FMS-Blog : The Wildly Whimsical, Mostly Musical WebLog
Friday, August 04, 2006
Criticising Criticism
Paul Kildea's article entitled Prose and Cons in the arts publication Frieze is a fascinating read. In it he examines how classical music is approached by the mainstream music critics and asks why the quality of most comments on this genre is mostly very simplistic and at it's worst actually fails to say anything insightful about the experience of being involved with 'serious' music :
And it's got to be said that when one takes the time to look at reviews of either live performances or recordings of the classical music repertoire (as well as music of many other genres) this is the kind of language that is employed, especially when the critic in question is writing for a local readership. In this latter case, the writers often attempt to flatter the performers of a given work by being extremely cagey about what they actually thought about the details of the event, to say nothing of how this particular rendition fits alongside the artistic, authentic or societal traditions or expectations. Certainly, when I've been involved in semi-amateur productions of West End musicals, every review I have bothered to look at seemed to praise the singers' outstanding talents and in some cases perhaps remarked in passing about the volume at which the orchestra / band were mixed. Even when you look to the established national press, there is little discussion in these columns about any historical or extra-musical context or even an analysis of whether or not, say, the polyphonic texture of a given section was successfully carried by the string section or, more importantly, why this is the case!
Well, I guess that the nail is on the head with this one : there is an 'educated' elite in academia who approach the study of music in an entirely different fashion to the way broadsheet critics discuss these things, the only difference between this discipline and those that relate to other artistic fields is that there seems to be less crossover between the two methods. If a reader is interested in music enough to want to learn about it's greater societal context and then to analyse how a piece works and the agenda for its performance then there is plenty of material to go at. But, unfortunately, these kinds of articles tend to be expensive to buy, often not available in public libraries and so much harder to come by than the waffle that's printed daily and on sale for 30p a copy!
The critical shorthand employed today is rarely helpful. Piano accompanists can be ‘sensitive’ or ‘supportive’. Conductors do frequently show ‘command’ or ‘authority’ as they bring about ‘tidy ensemble’ with ‘orchestral clarity’. Violinists are commonly ‘virtuosic’. Singers often present ‘clear text’ with ‘vocal maturity’.
And it's got to be said that when one takes the time to look at reviews of either live performances or recordings of the classical music repertoire (as well as music of many other genres) this is the kind of language that is employed, especially when the critic in question is writing for a local readership. In this latter case, the writers often attempt to flatter the performers of a given work by being extremely cagey about what they actually thought about the details of the event, to say nothing of how this particular rendition fits alongside the artistic, authentic or societal traditions or expectations. Certainly, when I've been involved in semi-amateur productions of West End musicals, every review I have bothered to look at seemed to praise the singers' outstanding talents and in some cases perhaps remarked in passing about the volume at which the orchestra / band were mixed. Even when you look to the established national press, there is little discussion in these columns about any historical or extra-musical context or even an analysis of whether or not, say, the polyphonic texture of a given section was successfully carried by the string section or, more importantly, why this is the case!
In the third of his Reith Lectures the conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim asked why it is that cultured, educated people talk freely of books, art and theatre, but rarely of music.
Well, I guess that the nail is on the head with this one : there is an 'educated' elite in academia who approach the study of music in an entirely different fashion to the way broadsheet critics discuss these things, the only difference between this discipline and those that relate to other artistic fields is that there seems to be less crossover between the two methods. If a reader is interested in music enough to want to learn about it's greater societal context and then to analyse how a piece works and the agenda for its performance then there is plenty of material to go at. But, unfortunately, these kinds of articles tend to be expensive to buy, often not available in public libraries and so much harder to come by than the waffle that's printed daily and on sale for 30p a copy!
