The Philosophy of Criticism

[Bryn]

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 ?

Ah, but do those who prefer, say, Beethoven to Berlioz, dismiss the latter as "terrible on every level", or vice versa? To me, for instance, the Gould/ASO/Stokowski 'Emperor' is just about totally unBeethovenian. I can still listen to it and find it of considerable musical interest in its own, wayward, approach, though. There is a massive difference between finding an artist's work other than to one's personal taste or prejudice, and dismissing that artist's work as "terrible on every level", especially when one knows that others one is interacting with have found it rather more than merely worthwhile.

[Ein Heldenleben]

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!

I just looked at the reading list for Victorian Poetry at the university I attended forty years ago . It’s exactly the same though interestingly approx one quarter of the size . It’s shot through with value judgements - “the consent of the learned “ if you will . “The best that is thought and known “

Forgive me but the phrase “finely drawn” is begging the question. What do you mean by “fine”? That’s a value judgement isn’t it? And all the better for being one in my view . Why are Austen’s characters more “finely drawn” than Nadine Dorries’? .It is not an objective fact that Austen is better than Dorries but in arguing the reasons why she is we move towards a definition of what the possibilities of a novel might be , don’t we?

[Braunschlag]

That works both ways.

[french frank]

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.

I don't quarrel with that, but I think it's at the point of the value judgments, which I feel are necessarily subjective, that disagreements arise. I don't understand the vehemence of those taking issue with others who sincerely feel differently. I dunno, I've explained to someone, in precise detail, why she should have dry sherry rather sweet before a meal but she won't touch it at any cost and pulls the most ridiculous faces at the thought.

Which is not intended facetiously, but to tentatively suggest that lurking beneath even the most reasoned, evidence-supported arguments is always an element of personal taste.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The issue isn't much that people disagree. That's the cornerstone of healthy debate. Problem arise when one poster says something another doesn't agree with, so that second poster insults the first one, either directly or implicitly.
Another scenario is that one poster suggestion that others should listen to a recording of a work directed by a particular conductor, or in a particular playing style, but when there isn't the expected response, the originator gets upset.
Then the mud slinging takes over, and the effect can be the disappearance of good people from the forum.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Ah, but do those who prefer, say, Beethoven to Berlioz, dismiss the latter as "terrible on every level", or vice versa? To me, for instance, the Gould/ASO/Stokowski 'Emperor' is just about totally unBeethovenian. I can still listen to it and find it of considerable musical interest in its own, wayward, approach, though. There is a massive difference between finding an artist's work other than to one's personal taste or prejudice, and dismissing that artist's work as "terrible on every level", especially when one knows that others one is interacting with have found it rather more than merely worthwhile.

I’ve heard precisely criticism of that nature directed at D.H. Lawrence for example by professional academics who hated him . Yet go back fifty years and in Cambridge he had semi-God like status. I was taught by a lecturer who hated Thomas Hardy - would literally read out bits of Jude The Obscure and laugh at it. Trouble was his boss worshipped the ground TH walked on. So you had to guess who would be marking the Hardy essay and adjust accordingly. I wrote an essay on Hardy which the former criticised on the grounds that I’d missed out the “ludicrous co-incidences” (true) TH relies on. I repeated a similar essay in an end of term exam and was warned by the latter boss if I did the same in the final exam they would fail me on the entire paper - “they are a lot of Hardy lovers in this place .”
I regarded it all as a useful toughening up process for working in a job where “literary criticism” consisted of work being blue pencilled without so much as a murmur, nod , acknowledgement…anything really .

[Braunschlag]

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....

My response skipped a reply or two -

That works both ways.

[french frank]

Forgive me but the phrase “finely drawn” is begging the question. What do you mean by “fine”? That’s a value judgement isn’t it?

Something of a cliché - I just meant more detailed and revealed in many different ways, actions, reactions, words, gestures, whatever.

Why are Austen’s characters more “finely drawn” than Nadine Dorries’?

There you have me. I am only able to judge Dorries the Politician, and the quality of her thought from what she is reported to have said.

It is not an objective fact that Austen is better than Dorries but in arguing the reasons why she is we move towards a definition of what the possibilities of a novel might be , don’t we?

I don't know about that. I think I would have to have a fair notion of the possibilties and then measure the novelists against it. But I was only a medievalist: they didn't write novels in those days, not in the modern sense. I don't think anyone would ever think of wondering whether Chrétien de Troyes was a 'better' writer than Jean de Meung.

[french frank]

There is a massive difference between finding an artist's work other than to one's personal taste or prejudice, and dismissing that artist's work as "terrible on every level", especially when one knows that others one is interacting with have found it rather more than merely worthwhile.

To quote Mr Sunak this evening in another context, "I wouldn't have said it." But if one person has stated that they have found it "rather more than merely worthwhile", what harm is done if someone else says it was "terrible on every level"? In essence, these are (if sincerely meant) just two statements of fact. These are comments on soapbox media and, as such, the newspaper round your fish and chips. Not really something to get cross about.

But I must admit, I probably had an anger bypass when I was a child. And don't go in much for hyperbole.

[jayne lee wilson]

To quote Mr Sunak this evening in another context, "I wouldn't have said it." But if one person has stated that they have found it "rather more than merely worthwhile", what harm is done if someone else says it was "terrible on every level"? In essence, these are (if sincerely meant) just two statements of fact. These are comments on soapbox media and, as such, the newspaper round your fish and chips. Not really something to get cross about.

But I must admit, I probably had an anger bypass when I was a child. And don't go in much for hyperbole.

I took some time and careful thought into the various detailed expositions and arguments I advanced above. I had imagined them to be rather more worthwhile than a takeaway carton. What a fool I was.

[french frank]

I took some time and careful thought into the various detailed expositions and arguments I advanced above. I had imagined them to be rather more worthwhile than a takeaway carton. What a fool I was.

Surprised to come upon this separate thread!

No, not a fool. A perfectly reasoned argument. I think that what I'm suggesting (I dare go no further) about criticism is that there is an individual psychological, experiential element involved in whatever conclusions are arrived at. It isn't a simple case of being knowledgeable, experienced, considered - and therefore 'right'. Or is it?

[jayne lee wilson]

Surprised to come upon this separate thread!

No, not a fool. A perfectly reasoned argument. I think that what I'm suggesting (I dare go no further) about criticism is that there is an individual psychological, experiential element involved in whatever conclusions are arrived at. It isn't a simple case of being knowledgeable, experienced, considered - and therefore 'right'. Or is it?

Of course, but that doesn't devalue the attempt to establish the sonic and artistic truth about a given classical recording.

The more research you do into its background, the better the sound in which you apprehend it, the longer you spend in its sole company, the better your chance of getting near to that. An ever-receding goal perhaps, but the serious listener should surely do her best to aspire to it. As all the Classic Gramophonians, from Trevor Harvey and Lionel Salter, Julie and Stanley Sadie, to Richard Osborne, Jon Swain and Robert Layton, latterly Charlotte Gardner, Threasher, Whitehouse and Cowan, always did and do. Not just in reviews, but in features such as the much-missed Sounds in Retrospect, they always took meticulous care in their assessments - on some of the best (most revealing) systems available, with various producers and engineers often on the panel.

I learnt much from their considerations, even when my initial, very modest equipment was nowhere near their monitoring systems.

But now we have such damaging influences as David Hurwitz to contend with and all manner of shallow online instant judgments. Pontius Pilate the arbiter of the truth. Many cannot see that, lacking the wider, (now arcane) knowledge or the listening experience.

[oddoneout]

I took some time and careful thought into the various detailed expositions and arguments I advanced above. I had imagined them to be rather more worthwhile than a takeaway carton. What a fool I was.

Never a fool Jayne. You put a great deal of effort into your posts - extensive factual back-up to your opinions and conclusions, which I may not always(in fact often!) don't fully understand for various reasons - but at the end of the day even with all that effort you may not be able to change someone's opinion. That isn't a reflection on you and your opinions, nor the person on whom you are expending the effort, but there comes a point when the human element has to be accepted - we do not all like the same things, the reactions of a group listening to, reading, looking at, the same material will all differ (although not all will necessarily admit it, for various reasons) and that is as it should be. What isn't desirable is when such differences become weapons - personal attacks- or are perceived as such.
Over the years I've found that working along the lines of "I don't like xyz" rather than launching into "xyz is bad" seems to work quite well. It pre-empts those who have a dim view of my knowledge, abilities etc, but in other situations opens up fruitful discussion; I can still think "xyz is bad" in my head, safe from the unwanted fall-out!

[french frank]

Of course, but that doesn't devalue the attempt to establish the sonic and artistic truth about a given classical recording.

I'm particularly interested in the idea of 'criticism as truth' (dealt with at length by Roland Barthes). A particularly poorly referenced Wikipedia article (I was looking for something better!) states; "In part, aesthetic criticism can genuinely prove aesthetic propositions;– if they concern matters of factual or logical evidence. For example, either an artist had a certain motivation, or s/he did not. But insofar as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", there is always also a subjective element in aesthetic criticism, which is not provable, but expresses a preference, a personal taste. It may be possible to explain that preference, but it may not be possible to compare it meaningfully with other preferences."

I think I would be in that same camp. "This is terrible on all levels" is clearly an opinion and a reflection of personal preference ("I didn't like it"). That's pretty clear. But 'the better the sound' may be hugely important to one person and less so to an another. Did anyone, I woder, ever hear music in the same way as sensitive audio/recording equipment does now?

[RichardB]

Did anyone, I wonder, ever hear music in the same way as sensitive audio/recording equipment does now?

Machines don't "hear", they have no idea whether what's going through the wires is Beethoven or Les Dawson.