Reviewers in the press grrrrrrrr

[seabright]

I stopped accepting what papers prints as having any automatic validity after reading a report of a football match that I had been at, and the " reporter " clearly hadn't, a long time ago.

Reviewers have to earn and keep respect. Those who consistently slate a big proportion of concerts and discs need treating with great caution. I expect they have ego issues.

Interesting to see the reference to "ego issues" as that confirms what a music critic once said to me: "Of course reviewing is an ego trip. We just love to see our opinions in print" ... 'Nuff said!

[ahinton]

Sibelius is supposed to have said (presumably in Finnish or Swedish - the latter of which was his first language) "Pay no attention to what the critics say. No statue was ever put up to a critic".

It's a lovely quote, but does anyone know if it's true?

That Sibelius said it - or at least that he was the first to do so - is almost certainly in doubt; as lots of people have nevertheless laid claim to having said it, one can presume that someone said it first, whoever it might have been. When first I heard it quoted (attributed, quite wrongly, as I recall, to Beecham), I responded "no one's ever hit a critic over the head with one either"; I realised afterwards that I might better have replied "and no critic has ever put up a statue and been panned for it either", but that's slow-wittedness for you...

[BBMmk2]

I do sometimes wonder what planet these reviewers are on! I don't take nowt from these guys at all!!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Barbirolli's Manchester concerts were all reviewed in The Guardian, usually by Gerald Larner and mostly scathing sort of way. Later on the same day, the same concert would be reviewed in the Manchester Evening News by. John Robert Blunn, in the most glowing language.

In the end it's just one individual's opinion, but I do think it has value in making readers aware that these concerts are actually happening and that Music doesn't just mean The Voice, etc.

[ahinton]

I do sometimes wonder what planet these reviewers are on! I don't take nowt from these guys at all!!

Indeed; one of them who has already been mentioned on this thread is especially well known for peppering his reviews with adverbs, a habit that has encouraged me to describe that aspect of his style as "Clementine adverbiage".

[Hornspieler]

Just been reading the press reviews for the gala recital of the rebuilt Festival Hall organ last Tuesday. Was infuriated to read both John Allison of the Torygraph and Barry Millington of the Standard lambast John Scott's performance of the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor. As an organist I admired his beautiful articulation and phrasing (something Millington tears into). I know that organ is very unforgiving to play as the dry acoustic shows up the slightest error.

Allison says the majority of the programme was indifferently played: did he really listen to Isabelle Demers' performance of the Prelude and Fugue in B major: one of the most difficult pieces in the repertoire (played from memory according to the presenter).

Quite frankly I don't know what authority guys like this have to make comments like this. Are they organists? As an amateur player i look up to players like this and get wound up when these people casually pan their efforts. As I have always maintained: those who can do; those who can't review.

I did not listen to this performance and so I have nothing to say about whether the reviewer was correct in his coments, but I take issue with you, Matt, on your final paragraph.

You don't have to be a Cabinet Maker to recognise a shoddy bit of carpentry, but knowing the difference between a tenon saw and a hacksaw certainly helps.

Hs

[Sir Velo]

I did not listen to this performance and so I have nothing to say about whether the reviewer was correct in his coments, but I take issue with you, Matt, on your final paragraph.

You don't have to be a Cabinet Maker to recognise a shoddy bit of carpentry, but knowing the difference between a tenon saw and a hacksaw certainly helps.

Hs

I agree with this point definitely. Both these reviewers (and Andrew Clements in The Guardian who expressed similar negativity) are experienced classical music reviewers. The fact that there is such unanimity in their viewpoints is worth noting. However, John Scott expressed some concerns over the placing of the organ console in the overall acoustic, in an interview with Louise Fryer. This may have had some effect on his fairly cautious readings.

[Mattbod]

Alison John Scott's friday recital was brilliant. How anyone can label his playing stiff and his articulation strange , I cannot imagine.

Sir Velo: the placing of the console nearer the organ was a silly mistake and will affect balance but that would more likely have an effect on registration than playing PLUS Scott was organist at St Paul's before the mobile console where it was nigh on impossible for the organist to balance the instrument from the old console behind the choir stalls. He is therefore well used to this.


As to Richard Morrison I would read his review but it is behind Murdoch's paywall so I can't and I will not shell out to read a net article.

[richardfinegold]

Shaw do. well, sort of.I think his plays may have more to do with it, though !



Alex Ross thinks there are one or two>
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/0...s_of_crit.html

Shaw was a playwright who was also a Music Critic, but many famous Composers have been Critics as well. Berlioz, Schumann, Havergal Brian, Virgil Thompson, Aaron Copland come to mind, and no doubt there are many more. Many of them have their own statues, but as per the Shaw example, we suspect they are to paens to their own creations, and not their opinions of the creations of others.

[pastoralguy]

For me, the exception is cd criticism. At least one can hear exactly the same performance under home conditions and decide if the the critic is being fair or not. Having said that, I remember that, for a while, Gramophone had a 'Hi-Fi doctor' feature where one of the 'patients' was a Gramophone critic. His system was vastly inferior to mine and yet he would pontificate on the sound quality of new recordings. Most odd.

[Ferretfancy]

For me, the exception is cd criticism. At least one can hear exactly the same performance under home conditions and decide if the the critic is being fair or not. Having said that, I remember that, for a while, Gramophone had a 'Hi-Fi doctor' feature where one of the 'patients' was a Gramophone critic. His system was vastly inferior to mine and yet he would pontificate on the sound quality of new recordings. Most odd.

Many years ago I wrote to The Gramophone and asked if their reviewers were using standard listening equipment approved by the magazine. I received a rather haughty reply which suggested that their team could, as it were, "listen through" any differences in sound quality, yet still have accurate judgement. Complete nonsense of course, but the patronising attitude was typical.

[Richard Barrett]

Being Andrew Clements, he is always keen on avant garde offerings

It's a shame he so seldom has anything more interesting to say about them than (fill in gaps as necessary) "________'s music is well-known in his/her native ______, but has relatively seldom been heard in Britain."

[cloughie]

I always think John Allison is bland and boring.

I like reviewers who try to understand where a performance is coming from even if it doesn't fit the template of their preconceived ideal.

Whether it's Lorin or Uncle Bernie?