Well, I’m joking a little. I mean reactions to my “shocking proposal,” which really wasn’t so shocking. The real shock may come in something else I’ll post today or tomorrow. There’s a bad moon rising about tax deductions for donors to the arts — a lot of people, some quite distinguished, are starting to believe that these tax deductions aren’t warranted. What would that do to classical music?
But more on this later. My shocking proposal was that classical music institutions be written about, in newspapers, the way real journalists write about everything else – that, for instance, newspapers should demand that orchestras reveal their ticket sales, so that we’d all know how well or badly they were doing. Now, the most devastating comments thoughts about this come at the end of this post.
But Gene Carr — who runs Patron Technology, an e-marketing firm — points out that we need regional and national benchmarks before we can understand those sales figures. And of course he’s right. As he wrote to me (and of course I’m quoting him with his permission), “When Dell’s sales go down 5% and the industry goes down 10% they celebrate. So what if your orchestra is down 5% if the rest of your colleagues are down 15%?”
So we need benchmarks. But where are we going to get them?
Music journalists should demand — in the loudest voices possible — some solid data. Or else, they could say, they’d deride orchestras (and opera companies, and even poor little chamber music groups) as spin machines. OK, I’m pushing this a little far, but really! Anyone covering Dell or any other business firm has all the information needed to interpret any new development. While in classical music, the great, immortal art form, no such thing is possible right now.
*
Then Brian Bell, with some praise of me for past writings, e-mailed this (quoted with permission, as always):
Finally, I fear what you have written could be wildly misinterpreted. Yes, Boston is learning that Levine likes to challenge the listener with new compositions. [Brian was comparing the Boston Symphony under Seiji Ozawa and under James Levine.]
Letters to the editor abound. People are suddenly talking about the orchestra again, debating the merits/demerits of Ameriques. But the benefit here is not that there has been “negative” coverage. Far from it. There has been more light than heat.
Elsewhere, trashing individual players/conductors won’t help matters as much as WHY the concert wasn’t the success it could’ve been. WHY was the concert boring? Too often in the past I’ve read critics who roast a concert, but don’t adequately explain why. Mindlessly generating controversy isn’t the answer. Grappling with how the composer wasn’t served well, will.
I’d mildly say that I’m not interested in trashing anyone, but in helping communities understand how good (or not so good) their orchestra actually is. But Brian raises an important point, which is that the overall artistic profile of the orchestra (or a local opera company, or chamber music series, or new music series) needs to be talked about. And, to get back on my hobby horse, compared to similar profiles elsewhere. An organization afraid of doing new music should — just for instance — be told about similar organizations elsewhere that thrive on it. Or rather the community that supports the organization should be told.
Maybe if critics had a stronger idea of what’s going on nationally, the New York Philharmonic wouldn’t be so ritually abused. I’m not saying that the Philharmonic couldn’t be more creative. It has miles — light-years — to go in that regard. But it’s also not as bad as people like to think. Yes, we can do the kneejerk comparison to Los Angeles or San Francisco — so ritually famous for their creative programming — but so what? Maybe the Philharmonic has something to learn, but maybe, on a national scale, it’s not as uncreative (compared to all large orchestras) as people think. I’ve always thought it got a bad rap, though, damn, in New York City , of all places, there ought to be very little limit on what it might try.
*
And now we come to the devastating comments I promised. Three people have posted comments on the blog comments here and here, though you’ll have to do some scrolling to find them), in which they say that their local critics aren’t any good. These people — those posting comments, not the critics — work with major orchestras, at least one as a musician. Sample excerpt:
In my city the music critic has rarely written a word I agree with and not just about us. He is an informed person but his ignorance, at least in my opinion, has made me laugh out loud frequently. Coincidentally, he has started in with the personal attacks with players he doesn’t seem to admire. So whose opinion should go down in print?
Sometimes we behave like a critic’s column is like a box score, as though it is an accurate record of what transpired on stage. As a player in a full time orchestra I feel we are the real experts. I wasn’t surprised to read this, because I’ve heard similar things from orchestra people, and other classical music professionals. And I know it can be true. So I was naïve — talking about what critics (or classical music journalists generally, whether they’re critics or not) should do, without stopping to ask whether they’re fully competent to do it.
Which raises a serious question. I said that classical music journalists should look at orchestras (and of course other classical music organizations) far more sharply — and thoroughly — than they currently do. But who’s going to look at critics and journalists? Think about it — they’re the only ones in the classical music food chain who aren’t going to be rated in public, the only ones immune from criticism (unless yo count letters to the editor, which don’t carry much force). Someone’s sure to say that musicians don’t like critics because they don’t like reading bad reviews, but I haven’t found this to be true. In fact, I’ve seen musicians either laughing or aghast at critics because a performance had been terrible, and the critic liked it.
So how could musicians in any town sit in public judgment on their critic? I’d suggest a standardized test, which ideally would be developed nationally, and would consist of musical excerpts to listen to, and questions to answer, both about music and about how the music business works. The excerpts would include common faults in performance, sloppy rhythm and bad intonation, for a start, things musicians are normally unanimous in hearing. But the rhythm shouldn’t be too sloppy, or the intonation too unpleasant. Let’s see who hears subtleties. Critics would be asked to take the test, which remember would be given all over the country. And their scores would be announced.
Musicians could be asked to take it, too, just to see how they’d do. And at last — though I’m sure my scheme is way too optimistic — we’d maybe have some objective recourse, when a musician wants to tell the world a critic doesn’t know what he or she is hearing.
And yes: I’d volunteer to take the test.
Sorry, Greg; I think you have read what’s coming — many times. Be that as it may . . .
What is the function of a music critic? We know what purpose most other critics serve:
-Book reviewers help us decide whether to read a book.
-Movie reviewers help us to decide whether to see the movie-
-Record reviewers — buy/not buy the record.
-Play reviewers — see/not see the play.
-Restaurant critics — eat/not eat there.
-TV critics — watch/not watch the show.
Some of the above may be striving to accomplish other things as well, but the yes/no function is a given.
So what do we get from music critics? In many cases, the concert has already taken place, so the yes/no function doesn’t apply. So what is the purpose of the review?
One sure sign that a music critic has never considered that question is the “score keeper.” I don’t mean “score,” as in a musical manuscript; I mean “score” as in hits, runs, errors, touchdowns, goals, etc. What is the purpose of telling readers that the trumpet’s entrance was late, the oboe was sour, the clarinet out of tune, or any of this other trivia? How does this information help the reader? Of course, if it happens often enough, it might help the conductor prune out some inadequate players, but any conductor who is not capable of hearing such bloopers for himself is also inadequate.
Thomas Beecham addresses this matter in one of his books, saying something to the effect that audiences are so ignorant today that they judge performances by the number of mistakes. He states that he has conducted some wonderful performances but, afterwards, people we commiserating with him about the mistakes.
Another breed of critic that is useless is the one that makes pronouncements about the performance without supporting data. “The performance was brilliant” sort of thing. One purpose of a critic that I’m sure of is educating the reader; so, unless said critic helps the reader form the ability to make his/her own judgements as to “brilliant,” said critic is a fraud.
Another fraud is the critic who addresses the individual compositions played in the course of a program without also addressing the program as a whole. A great deal of artistic judgement goes into assembling a program, but it is only within the past year or so that this fact has started to be widely recognized (for example, giving such names to programs as “The French Touch,” “Rapture,” et al).
Anyway, my position is that we can’t conduct any constructive critique of critics until we decide just exactly what the hell they are supposed to do.
Paul
Thanks for raising the issue of qualifications for critics. In the past there have certainly been notable composers, theorists, historians, and even performers who wrote music criticism. This has been valuable as questions of compositional style, interpretive practice, and other such subjects received debate publicly. This is not what happens today.
In my own personal experience–which is as a performer, though my encounters with the critics themselves have not been surrounding my own performances–I have whenever given the opportunity, inquired as to the background of a critic. This is, therefore, annecdotal but nevertheless: a major critic from London told me he was unhappy as a lawyer, so he became a critic; one from the NY Times told me she was baically a writer who stumbled into writing music criticism and advanced quickly. Never have I received an answer that gave me reason to think that the person would have the developed skills I would have expected. My question has always been “WHY?”
Why should these people, who have never played, written, or even studied music be put in the position of judging the interpretive decisions of people who have devoted their lives to it–people who have the esteem of their peers and their audiences. Why would the public care what this guy thinks? What has he or she done to earn that right, other than prove to some editor somewhere that he or she can write persuasively?
When Elliot Carter or Pierre Boulez or Nikolaus Harnoncourt writes about some musical issue, I’ll listen. Your standardized test idea would at least acknowledge that one needs skills other than ‘writer’ to have something to say about music. However, I fear that as with many other jobs, the people who are truely qualified just wouldn’t want the job.
A couple of decades back, the SLSO played at Carnegie Hall. The Post-Dispatch printed the reviews of the concert by the NY papers.
St. Louisans were outraged that the NY reviews discussed the performance, but not the SLSO per se.
The reviewer for the P-D (I believe it was Frank Peters, whose writing I respected, pointed out that the coverage was a sign of respect for the orchestra. The reviewer assumed that the SLSO was a competent orchestra so they could focus on what was really important and not trivialities such as clams and other such glitches.
If the local orchestra is a first- or second-tier ensemble, and the local reviewer constantly mentions mishaps, the effect can only be to drive people away from the concerts. With all the other things to do and all the other demands on discretionary spending, why would people waste money going to mistake-ridden performances.
On the other hand, if the orchestra is iffy, then the reviewer has some value judgements to make. Should s/he point out inadequacies and thereby take the risk of driving people away from concerts, thus — perhaps — leading to the demise of the orchestra. Or should the reviewer point out that the local performances are probably the equal of what Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schuman, Schubert, et al heard during their lifetime and that audiences should not be deterred from attending concerts for such reasons.
Orchestras today have reached levels of proficiency that were rarely attained when I first started going to concerts. Should we penalize them for not being better or should we support them for producing concerts that were not possible until well into the second half of the last century?
There is nothing more disheartening than hearing musicians comment on performances. I made a recording of a high school chorus in the St. Louis area. I was moved by it. When I played it for the director and a few participants, all they talked about what so-and-so clearing his throat and other such minutia.
Or, when I heard Charles Munch lead the French Radio Orchestra in a concert in Los Angeles, I thought the performance outrageous. I asked the guy next to me, who happened to be first trumpet from the Havana Philharmonic, what he thought, he was enthusiastic to the max: “It’s a wonderful orchestra! Did you hear those trumpets!”
Yes, I had heard those trumpets and I thought they were technically proficient, but strident and — my touchstone for judging performances — unmusical.
So, again, it depends on how we define the function or, more precisely, functionssss, of a critic.
Paul
Thanks for addressing my thoughts. My concern is not with any particular critic. Also, I agree that no one could be qualified to address all aspects of music in all disciplines, nor should they be expected to. While I acknowledge that people without professional experience in music certainly can have insightful things to say about music, I am perhaps too colored by my own personal experience. My perception of music–my ability to differentiate, notice, appreciate what I heard advanced in unexpected ways as my proficiency as a performer increased. Not only the ability to appreciate the degree of technical difficulty when a performance seems effortless, but to appreciate the intricacies of ensemble skills or other such mysteries. A theoretical understanding of these things is certainly something I thought I had, until the reality of overcoming these challenges proved to be nothing like what I had expected.
Having said that, this kind of listening is not always the most important function of a critic. In fact, I think that as a bridge between performers and audience, those technical judgements about the relative merits of one performer’s execution as compared to others is of little significance. We don’t need a score keeper. This is art. Let’s focus on ideas. Unfortunately, score keeper seems to be what many critics see as their main function, and as I said before, I question their authority in these matters in the first place. What makes it particularly frustrating is the idea of people taking the word of the critic as truth (with the full weight of any large publication behind them). It seems to me that classical music audiences feel far less empowered to make and trust their own opinions than do those of other art disciplines (though this is a separate discussion altogether). The voice of the critic then, begins to take on the unfair burden of telling these insecure audiences what to think, and when you consistently disagree, feel your judgement is superior, and have no forum in which to argue the point, one is bound to develop some level of frustration.
Thanks again for at least offering an opportunity to air these issues.
In Australia a Food/Restaurant critic is being sued (along with his paper) for a substantial sum by a restaurant that got a bad review and subsequently failed.
Could a music critic face a similar fate if a season flopped or failed to reach targets?
Let’s take a hypothetical situation.
Let’s set up a hypothetical composer; we’ll call him “Greg.”
Now, suppose that “Greg” writes a hypothetical composition we’ll call “Symphony” and it is played by a hypothetical orchestra in a hypothetical state called “Dakota.”
If a music critic were to write a review of that performance, would “Greg” prefer that the critic focus on the performance of a hypothetical oboe player who is somewhat less than proficient or on the quality, characteristics and emotive power of the music
I know which I’d prefer if I were “Greg.”
OK, now in that town in “Dakota” is a hypothetical listener, “Paul.” “Paul” attended the concert, enjoyed the composition, and would now like to see how his feelings about the music stack up against those of an expert, such as the reviewer. “Paul” also was somewhat put off by the oboe. So, should the reviewer focus on the music and mention the oboe in passing or should he focus on spanking the oboe and then devote what is left of his six column-inches to discussing the music.
In the town is another hypothetical music lover; we’ll call him “Alter.” “Alter” was not able to attend the concert, but he has heard of “Greg” and he wants an evaluation of the music; he will rely on this evaluation to guide his decision as to whether to attend future concerts at which “Symphony” is played and whether to buy the recording, if and when it is released. “Alter” does not know about the oboe problem. What sort of review will best serve “Alter’s” needs?
Many years back, I read an article in the St. L Post Dispatch by (I believe) Frank Peters in which he discussed Slatkin’s success at achieving a new blending of the brass into the texture of the SLSO. It was upbeat and heartening. If the orchestra (or portions thereof)is consistently bad or consistently good, such matters should be covered in feature articles — not in reviews.
Furthermore, I believe that such articles should focus on discussing accomplishments by the orchestra, not on its failings. If the writer wants to correct a deficiency, s/he should do it constructively — not by spanking the culprit publicly but by suggesting possible areas of improvement.
Also, mentioning the bad players serves to make them celebrities; let’s reserve that for the good players. We want the public to follow the activities of Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep, and Edi Falco — not Lindsey, Briteney, Paris, and Nicole, all of whom have accomplished very little but have achieve notoriety by screwing up.
Hypothetically yours,
Paul
I have to express my disagreement with Paul Alter’s implication — that a music critic must have training and/or experience as a practicing musician. If we took that seriously, we’d have to follow it through to its logical end — that the only significant audience are those few who speak the technical language of music.
I’m pretty sure Pauline Kael never wrote a screenplay or directed a film. I disagreed with much of what she wrote, but she made me think about film and about writing.
It’s a real trap, assuming that only members of “the club” can have anything worthwhile to say about art.
Not guilty, Bill. EMPHATICALLY not guilty. I take no position as to whether critic should or should not be a practicing musician. I have seen good and bad on both sides of the question.
As someone said earlier, GB Shaw wrote some dandy music criticism, although he was not a practicing musician. Berlioz, who was a composer and played only the guitar, is one of the best writers about music that I have ever read. Debussy also wrote, and I have no idea what he was trying to say.
The music writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch sang in opera, and I find her reviews not at all helpful; they may be to others, but certainly not to me.
Pauline Kael was an interesting case in point. Actually, she rarely wrote about film; what she discussed was her reaction to the film under discussion. That could be a bad thing or a good thing for music reviewers. Bad if all they react to is the box scores; good if they react to whatever “message” they find in the music.
And now, moving right along, I most certainly do not recommend phony praise for all concerts. What I’m trying to say is something else, as follows.
Suppose you blindfold me, hand me a gun, and say, “hit the target.” I shoot, and you say, “you missed.” How does that help?
Now, suppose you had said, “about two degrees lower and seven degrees to your left.” That’s constructive.
What I propose is that critics try to be constructive, which in no way precludes honesty.
And, finally (am I getting paid by the word?), this sports analogy — I don’t think it works. In sports, there are certain set standards: balls, strikes, hits, goals, times, fumbles, tackles, etc, etc. You look at the statistics and if a player does not add up, you lambaste him/her — if that is your inclination.
In music, there are some standards (intonation, tone, missed notes, et al), but some of the most gifted musicians have not done too well in that regard. Rubenstein, for example, was accused of missing many notes. Szigeti — possibly my all time favorite violinist — was accused of having poor tone. Such things lose importance in the face of that undefined matter called “musicality,” which I cannot for the life of me pin down.
One thing I know is that most studio-recorded performances are note perfect, but not at all musical.
Paul
Greg,
Very good discussion you have going here. I vaued the music criticism of Paul Hume when I was ushering for Constitution Hall back in the day. He was a musician, a good writer, and not afraid of offending the front office.
The fellow we have down here used to be a business writer from what I hear. He knows music well enough and writes well, but he is such a publicity arm of the local orchestra it is frankly boring as hell to read his reviews–not to say irritating. That, plus his adoring comments on certain members of the orchestra whom he deifies. One sees the same names over and over again.
I agree with the late Henry Pleasants who didn’t like a critic to parade his knowledge before his readership, but I do think the critic should be someone with a good ear, good judgment, lots of savvy about the game, and enough guts to tell the truth.
Greg, back to one comment you made at the start of this post: “Anyone covering Dell or any other business firm has all the information needed to interpret any new development. While in classical music, the great, immortal art form, no such thing is possible right now.” Dell’s information is public knowledge, because Dell is a public company, required to publish reports that give all that information. If Michael Dell held Dell privately, you might not know much at all about its finances.
I’m pretty late to the game on this, but I’ll chime in anyway. Like many others, I’m quite nervous about the ability of critics to do what you hope – and even the best critics are always going to be affected by completely normal and unavoidable biases that are inherent in who they are. To listen to music without bias is, in my opinion, a bizarre thing, and the expectation that being bias-free is doable or desirable causes a lot of problems. Unless we’re lucky enough to have three or four critics covering the same events, it’s difficult to put a check on this problem.
However, one thing that I think could help with keeping critics accountable – and that could help with promoting classical music – is if major organizations routinely posted audio of performances online. The sports world learned long ago that televising events does not keep people away from concerts – meanwhile, it could provide a nice check on reviewers who’d automatically be more accountable for their opinions. Imagine if a sportswriter gave blatantly wrong information about what had happened on a play – it would be difficult to get away with that. Now, imagine that a critic says a singer went sharp or the oboist missed an entrance. (By the way, I agree with others who generally don’t think this sort of scorekeeping should be the focus of reviews.) Doubters could easily check up on this. I know that making this happen isn’t a trivial matter, but I’ve little doubt that it would be good all around.
I had already been thinking this before noticing today that the Boston Pops is going to start broadcasting live on the internet. Obviously the Proms and other organizations have already found success with this idea, and there are lots of signs (such as this blog) that the Internet could help to make for more lively dialogue in a community of listeners.