In response to the discussion about music criticism on the Prom 43 thread, I suggest we start a new discussion here, allowing the earlier thread to revert to discussion of the concert itself.
And just to give it a kick-start:-
And just to give it a kick-start:-
It seems to me that this thread is moving on to a discussion on Music Critics and what their qualifications should be. Perhaps it would be advisable to move this discussion onto its own thread and return the subject to Prom 43.
However, since we are here, I would like to offer a few comments.
Anyone who states their opinion of a performance on these boards can be regarded as a critic; or more accurately, to be submitting a critique of what they have experienced. Some have been for and others less favourable (…one man’s meat … &c….) and each one’s opinions must be respected.
The discussion here seems to have turned to what qualifications are required to be a professional critic.
How is it that the music critics of two respected journals can differ so widely in their write up of the same concert?
The question has been raised here “ . what is required of a critic in terms of previous preparation and pre-knowledge of a work before pronouncing a safe verdict” and my answer would be that the only requirement is objectivity After all, if our paid critic is hearing a work by an unknown composer for the first time, how can he be anything but objective, and that is the discipline that he should apply to all of his critiques, however loved or hated a work may be to him personally.
That is the difference between the paid critic and ourselves as listeners, but perhaps there would be less sparring and ill feeling on these message boards if we also were more objective and, while giving our opinions, attempted to be more willing to heed the views of others, without rancour or prejudice.
If my fellow message boarders would like to open a thread on the subject of critics on the Performance sub-forum, I would be only too pleased to contribute.
Some time ago, on the Radio 3 message boards, I penned a rather cynical appraisal of types of newspaper music critics.
If anyone is interested in reading it, start the thread – but let’s return this one to Prom 43.
VH
However, since we are here, I would like to offer a few comments.
Anyone who states their opinion of a performance on these boards can be regarded as a critic; or more accurately, to be submitting a critique of what they have experienced. Some have been for and others less favourable (…one man’s meat … &c….) and each one’s opinions must be respected.
The discussion here seems to have turned to what qualifications are required to be a professional critic.
How is it that the music critics of two respected journals can differ so widely in their write up of the same concert?
The question has been raised here “ . what is required of a critic in terms of previous preparation and pre-knowledge of a work before pronouncing a safe verdict” and my answer would be that the only requirement is objectivity After all, if our paid critic is hearing a work by an unknown composer for the first time, how can he be anything but objective, and that is the discipline that he should apply to all of his critiques, however loved or hated a work may be to him personally.
That is the difference between the paid critic and ourselves as listeners, but perhaps there would be less sparring and ill feeling on these message boards if we also were more objective and, while giving our opinions, attempted to be more willing to heed the views of others, without rancour or prejudice.
If my fellow message boarders would like to open a thread on the subject of critics on the Performance sub-forum, I would be only too pleased to contribute.
Some time ago, on the Radio 3 message boards, I penned a rather cynical appraisal of types of newspaper music critics.
If anyone is interested in reading it, start the thread – but let’s return this one to Prom 43.
VH