The Philosophy of Criticism

[Ein Heldenleben]

Short for Cube Buzz, a Picasso Fan Club! Or maybe just Held’d typo!

Something in me rebels against typing anything but Qu

[Bryn]

Something in me rebels against typing anything but Qu

That may be why I tend to refer to the service concerned in upper case, treating it as if an acronym.

[french frank]

Oh. I see. It's fine to dismiss a performance, and by implication, the opinion of those who appreciate it, as "terrible on every level", but an outrage to respond in kind, replete with ameliorating emoticon, eh?

Stating personal preferences is allowed. There is a difference between panning a performance for no other reason than that one dislikes it and disparaging individuals for doing so. I'm thinking of starting a thread about what criticism actually is - or, in my view, should be - though I doubt there would be much interest in considering it.

[Braunschlag]

Thank you FF, a reasonedPOV

[Pianoman]

As it happens, I find that 'contribution' of yours, "terrible on every level'. To quote Ives, (someone, regrettably, not known for enlightened sexual politics) "stand up and use your ears like a man". Sheesh, there's a right cabal of Rollos on this forum.

Oh dear….I shan’t sleep tonight

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Stating personal preferences is allowed. There is a difference between panning a performance for no other reason than that one dislikes it and disparaging individuals for doing so. I'm thinking of starting a thread about what criticism actually is - or, in my view, should be - though I doubt there would be much interest in considering it.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Stating personal preferences is allowed. There is a difference between panning a performance for no other reason than that one dislikes it and disparaging individuals for doing so. I'm thinking of starting a thread about what criticism actually is - or, in my view, should be - though I doubt there would be much interest in considering it.

One thing I picked up at school and University is that an attack on one’s opinions about , say, a literary work was not a personal attack on me or indeed my critical ability. People with very acute critical abilities often have their own prejudices or likes and dislikes . I know a few people who’ve spent a lot of time studying Elizabethan drama who prefer Marlowe to Shakespeare - indeed think he’s a better writer. An extraordinary opinion, imv , but it’s a free country. I know others who prefer Berlioz to Beethoven. I can’t see it myself. I used to dislike Hardy - influenced by Leavisite academics - now I’ve read all the novels. A teacher at school I greatly respected described Middlemarch to me as “possibly the most boring book ever written” . I didn’t think any the less of him. One of my best friends at University hated Lawrence and TS Eliot - two of my literary heroes . In the end it’s just opinion.
A thread on what “criticism actually is “ would be a bit of an exercise in chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow wouldn’t it ?

[french frank]

A thread on what “criticism actually is “ would be a bit of an exercise in chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow wouldn’t it ?

It would. I'm not even sure I know what I think, but it's always good to find out. At present, I'm not sure that criticism, or a serious critique, is about concluding whether something is "good" or "bad", which is why it seems so odd to find such polarised convictions about professional performances and creative work.

Not about finding the pot of gold; more about the chase.

[Ein Heldenleben]

It would. I'm not even sure I know what I think, but it's always good to find out. At present, I'm not sure that criticism, or a serious critique, is about concluding whether something is "good" or "bad", which is why it seems so odd to find such polarised convictions about professional performances and creative work.

Not about finding the pot of gold; more about the chase.

I think it’s about little else ! But with the emphasis on the reasons why…..
I would avoid the words good or bad but arguing and using evidence as to why say the novels of Jane Austen are better than those of Nadine Dorries is a perfectly valid critical activity. What disappointed me about studying English at university was the relative lack of discussion as to whether a poem or novel was any good even though in the syllabus an enormous number of value judgements had been made . So if you went into an exam having prepared to tackle Swinburne , James Elroy Flecker , Christina or Dante Rossetti you might well find nothing to write about . So why are Tennyson , Arnold and Browning “greater “ poets than the other three? ….they would all regularly feature . Indeed the first two were paired together in a specialist paper just on them ! Some one, some where is making a value judgment ( the correct one as it happens ) but it was rarely “evidenced,” just assumed .
Then of course structuralism , post modernism came in and supposedly the whole idea of some thing being “better “ than another became unmentionable. But funnily enough 90 percent of the syllabus (at the moment ) still features the canonical….

[Pianoman]

One thing I picked up at school and University is that an attack on one’s opinions about , say, a literary work was not a personal attack on me or indeed my critical ability. People with very acute critical abilities often have their own prejudices or likes and dislikes . I know a few people who’ve spent a lot of time studying Elizabethan drama who prefer Marlowe to Shakespeare - indeed think he’s a better writer. An extraordinary opinion, imv , but it’s a free country. I know others who prefer Berlioz to Beethoven. I can’t see it myself. I used to dislike Hardy - influenced by Leavisite academics - now I’ve read all the novels. A teacher at school I greatly respected described Middlemarch to me as “possibly the most boring book ever written” . I didn’t think any the less of him. One of my best friends at University hated Lawrence and TS Eliot - two of my literary heroes . In the end it’s just opinion.
A thread on what “criticism actually is “ would be a bit of an exercise in chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow wouldn’t it ?

An excellent post which I hope others are reading.

[jayne lee wilson]

It would. I'm not even sure I know what I think, but it's always good to find out. At present, I'm not sure that criticism, or a serious critique, is about concluding whether something is "good" or "bad", which is why it seems so odd to find such polarised convictions about professional performances and creative work.

Not about finding the pot of gold; more about the chase.

Better to travel than to arrive....

For me, a critique or review of a recording would be about describing as clearly and precisely as possible what is distinctive about it, in sound and in musical sense. How does it sound? How well, or differently, does it say what the music seems to ask of it? Or has it found such a new approach that it becomes a challenge to previous models, convictions, familiarities? If so, and more subjectively, I feel the writer should try to accentuate the positive; engage with the brave new world before her, living in it, mindfully.

So if moving onto a value judgement, musically, this would be most helpfully related to the very specific class or genre to which the recording belongs. Of course one may widen such comparisons, but always bearing in mind where such comparisons stop being useful to listeners or above all - above all - fair to performers, producers and their aims; and how this reaches back to the composer. The Musical Creation in the wider sense.

It is striking though, how often such very polarised responses appear in relation to period instruments and early pianos; and nearly always beginning in a similar way....

Like David Bowie - always crashing in the same car...

[Braunschlag]

From both sides I might add

[Braunschlag]

And shouldn’t a criticism evaluate both strengths and weaknesses?

[french frank]

I think it’s about little else ! But with the emphasis on the reasons why…..
I would avoid the words good or bad but arguing and using evidence as to why say the novels of Jane Austen are better than those of Nadine Dorries is a perfectly valid critical activity. What disappointed me about studying English at university was the relative lack of discussion as to whether a poem or novel was any good even though in the syllabus an enormous number of value judgements had been made . So if you went into an exam having prepared to tackle Swinburne , James Elroy Flecker , Christina or Dante Rossetti you might well find nothing to write about . So why are Tennyson , Arnold and Browning “greater “ poets than the other three? ….they would all regularly feature . Indeed the first two were paired together in a specialist paper just on them ! Some one, some where is making a value judgment ( the correct one as it happens ) but it was rarely “evidenced,” just assumed .
Then of course structuralism , post modernism came in and supposedly the whole idea of some thing being “better “ than another became unmentionable. But funnily enough 90 percent of the syllabus (at the moment ) still features the canonical….

I would say the essence lies in the presentation of objective facts; and comparing like with like ( I don't mean not comparing Austen with Dorries!). The characterisation of X is finely drawn by means of … which conveys... and the plot is structured in such a way that; whereas Y is … and there is a series of episodes, any of which … . If the examples are clear the inferences should be unnecessary. But this is probably just me. I mistrust value judgments!

[Braunschlag]

Takes me back to A Level Eng Lit - whereas…..