reviewer. ("JD", by the way.)


 I wrote some letter complaining about JD to the Editor, and it was referred to JD. He and I then had brief and cordial exchange. He was more likeable than you would think from reading his magazine contributions, but as per your experience
I find myself at variance with his musical tastes and was burned on several CDs. I now regard his opinions through an inversion lens--if he slams something I think that I might like it, and vice versa


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

The critic that influenced me the most was the late Rodolfo Celletti.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Triplets said:


> I've gotten dozens of Fanfare recommended cDs on my shelves that I regret. When I get the urge now to act on one of their recommendations I search Spotify for the recording, and if I like it I may order the CD.
> Lately they have been having three reviewers or more all tackle the same recording. More often than not the 3 ofthem disagree completely. It has made me very skeptical of the reviewing process.


I think that's a good sign of individuality. What I don't like about Fanfare is its increased coverage of "feature" recordings that requires advertising. With that connection in line, Fanfare usually will not allow the review to be published unless it's favorable.
This is a bad policy which corrupts the feature section. So I gave up my subscription.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I think that's a good sign of individuality. What I don't like about Fanfare is its increased coverage of "feature" recordings that requires advertising. With that connection in line, Fanfare usually will not allow the review to be published unless it's favorable.
> This is a bad policy which corrupts the feature section. So I gave up my subscription.


 Yeah, the Editor has had several Editorials defending the Policy. I understand your objection, and I think that might be one of the reason for the multiple reviews of every recording. If it's a dud, they eventually will find one critic to praise it, and then that critic can be quoted on various web sites selling the disc


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Triplets said:


> Yeah, the Editor has had several Editorials defending the Policy.


Right, and the defense can't get around the fact that most readers don't want reviews thrown in the garbage because they are not favorable.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

I am not so exposed to non-Italian critics (actually in Italy we have some critics I do like: Lorenzo Arruga, Quirino Principe, Piero Rattalino, the immortal Massimo Mila, just to name a few)

I also do enjoy reading David Hurwitz and his reviews from ClassicsToday.com. I've read he previously wrote for Fanfare, so that magazine shouldn't have been that bad...


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Orfeo said:


> Robert Layton (formerly of Gramophone)
> Richard Osborne (Gramophone)
> Anthony Tommasini (New York Times)


Richard Osborne is great. His book on Rossini is excellent.

Less keen on Charles.


----------

