# Critical and analytical listening



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I've been recently trying to train myself to compare different recordings of the same work (no difference whether it's an opera, a symphony etc.), but I feel that I'm just not able to catch the differences. That means I'm also not very good at understanding different interpretations, because if I don't make side by side comparisons, all recordings tend to sound just similar. Luckily, that's not always the case.

My problem becomes very obvious when I listen to an opera for example. I'm able to compare the singing of major roles to some extent, but I'm impressed how some people are able to also focus on the singers who are singing minor roles. How to differentiate between good and bad singing? What are some of the characteristics of good singing and how to determine bad singing? This sometimes feels very subjective to me (and to some extent it probably is subjective).

I've been really trying to develop my critical and analytical listening skills, but I'd really appreciate different suggestions how to do that effectively. I'm also relatively new to classical music so I suppose that might be one of the reasons, why comparing the recordings is more difficult.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

annaw said:


> How to differentiate between good and bad singing?


good singing is loud, bad singing is not.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Why not supply some extreme contrasts 

Vivaldi, Cantata R683:

Sytse Buwalda: 



 (a very peculiar/expressive counter-tenor voice, but he is obviously struggling with the difficulty of the musical material)

Two singers with much better technique and ressources:

Anthea Pichanick: 



 (chamber-like intensity, a good feeling for stage presence, psychological portraying)

Sara Mingardo: 



 (concertante style with bigger orchestra and sound, more psychologically neutral, makes it more into concertante or 'ínstrumental' ongoings, IMO. Perhaps a little too much contrast between high and low end of her voice, but otherwise nice, and better-sounding orchestra)

(I am absolutely no expert in this piece of music, but those differences in a few recordings seem pretty obvious to me)


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Take notes as you’re listening to each performance. Note your emotional reactions and record them. If you try to remember everything in your head, it’ll be that much harder. Develop a descriptive musical vocabulary that you can draw on as you’re listening. Music can be rough, hot, warm, subtle, abrasive, and so on. Note your honest emotional reactions in the moment, and the more you practice the better you’ll be. With practice, you’ll begin to notice major differences in recordings.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Assuming they play the same notes, what I think of as an interpretation is the way they vary tempo, rhythm, attack and dynamics. Those are the only things that are different between interpretations. Different interpretations stress certain details with change in dynamics, or handle the rhythm or tempo slightly (sometimes a lot) differently. With opera singing especially in Rossini I noticed, there can be a lot of variance in ornamentation, voice timbre and attack. Compare Bergenza's strongly accented version with the much softer attack by Battle. A matter of preference, but I really dislike those loud accents in the first part by Bergenza. Callas here has more ornamentation than the others at least at the end. My favourite version is the one on Naxos, minimal ornamentation, which I find distracting from the music.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

1. How long and loud are the vibrations, how clear the tones _and the lyrics_. And then some people just prefer one voice to another.
2. Is the recording energetic, varying highly in how do accented notes sound vs how the non-accented do? Or is it more even? And which notes are accented? If you know a piece well, which accentuation do you prefer when you listen to it in your head?
3. The tempo. Slow or faster? When slow and when faster? Easy examples to me would be Glenn Gould having fun with Rondo Alla Turca vs how it is typically performed, or Bernard Herrmann & Philharmonia Orchestra playing the Planets very slowly and reaching incomparable lyricism at times compared to faster renditions.

Some of the finest differences can be heard in two recordings of Vienna PhO conducted by Carlos Kleiber playing the very well known to them Fledermaus Overture. They are _nearly _identical, and both nearly perfect, and yet one is still a bit more precise in dynamics.
And interpretation _is _important. How lifeless are the Tchaikovsky recordings by Andre Previn compared to Muti, Bernstein or Ansermet!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

All critical listening, analysis and evaluation MUST begin at the source: with the score. The score is the Bible. It contains everything (or should) you need to know - all those elements of music are there in black and white. Of course, this assumes the listener can read a score. One major element often missing are really definite tempo markings; Brahms and Tchaikovsky symphonies are lacking these- they trusted the conductor. Beethoven's are there, but are they for real? 

When you start listening honestly with a score, it's astonishing how many supposedly great recordings miss the mark in so many ways. Great conductors often willfully ignore explicit demands in the score. It's a tough call - yes, Stokowski's Scheherazade may be thrilling, but it is clearly NOT what Rimsky-Korsakov wrote.

Opera is much more difficult because of so many other factors and judging voices is something I'm just not comfortable doing. But all the other elements - tempo, dynamics, balance, etc - are really important to me. 

There's a terrific book, The Compleat Conductor, by teacher, horn player, writer, conductor, composer Gunther Schuller. It's utterly fascinating how he details what Beethoven wrote in the 5th, and then how dozens (hundreds?) of different conductors either did or didn't do what Ludwig asked. He covers several masterworks recording by recording and bar by bar, such as the Brahms 1st, Tchaikovsky 6th and more. It's an eye (and ear) opener and he'll knock some of your favorite conductors off their pedestals.


----------



## snowyflow (Jul 30, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> Of course, this assumes the listener can read a score.


The struggle hence begins, and never ends...for the vast majority of the listeners, who are non-professionals, what do we do? Can we do analytical listening at all? I listen a lot, but how to get better in understanding the "language of music" more, and thus appreciate the aspects of music that would otherwise not be "visible" to my ears? Take music theory lesson? But I don't know how to play any instrument...someone told me it's not wise to learn music theory without learning instrument....so find a tutor to learn piano? I'm afraid I'm getting too old....yes, yes I know the saying of "it's never too late to learn piano"....the reality is, we adults don't have nimble fingers any more, it's just a fact. Also, I was wondering, to what extend one must be able to read the score in order to do analytical listening? Being able to sight-read a score and hum it out (or even play it out)? Being able to look at it and determine the key, the mode, and the cords? I know I'd never be able to do that but I'm just wondering...


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

snowyflow said:


> The struggle hence begins, and never ends...for the vast majority of the listeners, who are non-professionals, what do we do? Can we do analytical listening at all? I listen a lot, but how to get better in understanding the "language of music" more, and thus appreciate the aspects of music that would otherwise not be "visible" to my ears? Take music theory lesson? But I don't know how to play any instrument...someone told me it's not wise to learn music theory without learning instrument....so find a tutor to learn piano? I'm afraid I'm getting too old....yes, yes I know the saying of "it's never too late to learn piano"....the reality is, we adults don't have nimble fingers any more, it's just a fact. Also, I was wondering, to what extend one must be able to read the score in order to do analytical listening? Being able to sight-read a score and hum it out (or even play it out)? Being able to look at it and determine the key, the mode, and the cords? I know I'd never be able to do that but I'm just wondering...


Something like this can be of help: https://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus150/Ch1-elements.pdf by Benjamin Britten.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Some recordings do seem to be indistinguishable, but this is something I don't think about. When something sounds good, it's a visceral reaction. You can't "think" through a reaction, you just know & feel it. 

Pianists might be a good place to start, rather than huge operas.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

snowyflow said:


> The struggle hence begins, and never ends...for the vast majority of the listeners, who are non-professionals, what do we do? Can we do analytical listening at all? I listen a lot, but how to get better in understanding the "language of music" more, and thus appreciate the aspects of music that would otherwise not be "visible" to my ears? Take music theory lesson? But I don't know how to play any instrument...someone told me it's not wise to learn music theory without learning instrument....so find a tutor to learn piano? I'm afraid I'm getting too old....yes, yes I know the saying of "it's never too late to learn piano"....the reality is, we adults don't have nimble fingers any more, it's just a fact. Also, I was wondering, to what extend one must be able to read the score in order to do analytical listening? Being able to sight-read a score and hum it out (or even play it out)? Being able to look at it and determine the key, the mode, and the cords? I know I'd never be able to do that but I'm just wondering...


I wouldn't bother with any of that.

The important thing is to develop the acuity to hear _what_ the performer is doing, at the level of rhythm, articulation, embellishment, dynamic variation, attack, touch, timbre. That is very hard because you have to stay awake in the performance. I mean wide awake, fully conscious, not letting the music hypnotise you or wash over you.

The next steps are even harder. When you've grasped what the performer is doing, you can ask yourself what the effects of his actions are, and _why_ he might have chosen to play in that way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Try some comparisons of Glenn Gould's Mozart to other pianists. You should be able to detect some major differences.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Some recordings do seem to be indistinguishable, but this is something I don't think about. When something sounds good, it's a visceral reaction. You can't "think" through a reaction, you just know & feel it.
> 
> Pianists might be a good place to start, rather than huge operas.


You are right, it's a visceral reaction and completely irrelevant to anyone but you and your doctor. Letting people know that something sounds good to them, that they like or don't like a performance, is about as self centeredly puerile as farting in public.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> I wouldn't bother with any of that.
> 
> The important thing is to develop the acuity to hear _what_ the performer is doing, at the level of rhythm, articulation, embellishment, dynamic variation, attack, touch, timbre. That is very hard because you have to stay awake in the performance. I mean wide awake, fully conscious, not letting the music hypnotise you or wash over you.
> 
> The next steps are even harder. When you've grasped what the performer is doing, you can ask yourself what the effects of his actions are, and _why_ he might have chosen to play in that way.


Interesting and recommendable, but a lot of performers are limited by their technique, habits and intellectual schooling, and obviously they can't choose from the total register of options, approach-wise.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

When it comes to criticism, it is important to remember it is an art, not a science. It is opinion, not fact. If you subscribe to any magazine or website that regularly reviews classical recordings go back to an issue from a year ago and look at recordings that were given raves, the see if any of them are still mentioned in conversation anywhere now. You'll find no one remembers oodles of somethings that a year ago were proclaimed somewhere by someone to be unforgettable.

As it relates to opera and singing it is timbre -- not the one yelled in the forest as a tree falls -- that is the difference between voices singing the same pitch and volume. It is the part of the voice that separates people into what they like and dislike. People like or dislike singers more because of timbre than for any other and is abetted by the abilities to elocute and point words in any language. These likes and dislikes often form the basis of a person's review of or reaction to a singer, not whether or not they went flat or weren't suited to the role.

If you want to develop better critical skills when listening to opers you probably have to read the score of whatever you are hearing as you take notes and impressions. That is the only "science" of reviewing -- do they sing or play what is printed at the direction(s) cited in the score. Everything else is viscera.

Last, generally speaking, if you want to be a better critic then listen to a lot of whatever it is you want to criticize. Don't just hear one or two; listen to 25 of them. It may seem garish at the moment but it's the only way to determine difference in minute details. For that's what critics do -- they split hairs.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

larold said:


> For that's what critics do -- they split hairs.


And always keep in mind what Brahms said: No one ever erected a statue for a critic.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> And always keep in mind what Brahms said: No one ever erected a statue for a critic.


 On the actual history of that quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/04/statue-of-critic/amp/
I remember it originally being attributed to Jean Sibelius. 
It's a good one.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Thank you all for your ideas and suggestions! As it's been already mentioned in this thread, I think one of my problems is just the unfamiliarity with different recordings. I sometimes tend to listen to only the recordings that are generally highly ranked, but this leaves me with no reference point. If I haven't heard a "not-so-good-recording" of a piece, I'm not able to appreciate the merits of the good recordings.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

annaw said:


> . . . highly ranked, . . . "not-so-good-recording" of a piece,. . . merits of the good .. . . .


Stop evaluating and start to ask what's going on and why it's going on.

Otherwise you're just going to end up doing stupid things like putting on a CD, noticing that you're not enjoying it much, and concluding that it's not so good, as if quality is measured by whether you like it. Or dismissing it because it doesn't conform to some prejudice acquired somehow or other about what the music should sound like. Best steer away from value judgements totally.

If you focus on the what and the why, every performance, even the ones you don't much enjoy, will offer something to engage you.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Mandryka said:


> Stop evaluating and start to ask what's going on and why it's going on.
> 
> Otherwise you're just going to end up doing stupid things like putting on a CD, noticing that you're not enjoying it much, and concluding that it's not so good, as if quality is measured by whether you like it. Or dismissing it because it doesn't conform to some prejudice acquired somehow or other about what the music should sound like. Best steer away from value judgements totally.
> 
> If you focus on the what and the why, every performance, even the ones you don't much enjoy, will offer something to engage you.


Yes, my point definitely wasn't to categorise recordings into good and bad ones. I was more criticising my own tendency to prefer the generally liked or recommended recordings over the others. In addition to what I mentioned in my previous post, this also means, as you say, that I'm not able to see the merits of other recordings, because I'm prejudiced towards them.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> On the actual history of that quote:
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/quoteinvestigator.com/2013/08/04/statue-of-critic/amp/
> I remember it originally being attributed to Jean Sibelius.
> It's a good one.


Thank you for this link. Fascinating reading. For some reason I remember it as being Brahms who said it, but it was Sibelius. But here's a critic: Composer/Conductor Rene Leibowitz once labeled Sibelius as the "world's worst composer". Sibelius I love. As a player, conductor, or listener - great stuff. Leibowitz will be remembered, if he's lucky, for two things: being Boulez' teacher and that astonishing Beethoven cycle with the Royal Philharmonic. Sibelius is among the immortals. So much for critics.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

larold said:


> When it comes to criticism, it is important to remember it is an art, not a science. It is opinion, not fact.


There is an objective and a subjective part of criticism. The objective part, which is about facts, was described by Mandryka above (post 11), and the subjective part on the other hand may perhaps not interest others than oneself. I - on my part - do not compare recordings that much any more, because I have experienced, that most recordings taken individually one way or the other constitute a rewarding listening, but often one doesn't notice this, because the mind while listening is occupied with comparing the recording in question to other recordings.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> And always keep in mind what Brahms said: No one ever erected a statue for a critic.


Maybe not a music critic. But here's one of a film critic.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Take notes as you're listening to each performance. Note your emotional reactions and record them. If you try to remember everything in your head, it'll be that much harder. Develop a descriptive musical vocabulary that you can draw on as you're listening. Music can be rough, hot, warm, subtle, abrasive, and so on. Note your honest emotional reactions in the moment, and the more you practice the better you'll be. With practice, you'll begin to notice major differences in recordings.


Sound advice! But for me "being a critic" has something of Schrodinger's cat about it. If I am listening to come to an opinion (about the music or performance) - perhaps jotting down notes - I hear things differently to how I hear them when I am just listening to the music for the sake of enjoyment. I may be wrong but I do not think that I am not alone in this. I believe that it is _the impressions _I get listening for enjoyment that more closely fit how I will hear the same music in the future. So, I guess I am against analysis. But I have lots of respect for those who can do it and still get to the heart of matters.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Sound advice! But for me "being a critic" has something of Schrodinger's cat about it. If I am listening to come to an opinion (about the music or performance) - perhaps jotting down notes - I hear things differently to how I hear them when I am just listening to the music for the sake of enjoyment. I may be wrong but I do not think that I am not alone in this. I believe that it is _the impressions _I get listening for enjoyment that more closely fit how I will hear the same music in the future. So, I guess I am against analysis. But I have lots of respect for those who can do it and still get to the heart of matters.


That's a very interesting point. I decided to listen to Schumann's 1st symphony and take notes at the same time as Larkenfield advised. It was actually very helpful as it also helped me to understand the piece itself more thoroughly, not only the recording - while listening I focused on the interpretation much more than I'd usually do. I didn't have a goal of actually criticising a recording, as I think I'm definitely not competent enough to actually do that. Of course, I try to find details in each recording that I like and that I don't like, but I wouldn't call that criticising  .


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

great comments throughout this excellent topic. 
As a record critic past 30 yrs, plus some yrs,,, there are good/avg/bad recordings. 

Take the Debussy string quartet. I have finally made the discovery I've been looking for after all these decades. 
Jim Svejda made a compare of various popular recordings. The 2 he finally decided on, are not among my favs. 
So many SQ groups struggle with Debussy's strange if not odd ,,,,score. 
So its hard to judge recordings due to Debussy's very peculiar writing. 
Bartok's SQ's are also quirky,,yet there are 2 or 3 groups who have surmounted Bartok's imaginations. 
I have just made some compares on Greig's piano concerto,,based on a old historic recording I recall from LP days,.,,so many have made attempts at that concerto. You could purchase 10 recordings,,and you might have a 9/10 in the bunch.
Now in rachmaninov's 4 PC.s there are plenty of good recordings to pick and choose from. 
Ravel's piano concerto , there are some good ones, but the best in my opinion is from Zimerman and also quite possibly Grimaud, she has 2 recordings,,I have the one with jesus Lopez.
The other with the Gershwin coupling is on order,arrives today. 

In the Sibelius VC, take your pick,,seems everyone has something to say in that concerto,,a work I never listen to, so its completely unimportant to me.


So all in all each work requires a dif set of judging and rating. 
There is no science, no strict rules. 

Each and every work requires slight adjustments in the critical listening experience. Its not a easy task, requires
patience
knowledge of how the work is suppose to go/based ona early master recordings
$$$$
and last but not least
lots of research time. 
You need these 4 tools in order to obtain the prize.
Which is , a all star collection. 
I finally arrived at the ideal/best/superior Debussy SQ recording. 
Got lucky on that find.
There is a close runner up, but close, is still as they say *no cigar*. 
paul
aka the honest review guy 
(is how i sign my amazon reviews now)
Seems the amazon mods don't like this handle, as i got a 1st warning from them, the other day,,maybe b/c i called the organic frozen indian plate EVOL from Colorado kitchen, sold at Whole Foods, *trash, garbage* and other appropriate adjectives. ,,I really wanted to call its poop, yet seems everyone gives the poop 5 big stars. 
Thing is I am the chef, they are not.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

You can approach a piece of music in performance as a box of signifiers to be decoded, ask the what and the why questions about the performance, analyse the harmonies, see how it relates to the reception history etc etc. 

Or you can see a piece of music as a box for producing emotions in the listener, just lie back and let it all happen, if it makes you feel positive, then it’s worked, it’s done its job. 

Now, what I want to call into question is any sort of hierarchy of these approaches.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

I subscribe to the concept of positive criticism. Begin with the kind of music you like the most (e.g. Opera: Mozart or Piano: Chopin) and just a few examples. What do you like about them? If you like the music probably you'll want to read up on it or consult a listening guide -- then listen to it some more. Then compare two different recordings. Sometimes people with experience doing criticism will offer you input, because they really like something and want to share it with others. It can become a social thing! To form judgements and articulate them in words is a more advanced level. Mostly if I don't like something I just don't bother with it!


----------

