# Professional music criticism is a dead art form.... thankfully.



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

"No one will ever build a statue to a critic".... who said that ? They were spot on. (However I would love to see a statue built to the respected British music critic who thought a recording (by Bronfman I think it was) was boring but when repackaged as a long lost British female pianist was inspirational..... he deserves a statue. Or maybe just some 'new clothes' to marvel at... 99.9% of professional music criticism was only ever meaningless middle class waffle..... but the middle classes do love a good waffle. "Criticism is WWF for the middle classes".... who said that, they were spot on too.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

John Lenin said:


> "No one will ever build a statue to a critic".... who said that ? They were spot on. (However I would love to see a statue built to the respected British music critic who thought a recording (by Bronfman I think it was) was boring but when repackaged as a long lost British female pianist was inspirational..... he deserves a statue. Or maybe just some 'new clothes' to marvel at... 99.9% of professional music criticism was only ever meaningless middle class waffle..... but the middle classes do love a good waffle. "Criticism is WWF for the middle classes".... who said that, they were spot on too.


Criticism is the World Wide Fund for Nature? *W*hat *W*ould *F*oucault do? Er... I don't understand your last sentence.

As someone who twice wrote criticism for _Musical Times_, I don't agree with you.

Now, it's true that on my very first piece, the editor had to correct the name of _all_ the soloists I'd supplied in my copy. Which perhaps means I wasn't doing my job very well. But I would have got the knack of it before long, I feel sure. Anyway, second time was mostly a charm, except I couldn't remember the name of the last piece before the interval. So I just missed that out. I don't think anyone noticed. Except maybe the editor.

Anyway: one only has to look at Hurwitz. And then look at the number of people in our very own 'Current Listening' thread that post Dvorak CDs the day after Hurwitz did a video about Dvorak; or a Raff CD the *hour* after he did a video about Raff... You only have to do that for a very short while to know that, even in this day and age, when every person's opinion, based on oh-so-little, is as 'valid' as anyone else's, people do pay attention to a good critic.

There are _lots_ of people here, in these hallowed fora, who haven't an imaginative idea of their own, for which Hurwitz provides the necessary filler/plaster to cover the cracks. Critics are useful that way.

More prosaically, "classical music" is all about a 1000+ year tradition, covering a vast geographical area and an unimaginable sweep of cultural expectations: we could all do with some Sherpas.


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Yes WWF has now been renamed as WWE ... apparently


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

John Lenin said:


> Yes WWF has now been renamed as WWE ... apparently


Would you care to spell it out in English, either way? I seriously have no idea what you're referring to.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I like people to critique music. I sometimes agree and sometimes not but it's always good to hear what others think. Hurwitz et al have some maniacal followers who hang on every word they say but such 'sheople' I have little time for. I also particularly dislike bias in music ("I must like this cos it's historic and all historic recordings are the best" or "It's conductor X so it must be be brilliant") . For example Hurwitz constantly berates modem English string quartets but he's missing some great recordings by insisting on such bias. I would advise anyone who likes reviews to do their homework and read as many reviews as possible from as wide source as possible. The art of reviewing is far from dead. Reviews offer an interesting starting point to discover some works.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Merl said:


> I like people to critique music. I sometimes agree and sometimes not but it's always good to hear what others think. Hurwitz et al have some maniacal followers who hang on every word they say but such 'sheople' I have little time for. I also particularly dislike bias in music ("I must like this cos it's historic and all historic recordings are the best" or "It's conductor X so it must be be brilliant") . For example Hurwitz constantly berates modem English string quartets but he's missing some great recordings by insisting on such bias. I would advise anyone who likes reviews to do their homework and read as many reviews as possible from as wide source as possible. The art of reviewing is far from dead. Reviews offer an interesting starting point to discover some works.


Hurwitz is Hurwitz. I don't think it particularly matters that if its Szell, it's a 10/10, and if it's Rattle you know its a 0/10 before you start: you pick your critic, you know their tastes.

I mentioned Hurwitz in the first reply to the original question, but I wouldn't want this to be a thread _about_ Hurwitz. So I hope we won't harp on about him.

I very much would want to focus on your last sentence: _Reviews offer an interesting starting point to discover some works._ I think that says all that needs to be said as far as this thread's thesis is concerned.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I only mentioned 'him' as he's the best known critic out there currently but yeah Ive always enjoyed reading music reviews and then listening for myself. Sometimes I can totally agree whilst other times I have to wonder if I've been listening to the same recordings. I once attended a Stan 'the Man' Skrow gig at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where he and the Halle played an incendiary Bruckner 6 that was awesome and was greeted with admiration by most present. I read a review of the same gig by a local art critic a few days later and he said that the performance was humdrum and occasionally dreary. He must have been deaf but I later discovered he had a big axe to grind with Stan and he rarely gave him anything but poor reviews. Bias can be a terrible thing. There's a few decent blog reviewers out there too.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Merl said:


> I only mentioned 'him' as he's the best known critic out there currently but yeah Ive always enjoyed reading music reviews and then listening for myself. Sometimes I can totally agree whilst other times I have to wonder if I've been listening to the same recordings. I once attended a Stan 'the Man' Skrow gig at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where he and the Halle played an incendiary Bruckner 6 that was awesome and was greeted with admiration by most present. I read a review of the same gig by a local art critic a few days later and he said that the performance was humdrum and occasionally dreary. He must have been deaf but I later discovered he had a big axe to grind with Stan and he rarely gave him anything but poor reviews. Bias can be a terrible thing. There's a few decent blog reviewers out there too.


I think the obvious reply to that is: got any links?


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Stan the man has been constantly ignored by critics. Critics prefer a Karajan, somebody who will throw in the cheap gimmick and love them back.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I think the obvious reply to that is: got any links?


Not really. I've just read some really good individual cd reviews from various individuals over the years on a plethora of recordings. There have been lots of other good reviews from larger reviewers like Limelight, Strad, etc. As I've always said, the worst reviews are often by Allmusic, who often give great reviews to very average recordings but, more worryingly, do not accurately portray the sound of the music being played They are often massively inaccurate regarding quality of sound, style of performance and many facts about the conductor / performers they write about. I still read their reviews but largely treat them with a huge pinch of salt.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Merl said:


> Not really. I've just read some really good individual cd reviews from various individuals over the years on a plethora of recordings. There have been lots of other good reviews from larger reviewers like Limelight, Strad, etc. As I've always said, the worst reviews are often by Allmusic, who often give great reviews to very average recordings but, more worryingly, do not accurately portray the sound of the music being played They are often massively inaccurate regarding quality of sound, style of performance and many facts about the conductor / performers they write about. I still read their reviews but largely treat them with a huge pinch of salt.


Oh OK. When you said 'good blog reviewers', I was hoping there was a cadre of Hurwitz-like reviewers out there you could point me to. I know I'm in need of Sherpas.


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Music critics are like 'sports reporters'... if they do as they are told and follow the gang they are considered as being fine. Music critics are generally just cheap adverts for the corporation.... they are the ultimate cheap hooker.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

John Lenin said:


> Music critics are like 'sports reporters'... if they do as they are told and follow the gang they are considered as being fine. Music critics are generally just cheap adverts for the corporation.... they are the ultimate cheap hooker.


Well, with 23 posts to your name at the time of writing, I'd suggest laying off the hyperbole.

It just makes you look a bit.. well, silly really.

There would be a lot of people who would engage you with a discussion about the merits of critics in general, or specific critics specifically. But if you're going to just paint them as hookers (what a delightfully charming characterisation. Not) then, you're probably on your own.


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, with 23 posts to your name at the time of writing, I'd suggest laying off the hyperbole.
> 
> It just makes you look a bit.. well, silly really.
> 
> There would be a lot of people who would engage you with a discussion about the merits of critics in general, or specific critics specifically. But if you're going to just paint them as hookers (what a delightfully charming characterisation. Not) then, you're probably on your own.


Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

John Lenin said:


> Methinks the lady doth protest too much.


Methinks the newbie is just a bit silly, really.

Take it as advice honestly offered or not, as you like. If you don't like the truth, don't blame the messenger.

And I think that's enough clichés for now.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*World Wrestling Federation*.

I pay no attention to music critics whatsoever. The only critics I attend to occasionally are those discussing nonfiction books.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A good critic (and there are such things) should be a) knowledgeable, b) an intelligent explainer of the thinking behind his/her judgment, and c) self-consistent so, over time, one can know how his taste compares to yours and you can adjust your reaction accordingly. It's an educational function and as such there's nothing wrong with it.

(I have six volumes of the collected music writings of Andrew Porter in The New Yorker in the '70s and '80s and continue to learn from them. Of course all of the critics there when William Shawn was editor were world class.)


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm not "thankful" about *any* aspect of classical music being "dead."


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

We nearly have a World Wrestling Federation ... er, make that World Wrestling Entertainment match going on here, to which, if I may slide in between the opponents for a moment, I would like to add a comment.

There remain those who frown upon critics, those same folks who often criticize the critics for being "less capable" as doers and thus must be critics, or "no nothings" who landed a cushy job ... whatever.

I still remember doing Graduate work in Journalism and in Theatre Arts, where were offered a couple of courses on Criticism, as electives, none of which I took. In any case, as with most everything, there are good critics and bad critics. The good ones are knowledgeable in their field: they're the Critics who likely took the Graduate Level Criticism courses as well as whatever other courses and/or experiences would best prepare them with knowledge in the area of their critical expertise. Good critics often have finely tuned senses; they can spot things a less aware or uninitiated viewer would have passed right over. One can learn much from a good critic. I studied Playwriting with a major critic, and his viewpoint was unique, in comparison to many other instructors with whom I read and wrote theatre pieces. I learned a lot from him, and so apparently did several others who are today rather successful as script writers.

From reading music reviews for years in various magazines (among them _Stereo Review_, _Fanfare_, _Gramophone_, _Stereophile_, _The Absolute Sound_) I've come to recognize individual writers who guided me towards works which I favored and those with whom I found disagreement. Over the years, many of my music purchases were guided by advice from those critics and/or reviewers with whom I found alliance. A trusted critic is somewhat like a trusted friend, with whom one has a conversation about the merits of this or that or the other thing. One needn't always agree or disagree, but multiple viewpoints generally prove revealing, often in valuable ways.

I know next to nothing about professional wrestling, but should I wish to expend funds to attend a match, I might first consult a sports critic to assess where I should most profitably be aiming my precious wad of cash, and where I might be wiser to refrain from purchasing a ticket. The converse is that I simply step into the fight venue and see what I see, which might prove highly misleading, giving me a wrong impression one way or another.

Sure, there are bad music critics. But there are bad musicians and bad composers and bad conductors and badly recorded music. I can't know everything. But if I can at least know one good critic (which comes via time and experience and repeated acquaintance with), I'll have a proverbial leg up on the goings on, and might save some money _and_ some precious time in my various musical choosings. That works for me.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

If "serious" music criticism is dead, it's not a good sign.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

John Lenin said:


> "No one will ever build a statue to a critic".... who said that ? They were spot on. (However I would love to see a statue built to the respected British music critic who thought a recording (by Bronfman I think it was) was boring but when repackaged as a long lost British female pianist was inspirational..... he deserves a statue. Or maybe just some 'new clothes' to marvel at... 99.9% of professional music criticism was only ever meaningless middle class waffle..... but the middle classes do love a good waffle. "Criticism is WWF for the middle classes".... who said that, they were spot on too.


Here is a trivia for you to consider: who was the first composer in the world to have a public statue built? Moreover, this particular composer was also alive when his statue was built, which is very rare. So not only was he the first composer to have his statue built but he was also alive to see it. Yes, he is regarded as one of the greatest composers. Don't look it up, who do you think?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

John Lenin said:


> "No one will ever build a statue to a critic".... who said that ? They were spot on.


Jean Sibelius...............


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Jean Sibelius...............


And he was wrong!









(I suppose we can argue whether a bust is the same thing as a statue, but as far as this thread is concerned, I think it is!)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

GBS, sometimes a mean critic: there are several statues.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Jean Sibelius...............





> 'Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic.'


I'll build one in honor of René Leibowitz some day


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I for one deeply miss a good music critic. (I am not considering record reviewers here.) In my area, our major newspaper had at times some terrific classical critics. They actually reviewed concerts. Often when something really odd or blockbuster was going to be done, they'd preview the concert. They kept tabs on all the classical events - professional and amateur alike. This kept the public informed about concert opportunities. The paper still has a list of new releases on video and CD - but the classical listings were dropped a decade ago. The critic I admired the most was a distinguished gentleman born around 1900 who lived in Berlin most of his life and as a violist got to know the extraordinary music scene there from the inside - until the Nazis drove him out.

Then the family that originally owned the paper sold it to a huge national chain and the new editor didn't like classical anything and gone were the classical articles and reviews. Now it's just rock/pop and occasional mariachi groups that get mentioned. Every time local celebrity Alice Cooper did anything it got covered. But when Cooper did that redo of Peter and the Wolf, the paper completely ignored it - his fans wouldn't like it is what the music editor told me. I do miss good, intelligent music criticism - I hope it stays alive at least somewhere.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> I for one deeply miss a good music critic. (I am not considering record reviewers here.) In my area, our major newspaper had at times some terrific classical critics. They actually reviewed concerts. Often when something really odd or blockbuster was going to be done, they'd preview the concert. They kept tabs on all the classical events - professional and amateur alike. This kept the public informed about concert opportunities. The paper still has a list of new releases on video and CD - but the classical listings were dropped a decade ago. The critic I admired the most was a distinguished gentleman born around 1900 who lived in Berlin most of his life and as a violist got to know the extraordinary music scene there from the inside - until the Nazis drove him out.
> 
> Then the family that originally owned the paper sold it to a huge national chain and the new editor didn't like classical anything and gone were the classical articles and reviews. Now it's just rock/pop and occasional mariachi groups that get mentioned. Every time local celebrity Alice Cooper did anything it got covered. But when Cooper did that redo of Peter and the Wolf, the paper completely ignored it - his fans wouldn't like it is what the music editor told me. I do miss good, intelligent music criticism - I hope it stays alive at least somewhere.


As much as I despise the industry of classical music criticism, pop music criticism tends to be much, much worse.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'll build one in honor of René Leibowitz some day


Leibowitz's views on Sibelius remind us how subjective music truly is.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

A long time ago I relied on reviews and criticism more than I have for some time. Often it seemed the reviewer was more interested in talking about himself and not the music, and I stopped reading them. For me the primary usefulness of a review was to alert me to a recording I might be interested in. What with Spotify and YouTube, I can find all kinds of music without any help from a critic.

This may seem odd coming from someone who spends time on a classical music discussion forum, but I don't enjoy talking about music or reading about it, other than the occasional biography.


----------



## cheregi (Jul 16, 2020)

The vast majority of music criticism I encounter seems to me completely worthless... but good music criticism is among my favorite types of writing to read, so I seek it out. I think it's always valuable to find a scholarly critic from whom I actually learn something, but it's also really nice to find someone who writes so eloquently about their own affective relationship to the music that I feel my own relationship to it is transformed as well. Of course, the best critics combine both. Todd McComb's 'labyrinth without a center,' http://www.medieval.org/, has not only given me a firm grounding and appreciation of medieval and renaissance music, but also completely shifted the way I think about music and life generally... Another place where good criticism thrives, outside of marketing demands, is rateyourmusic.com - a lot of trash there too, but the good stuff is worth it - for example https://rateyourmusic.com/list/stilton/eleven-trills/ or https://rateyourmusic.com/music-review/xenakis/die-gruppe-fur-alte-musik-munchen-martin-zobeley/marienmotetten-von-josquin-desprez-und-ludwig-senfl/138938928


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And he was wrong!
> 
> View attachment 150257
> 
> ...


The correct answer to my trivia is George Frideric Handel. This is most remarkable because Handel was a Baroque composer, recognized in his life time, and proven that the public has never forgotten his music since his death. The marble statue by the great Baroque sculptor Louis-François Roubiliac.

Marble statue; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg...l is his earliest known independent sculpture.

More about Louis-François Roubiliac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-François_Roubiliac


----------



## John Lenin (Feb 4, 2021)

Handel's hat cracks me up every time I see it.... did this guy spend all day in bed....


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

John Lenin said:


> Handel's hat cracks me up every time I see it.... did this guy spend all day in bed....


Yes, as did the whole male population of the 18th century using your sense of humor.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

All I have to say is that most music critics do put a fair effort into what they do, given the time available. There is a great distance in quality between top critics and certain obscure bloggers. Writing music criticism has some things in common with writing good posts on TC, so why would we want to dump on such writing? We might even learn something from good critics!


----------

