# Why Music Criticism is so Annoying



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

On this site and elsewhere there is often a lot of debate, sometimes quite heated, about comparing one recording to another. Some people claim that their chosen disk is the ultimate version of all time. Of course a lot of this is nonsense. Today I came upon two reviews of the same recording from supposedly respected sites. They couldn't be more opposite. When the pros can't even describe a recording in the same way, how can the consumer know who to trust? The first is from Classics Today. The next clip from Music Web International. The former dismisses it as pointless. The latter gives it their Recommended label - very few recordings make that list.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> On this site and elsewhere there is often a lot of debate, sometimes quite heated, about comparing one recording to another. Some people claim that their chosen disk is the ultimate version of all time. Of course a lot of this is nonsense. Today I came upon two reviews of the same recording from supposedly respected sites. They couldn't be more opposite. When the pros can't even describe a recording in the same way, how can the consumer know who to trust?


The only reliable answer is to trust yourself. There are times when it seems that all the reviews are negative or positive and I find my views just the opposite. This often happens with Murray Perahia's Bach; the reviews are so glowing while I find his Bach ho-hum or worse.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I was interested in reading the contrasting reviews but was unable to expand them. Nevertheless, I believe the point was made... I never trust anyone blindly no matter how experienced or recognized, nor any professional reviewer, though they sometimes can be of interest with background information on the recording or performers. People judge music according to their own values of what's important in a performance and their personal associations-and that's different with each person because they've lived a different life.

I never buy or download anything that I haven't first sampled its spirit and sound quality and reviewed myself. I listen for hidden qualities in recordings that are too often missed, IMO, and wouldn't be understood by anyone other than myself. Having decided to do that, I've made very few mistakes over the years in paying for something that just doesn't work, though sometimes a poor performance can be just as instructive or illuminating as the good ones in what not to do.

If one hasn't taken a chance every now and then and failed, I doubt if anyone could tell a good recording from a poor one. I'm more interested in the journey and finding the value in each recording if it's there, however rich or poor it may be, and those who are like-minded in their independence of mind are the ones I value and respect as listeners because they try to _illuminate_ the strengths and weakness rather than just condemn a performance with malice along the lines of their very narrow personal standards or, far worse, their inexperience, especially when it comes to a composer that I greatly admire such as Mahler.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Certain critics usually have a certain approach to their appreciation of music. I feel Hurwitz and others on Classicstoday usually like the more extrovert interpretations of music. Grammophon I feel appreciate incisive playing better. Classicstoday was not too enthusiastic about Haintink's LSO Brahms cycle, which is my gateway recording to that repertoire. I have and always hated Klieber's contrasting tempos between phrases of Brahms's 4th, and agree Haintink's could sound boring in comparison, but I feel the music flows and holds together better, and way more coherent to me. But I wouldn't say it is the right approach.

I also feel some Classicstoday value sound quality more and it bleeds into their assessment of artistic quality. There are lot of 10/10 artistic/sound reviews of Naxos recordings that I feel are a bit short on interpretation, but I guess the sound makes them appreciate the artistry better?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I think that criticism is very important and useful, but it's still made by persons, so it's good to know what the critic likes and what he dislikes. When I have an affinity with the tastes of a critic I'm definitely much more inclined to hear a piece of music or watch a movie or see a work of art.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Perhaps if people refrained from making objective claims, and stated their a priori preferences beforehand, the criticism would be less annoying.

For instance, "because I enjoy brisk music with sumptuous sound, recording X by Herbert von Karajan really does it for me. If you have a similar preference, you should like it, too." 

Or "Because I prefer my Beethoven at a middle of the road set of tempii, neither Bernstein nor Chailly appeal to me."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The problem is that one of the critics was David Hurwitz who seems to delight in pretentious put-downs. A particularly ridiculous example is this "_Listening to Horenstein's inept Mahler conducting offers the chance to experience something akin to what the captain of the Titanic must have felt, knowing that the iceberg was looming up ahead but that he could do nothing to prevent a collision. Horenstein's Mahler, with one or two exceptions (the First Symphony on Unicorn), is barely competent._" I wonder how many other critics have a similar view, probably very few. For the most part I have come to the conclusion that if he dislikes something, I might well like it!

As to MusicWeb, they do have a few critics whose opinions have come to carry some weight with me (e.g. Dan Morgan), but even there ... caveat emptor.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A good critic's principal job is the be self-consistent -- or at least admit it when he isn't being. That way, over time, you match your taste with his and know how to react. The best crritics are also educational -- providing both historical information (presumably well researched and correct), and technical reasons behind his own judgement rather than just clever phrases.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Becca said:


> As to MusicWeb, they do have a few critics whose opinions have come to carry some weight with me (e.g. Dan Morgan), but even there ... caveat emptor.


P.S. I had not read the MusicWeb review prior to posting the above but have since and see it was written by Dan Morgan.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

There's a difference between a music critic and a music reviewer (either of recordings or actual performances). If you're lucky you can find a music reviewer whose taste is similar to yours. (I have not.) But music criticism involves thought about the music, even if it may derive from watching a performance. That's why I always enjoy Alex Ross of The New Yorker.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Solution: become a music critic yourself.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

jegreenwood said:


> There's a difference between a music critic and a music reviewer (either of recordings or actual performances). If you're lucky you can find a music reviewer whose taste is similar to yours. (I have not.) But music criticism involves thought about the music, even if it may derive from watching a performance. That's why I always enjoy Alex Ross of The New Yorker.


A distinction without a difference. Any reasonably competent music reviewer who doesn't include thought about the music is not worth reading.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Portamento said:


> Solution: become a music critic yourself.


Precisely! Become your own most trusted critic.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Portamento said:


> Solution: become a music critic yourself.


Been there, done that, now I let others sort the wheat from the chaff for me


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> A distinction without a difference. Any reasonably competent music reviewer who doesn't include thought about the music is not worth reading.


It's the only way a reviewer can win your confidence in his judgment.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> When the pros can't even describe a recording in the same way,


Would you mind posting their descriptions? Were they incompatible? Or did they focus on different but complementary things?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Becca said:


> A distinction without a difference. Any reasonably competent music reviewer who doesn't include thought about the music is not worth reading.


Well, a reviewer may include all sorts of comments about the music, and about the performance's relation to the music. But nothing _evaluative_ follows, I think.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> On this site and elsewhere there is often a lot of debate, sometimes quite heated, about comparing one recording to another. Some people claim that their chosen disk is the ultimate version of all time. Of course a lot of this is nonsense. Today I came upon two reviews of the same recording from supposedly respected sites. They couldn't be more opposite. When the pros can't even describe a recording in the same way, how can the consumer know who to trust? The first is from Classics Today. The next clip from Music Web International. The former dismisses it as pointless. The latter gives it their Recommended label - very few recordings make that list.
> 
> View attachment 113600
> 
> View attachment 113599


It's not surprising that evaluations should be incompatible is it? The reviewers were, to put it crudely, just in different moods when they listened.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Bulldog said:


> The only reliable answer is to trust yourself. There are times when it seems that all the reviews are negative or positive and I find my views just the opposite. This often happens with Murray Perahia's Bach; the reviews are so glowing while *I find his Bach ho-hum or worse.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> Interesting. I like his Bach. Shows how different people react to the same playing.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There was, off course, the infamous Joyce Hatto hoax where critics were caught with their pants down. Critics went wild about discs with 'Joyce Hatto' on them saying she was the greatest pianist that never was, when they were actually fakes taken from other artist's recordings, which had a mute or even negative reception from the SAME critics.. I did write to the Gramophone suggesting that some of the critics should consider their position but never had a reply. But it shows how utterly subjective criticism is once you get past the actual notes. Mind you, it doesn't just apply to music. Read about the infamous 'Hitler Diaries' episode and you will find that other 'experts' in the field were hoodwinked by a rather inexpert forger.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

It should not escape your notice that they were both reviewing a Mahler disc. Few other composer's recordings garner such contrasting views as Mahler recordings. For some, Barbirolli and Horenstein are gods in Mahler whilst for others it's Tennstedt, Gielen, Bertini or Kubelik. Yeah, just listen. You'll find what you like. The most unreliable reviews are from Allmusic. Some of their 10/10 recommendations are pants and those they slag mercilessly are often good or even better. As for Hurwitz I do like his reviews but he does get a bee in his bonnet sometimes (Norrington's Mahler for example). MusicWeb and Clasicalsource are decent reviews too. I don't always agree but reviews do give you a really good idea of the style of recording, sound quality, etc. I rarely buy without listening now anyway but I like to read others" opinions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Merl said:


> It should not escape your notice that they were both *reviewing a Mahler disc.* Few other composer's recordings garner such contrasting views as Mahler recordings. For some, Barbirolli and Horenstein are gods in Mahler whilst for others it's Tennstedt, Gielen, Bertini or Kubelik. Yeah, just listen. You'll find what you like. The most unreliable reviews are from Allmusic. Some of their 10/10 recommendations are pants and those they slag mercilessly are often good or even better. As for Hurwitz I do like his reviews but he does get a bee in his bonnet sometimes (Norrington's Mahler for example). MusicWeb and Clasicalsource are decent reviews too. I don't always agree but reviews do give you a really good idea of the style of recording, sound quality, etc. I rarely buy without listening now anyway but I like to read others" opinions.


Obviously if people are reviewing Mahler then we have subjective opinions on the highly subjective composer. I have just bought Solti's Mahler 1 and 2 and can remember the storm they made among the critics who held them is the greatest Mahler discs yet. Of course one reason was that there were so few Mahler recordings on the market in those days and at the same time the conductor was recording the Ring and was riding high in the estimation of both the public and the critics. Listening to the recordings yesterday I found them very good but not definitive . 
I do know that music with international was honest enough to publish two contrasting reviews of Kubelik's Mahler side by side. You wondered whether the people were listening to the same recordings! One has no reason to accuse the critics of dishonesty but one just has to realise how subjective this whole matter is. Added to which some critics appear highly prejudiced people anyway. The problem is people can believe them instead of believing in the musician concerned . Kubelik was driven out of Chicago by Claudia Cassidy's vitriolic reviews, something which Solti calls 'the worst type of criticism which is just there to sell newspapers'. In view of Kubelik's later career Cassidy's criticism of him looks utterly ridiculous . But then she was probably someone who was better as a wordsmith than a musician


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

To me, if a critic loves a recording or performance that it something and it makes me want to hear it. Perahia's Bach is a case in point. It may not be played in a way that I immediately warm to but it is very very good. The critics' enthusiasm encourages my exploration and perseverance and often these are rewarded. 

On the other hand, when a critic (or even a mere punter) doesn't like something, I find less to hold on to. They may be right or they may be wrong (from my perspective). I suppose that when there is some sort of majority critical view that something is not good that should be quite reliable. But even that is not always the case. I can hear why everyone hates Bernstein's Enigma Variations but I still enjoy it!

I do think, though, that we should give critics a break. Like the rest of us they are ruled by their tastes and like the rest of us their tastes vary. If you go to the critics for some sort of objective judgement then they are going to disappoint. It does help to know your critics and to know which ones you tend to agree with. 

I suppose the one thing I do expect from a critic is a good memory for other performances and how they compare. That is something that I do not have at all. My opinion of a performance - and even what I hear in it - changes from day to day and when you multiply that by all the performances of a great work that I might know ... chaos! Luckily I am not a critic.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I find it most helpful when a professional critic describes the characteristics of a performance. As a professional, such a critic should have listened to and compared many recordings, so their comments are usually reliable when it comes to speed, dynamic range, balance among instruments, the ensemble standard etc. And these are things that should give me an idea what it should _sound_ like.

However, when a professional critic describes his/her subjective reaction to a performance, which is inevitable because this is what the readers will ultimately experience, this is the bit that I always take with a grain of salt. For example, "grandiose" may mean "sluggish" to some, "idiosyncratic" may mean "all over the place", "disciplined" may mean "boring" etc. Either remember the name of the critic so that you have an idea of his/her taste; or simply ignore such words. :lol:

But then, today we have the internet and almost-free streaming music. Despite being drown in a sea of recordings, we have never been so well-resourced to explore a recording before we decide to buy. While professional reviews are a good reference when researching for recordings, I think its usefulness has diminished a lot through the years.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I consider a critic's purpose more their dedication to analysis, historical assessments, and perhaps finding fault or not along the broader lines of the music and composers... I consider a reviewer's purpose their desire to point out something specific that's worth hearing or not. The former is more inclined to consider the composer or work, while the reviewer is more inclined to judge a performance. They are not the same to me though their opinions can sometimes overlap... I'm generally not fond of most critics, especially ones with dry academic standards that too often miss the point of why a composer is listened to in the first place despite their shortcomings. I consider reviewers generally more congenial, personable, and human. Non-professional reviewers can often be just as insightful as the professionals, but I'm rarely inclined to believe anyone wholesale.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Perahia's Bach is a case in point. It may not be played in a way that I immediately warm to but it is very very good.


What do you mean "it's very good"?



Enthusiast said:


> Like the rest of us they are ruled by their tastes . .


Er, no. I'm not ruled by my tastes, I don't think. I mean, I've got an intellect too.



Enthusiast said:


> If you go to the critics for some sort of objective judgement then they are going to disappoint. .


Why? I mean why can't the just say what the performers are doing and hazard some hypotheses about why?

For my part, I think that everyone should just shut up about what they like and what they don't. It's self centred, as if what we like could should matter to anyone else apart from ourselves and our nearest and dearest.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Portamento said:


> Solution: become a music critic yourself.


We are already all critics: we like and dislike things for some reason.

The problem is, that if you had to listen without any suggestion, you will no have any filter and you will probably listen a lot more crap and a lot less great music that you will reading critics. 
Reading critics doesn't bring away the soul or your ability to decide if one likes the music or not. It's just the perfectly normal assumption that suggestions can help to discover great music and hidden gems. Unless one think that he has the sensibility of an alien, and he believes in total relativism, but in that case I wonder why he listen to music, since he knows that whatever an artist wants to communicate he will understand something else.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_When the pros can't even describe a recording in the same way, how can the consumer know who to trust? _

It took me a long time to discover what reviews are about. Over time I found they were less about making a buying or selection decision than about the preferences of the reviewer.

One thing that helped the Penguin Guide stand out for years was it was a collaboration of three reviewers and not just one, so it meant three people came to some kind of agreement on a recording. This is the oddity in reviewing; most times a review is a single person's perspective.

Because of that, and because everyone has an opinion, I learned it is commonplace that, regardless of how great the review sounded, I may not like the recording. So reviews turned into a form of code of me. Today I never act on a review without considering other information.

The most important piece of information is my own preference; without knowing your own preference(s) you are likely to be swayed by reviews toward things that aren't going to be satisfactory to you.

I recently went through a process of filtering to buy a few versions of the Sibelius 4th symphony. When it was all done I bought 3 -- all "historical" versions either in mono or early stereo recorded in the 1950s or 1960s. I did so because they were all conducted by people I trusted, conductors I know that will give me pleasure. Even then one of them was dissatisfactory to me so there is no fail-safe mechanism.

I don't think reviews are pointless; I think they are opinions, usually of a single person. They usually bring something to your attention you didn't know previously. So there is always some value.

If you want to use reviews as a buying guide I say when you read a review of something that sounds interesting to you try and find another review of the same product. If it too is positive that's a good sign. If it isn't maybe look for another review or move on. In any case always try to sample before buying, at least sound bytes, to get an idea of what's going on with the music.

The most important thing I've learned reading reviews for half a century is this: they are opinions and, like ears, everyone has two of them … just like you. In time you learn to trust yourself more than reviewers.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> What do you mean "it's very good"?
> 
> Er, no. I'm not ruled by my tastes, I don't think. I mean, I've got an intellect too.


_In that context_ "very good" means a version I found I enjoyed a lot.

My line on being ruled by our tastes was a little vague. It also relied on context but I could have gone into where/how our tastes are formed. Intellect is a tricky concept, too, because it is so influenced by rationalisation (so we might not always know how/why we arrive at decisions that feel rational).



Mandryka said:


> Why? I mean why can't the just say what the performers are doing and hazard some hypotheses about why?
> 
> For my part, I think that everyone should just shut up about what they like and what they don't. It's self centred, as if what we like could should matter to anyone else apart from ourselves and our nearest and dearest.


I think expressing preferences and value judgments (albeit personal) is part of a critic's job description. Yes, it might be better if they just stuck to facts and hypotheses, but obviously I enjoy enthusiasm.

I think many of us enjoy sharing what we like and don't like with others and we enjoy finding others with similar views. We learn stuff from people who share our tastes and even from those who we feel may have tastes we can trust. I enjoy knowing about what people enjoy. I don't think that is self-centred so much as community-centred.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've been reading reviews of classical music in magazines, books and online since 1970. Over that time the one recording I have found that has garnered the most favorable reviews is Dennis Brain's version of the Mozart Horn Concertos. Recorded in the 1950s it has essentially never been poorly reviewed and has been hailed everywhere as magnificent.

I bought it once. The only difference I could tell in his playing from the other versions I heard was Brain somehow made the French horn sound like a trombone. It was similar in his recordings of the Strauss horn concertos. A lot of critics talked about his elocution of slow movements but I never heard anything special there.

Another famous recording never poorly reviewed was Carlos Kleiber's recording of the Beethoven Symphonies 5 and 7. This was re-recorded in the 2000s in super audio and sounded better than ever. I bought it to hear what everyone else heard.

I don't own either of these recordings anymore and don't miss them -- even though I do own recordings of the music in question.

My point is even when everyone says something is the greatest it may not seem that way to you.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

In addition to professional critics there are also many amateurs who go the extra mile through being systematic in their assessments. Some can appear dogmatic and superior. But others are far more open and "about the music". Merl's epic survey of Beethoven symphony recordings is a fine example of the best (IMO). I say this not because I always agree with him (although I very often - amazingly often - do) but because he is clear about his reasons and his own tastes (so we know where he is coming from).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

larold said:


> I've been reading reviews of classical music in magazines, books and online since 1970. Over that time the one recording I have found that has garnered the most favorable reviews is Dennis Brain's version of the Mozart Horn Concertos. Recorded in the 1950s it has essentially never been poorly reviewed and has been hailed everywhere as magnificent.
> 
> I bought it once. The only difference I could tell in his playing from the scores of other versions I heard was Brain somehow made the French horn sound like a trombone. It was similar in his recordings of the Strauss horn concertos.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. It is a matter of personal preference. I personally cannot see why anyone can think poorly of Dennis Brain's recording of Mozart (unless HIP is your criterion) or say that his horn sounded like a trombone is beyond me, but that is how we differ in the ay we hear things.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I find the Penguin Guide and other like publications good loo reading but they do tend to be rather conservative in their approach. For example they don't like Glenn Gould because he hums! I remember even among themselves they disagreed over Suk's performance of the violin concerto with Boult. Having bought it I could only agree with those who found the first movement far too slow!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Becca said:


> A distinction without a difference. Any reasonably competent music reviewer who doesn't include thought about the music is not worth reading.


I don't agree. Compare the Hurwitz and Morgan reviews. Hurwitz tells us nothing about Mahler's third. Morgan does, even in the context of a review. Alex Ross in the New Yorker generally uses a specific performance or recording as a mere starting point to speak of e.g. a composer, or trend in performance.

Edit - this article gets close to my distinction between the two terms.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Absolutely. It is a matter of personal preference. I personally cannot see why anyone can think poorly of Dennis Brain's recording of Mozart (unless HIP is your criterion) or say that his horn sounded like a trombone is beyond me, but that is how we differ in the ay we hear things.


Brain was a great artist and elevated some fairly unimportant Mozart into truly worthwhile pieces. There are many other good performances of Mozart's horn concertos but the ones I have heard are just good accounts of fairly unimportant Mozart! As for the sound of his instrument - it is the true sound of a British French horn from before the global homogenisation of instruments' sounds. I can remember feeling that works with a lot of prominent horn were always better when played by a British orchestra (take Nick Busch's contribution to Barbirolli's Mahler 5, for example ....).


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

There was a good point made in this thread earlier that you get to know certain reviewers and what they like and what they mean by certain terms they use. It certainly helps in getting an idea of a style of performance. I approach reviews cautiously but love reading them as I like writing (my dream job at school was a music journalist). I would advise that if you really want to know how good a recording is then ask me. I'm always right. Lol.


----------

