Post
by Lance » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:35 pm
Hello Pianotejh:
Anyone who becomes a critic of any public performance, be it opera, orchestra, soloist, theater performance, ballet, etc. generally has to know something (quite a bit, actually) about what he is reviewing. Some of the best critics have been musicians themselves, or composers, such as was the case of Virgil Thomson, whom I believe to be one of the greatest music critics (New York Herald Tribune. Other great critics include Harold C. Schonberg, Tim Page, Harris Goldsmith (himself a fine pianist and a man who taught me truly listen to the piano in performance), the late Claudia Cassidy where people feared her in the Chicago area; she could be most caustic, but not if she personally liked an artist! (Kapell, for example, but who wouldn't like a genius like that?) The big thing is that I always try to learn from what the most respected critics have to say. But they are not infallible in their opinions. It is often the public[/i] who decides who is the greatly gifted star of the day/week/month/year. And they frequently know very little about evaluating an artist or performance - or any reasons - why someone is a "great artist." En masse, though, the public is often right! I've seen this happen especially in the world of the operatic performer.
I do a lot of record reviewing, have adjudicated musical competitions, etc., and always try to be fair in my opinions. That's what they are: opinions. And many times critics write about what they like/enjoy or don't like ... and that's their privilege because they hold the job of a "reviewer." Many a fine artist's career has been ruined because of bad reviews (in the large cities particularly) and sometimes by people who are not well informed about certain facets of the performing arts. We all can't know everything and some try to convince you that they do.
To be able to write meaningfully means to listen, to really hear what you are reviewing, while knowing much about music, performance practice, deportment, general presentation, professionalism, interpretation, tone quality, acoustics, good pianos, bad pianos, what went "wrong and why," balances between a soloist and accompanist etc., etc., and also what was particularly good, not just talking about the bad. It's a lot to chew on for a good music critic, and the public tends to believe what they read. Sometimes, as I stated, they can't form their own opinions (because of lack of knowledge) and take, as gospel, what somebody else has to say. It also means the critic needs to hear inordinate amounts of music in order to make comparisons and draw conclusions. I think it's fine to listen to recordings in order to perfect the art of the critic because we often hear the best from the very best. This also means attending many live performances, even those you don't review. If you respect the person who reviewed the same concert you attended, it will be interesting to compare your evaluation with the one in the newspaper. Everyone's got a different set of ears and what appeals to one doesn't to another. It also pays to have a good vocabulary and be able to put in to words exactly what you feel. Descriptions cannot just be "good" or "bad" or "mediocre," though we all tend to do this on occasion. We have to give reasons and examples of why something is good or bad. One has to develop the art of writing. It's a constant learning process.
Read lots of reviews in all kinds of publications and by all kinds of critics to determine how THEY see and hear things. But one cannot emulate or copy another writer or try to sound like them. One has to develop one's own "voice," as it were. Knowing what you are talking about will reap great rewards, a jump at the newspaper from writing obituary notices to reviewing live concerts and recordings, getting cost-free tickets to most musical events, a nice plus, but also many late nights and beating the deadline for the publication. One hopefully earns the respect of the periodical or newspaper, but more importantly, the reader who can hardly wait to read your review in the newspaper the next day.
These are just my thoughts on the subject. I don't believe there is a course in most colleges or universities to learn the art of being a critic. It is far too comprehensive in the world of the arts unless you want to specialize in one facet or another. (If I'm incorrect on that, someone is sure to call me on it!) As I said at the beginning: nobody knows everything ... it's a constant learning process, especially for the critic.
Lance G. Hill
Editor-in-Chief
______________________________________________________
When she started to play, Mr. Steinway came down and personally
rubbed his name off the piano. [Speaking about pianist &*$#@+#]
much thanks in advance!
