Critics.....good guys or not ??

[Simon]

I like, value and admire those intelligent and perceptive critics whose views I agree with, but detest and distrust the ignoramuses who spout rubbish that I know is wrong.

[Serial_Apologist]

I may be wrong, but I've heard that condemnation by a critic can be very damaging in the USA, but over here, audiences don't take them very seriously at all.

if that's right, it possibly accounts for the strong line I've been opposing here and on another thread

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

if that's right, it possibly accounts for the strong line I've been opposing here and on another thread

It may well do. Do we really take critics seriously? I like to read what they say, but one critic's opinion is precisely that.

[Osborn]

I like, value and admire those intelligent and perceptive critics whose views I agree with, but detest and distrust the ignoramuses who spout rubbish that I know is wrong.

I note the wink but I do value those critics whose views I am likely to agree with. Because they are my primary talent scouts. I rarely buy more than 10 CDs a year because I get far more satisfaction from hearing (generally young(ish) soloists, orchestras and works for the first time.

A critic I can trust is my friendly guide & helps me to get maximum enjoyment from limited money.

[Ventilhorn]

A couple of Boo-Boobs from over 50 years back, which are indelibly printed in my memory:

C A LeJeune in The Observer

"Mr _______ who is starring in the comedy "_______" at the Lyric Theatre, married his leading lady, "Miss _______" in Caxton Hall Registry Office on Wednesday afternoon. The usual performance took place that night."

... and a disastrous typo from the Daily Telegraph drama critic's revue of a new play starring Donald Wolfitt:

"... throughout the performance, Mr Wolfitt's rectitude was quite unshagable"

Well, it's been a lousy dull day here in the South of England, so I thought you might enjoy a little giggle.

Sorry, FF

[salymap]

Follow that................

[cavatina]

And then there are those who try to play the influence peddler. [Unnecessarily inflammatory paragraph deleted.]
You mean critics who live off the reputation of those they write about?

No, "influence peddling" that goes something a little like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbPlyHxj8c

I may be wrong, but I've heard that condemnation by a critic can be very damaging in the USA

It certainly seemed to be true in Los Angeles: when the same programme was on two nights in a row and the critics trashed it, you really did see a drop in audience attendance the next day.

Another problem: down at the second-and-third-tier level in the States, aspiring artists make heavy use of press clippings to get engagements (or help them get an agent in the first place). If I blow off my responsibility as a critic and toss out thoughtless, catty negative reviews willy-nilly, where's the justice in that?

The reviews I did were completely small beans in the overall scheme of things, but I didn't take it lightly because it mattered to the artists and it mattered to me.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It certainly seemed to be true in Los Angeles: when the same programme was on two nights in a row and the critics trashed it, you really did see a drop in audience attendance the next day.

Gullible, or what?

[cavatina]

Gullible, or what?

Absolutely. No argument from me there.

[BBMmk2]

I never take any notice what the critics' say! If I enjoyed a concert, or whatever, I say to myself, yes that was worth the effort. If not I would say, well I wondered why I bothered! That doesnt happen very often

[aeolium]

The only value that critics can provide for me is factual information about a performance - e.g. for a recording, the tempi, instruments used, style, ornamentation etc. The greatest service an opera critic can provide is a detailed description of the production. I am not interested in whether they like it or dislike it since I could just as easily have the opposite reaction to them (we can see on these boards how there can be a huge variation in opinion about a single performance or piece of music).

I am not sure whether they would count as critics but the writers on music I have especially enjoyed reading are Donald Tovey, H C Robbins Landon, David Cairns and Charles Rosen (for Hans Keller I preferred his writing about other subjects). And although critics have had a pretty poor reputation down the ages, they can be valued by composers. For instance, Britten dedicated his 3rd quartet to Keller apparently as a result of suggestions made by Keller on hearing his 2nd quartet (at least, this was Keller's account).

[salymap]

I have an almost complete set of the Penguin Music Magazines, covering 1947 onwards. Edited by either Alec Robertson or Ralph Hill, they were first issued as quarterlies, then one a year until about 1953 when they either fizzled out or I stopped buying them. They covered London and other big cities, reviewed every genre of music and still make a good, if surprising read. I wish I had more more time to look at them.

[Mahlerei]

I suppose critics performed a valuable function in the days before recordings, when they would log a particular performances for posterity. Now a concert has hundreds of thousands of listeners/viewers so perhaps their role has been diluted somewhat.

Reviewing records is rather different; in a sense one is offering advice to consumers, based on a degree of knowledge/exeprience, that will help them decide whether a given recording is worth acquiring.In that sense readability and thoughtful responses/comparisons is what matters. Generally, I know the reviewers/critics whose judgment I trust and they are the ones I read.

Yesterday I came a across a very short Guardian review of a new Strauss disc and it was so anonymous I strongly suspect the reviewer didn't even hear the recording in its entirety. Such capsules are worse than useless, IMO.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

When a critic writes a view of a concert, and it's published on the following day (or soon thereafter), it isn't going to change the view of a listener who was there. The only possibly difference might be when reviewing an opera, which will have several performances. But even then, most tickets will have been booked in advance. So is there really any point?

[Mahlerei]

Time was when newspapers cared about these things a critic would have to dash off a review in time for the presses that nigh/early morning. That way one could read about it the very next day.