Music Critics

[Richard Barrett]

I'm not at all sure in what sense advertising hasn't always been important to magazines, for as long as these have existed, but there you are.

Obviously it has always been important, but (as I think you were saying), during the supposed "golden age" of music criticism it was not permitted to influence reviewers. This was already not the case in the mid-1980s, when I was warned, as an occasional reviewer for The Wire at that time, that I had to find something good to say about releases on a certain label which advertised there heavily, or my copy wouldn't be published.

Today's interactivity may be fine, for all I know, but I think post-war egalitarianism had a lot going for it, as well.

Of course it did. What I'm saying is that in the present (and future) there is at least a potential for any barriers between artists and audiences to be broken down. Whether one artist or another is interested in realising that potential is another matter. Some of us are still committed to a radically egalitarian way of looking at things!

[jayne lee wilson]

I would say the present-day situation is different rather than better or worse. For sure there's a lot of uninformed and superficially listened commentary around, but as far as I'm concerned this is more than offset by the existence of online communities (like this one) where, rather than opinions being handed down from on high by the kind of "high priests" (all male of course) that you mention, concerts, recordings and new works are actually discussed, without restrictions of space or (very important for magazines these days) the need to please advertisers.

"High priests"? It certainly never felt like that back in the day. What I found in Gramophone and Radio 3 (closely interrelated once...) was a community of enthusiasts for records and recording sharing their passion and knowledge - for the sheer thrill of listening and discovering, open to everything and anyone. As Maclintick says, the incredibly well-stocked local record libraries were an essential feed into all of that. Sadly it was local music teachers and students who condescended the most, unable to understand how impassioned someone could be about music if she wasn't a music student herself, yet with surprisingly limited knowledge of the wider orchestral repertoire themselves. I'll never forget one sneering comment "some people listen to classical music because they think it'll do them good!"
Their reactions to such as Schoenberg or Birtwistle were often dismissive. Where would I have found an intelligent response if not the magazine and the radio?

The present editor of Gramophone is self-evidently keen to continue that open-ness and invitation to discovery. Whatever you dislike about it, you can scarcely fault the range of music it covers - the current issue has a piece on recent Neos and Wergo contemporary music releases, all from living composers, by Richard Whitehouse...
(...and they're hardly the biggest draw for advertisers...)

[Richard Barrett]

What I found in Gramophone and Radio 3 (closely interrelated once...) was a community of enthusiasts for records and recording sharing their passion and knowledge - for the sheer thrill of listening and discovering, open to everything and anyone. As Maclintick says, the incredibly well-stocked local record libraries were an essential feed into all of that.

I agree with all of that, and indeed the Gramophone, Radio 3 and my local library together constituted more or less my entire music education. What I'm saying is that despite the decline in all three there's every reason to be optimistic about musical knowledge and enthusiasm being communicated.

If as you say the Gramophone is now reestablishing its coverage of contemporary music that's an excellent development too. Having been reviewed there a few months ago for the first time in absolute ages I am quite prepared to accept that this is the case!

[jayne lee wilson]

I agree with all of that, and indeed the Gramophone, Radio 3 and my local library together constituted more or less my entire music education. What I'm saying is that despite the decline in all three there's every reason to be optimistic about musical knowledge and enthusiasm being communicated.

If as you say the Gramophone is now reestablishing its coverage of contemporary music that's an excellent development too. Having been reviewed there a few months ago for the first time in absolute ages I am quite prepared to accept that this is the case!

December had an NMC review from Kate Molleson, including Claudia Molitor's installation The Singing Bridge plus Mark Bowden and Emily Howard. Anything can turn up in the "Contemporary Composers" series too, most recently Lera Auerbach....
It's definitely having a go!

[Maclintick]

Obviously it has always been important, but (as I think you were saying), during the supposed "golden age" of music criticism it was not permitted to influence reviewers. This was already not the case in the mid-1980s, when I was warned, as an occasional reviewer for The Wire at that time, that I had to find something good to say about releases on a certain label which advertised there heavily, or my copy wouldn't be published.

I made no reference to a supposed "golden age" of music criticism -- all I said was that the reviewers, writers & broadcasters on music in the pre-internet age, those on JLW's list plus many more, were an essential element in my burgeoning musical appreciation, & that I had no evidence that they were biased towards particular performers or recording companies. Your experience as a reviewer for The Wire is unfortunate, to say the least, but one can't generalise on that basis.

Of course it did. What I'm saying is that in the present (and future) there is at least a potential for any barriers between artists and audiences to be broken down. Whether one artist or another is interested in realising that potential is another matter. Some of us are still committed to a radically egalitarian way of looking at things!

I'm glad you think so, & hope you're right. The notion of egalitarianism doesn't sit comfortably in the prevailing mood of the times, methinks....

[silvestrione]

I would also like to add two cheers for Andrew Clements. He seems to me a long way better than any of the other Guardian reviewers. He knows what he thinks and says so, and I would say he shows a special interest in comtemporary music: if there's a new piece in a concert, most of the review is about that new work, descriptive of its character, leading often to a careful judgement. As they can be dismissive, when he thinks it justified, I've no doubt that he makes enemies. But a critic should?

A superb piece of criticism in the most recent Gramophone is Stephen Plaistow on Leon McCawley's new Haydn disc. You come away from that with a renewed sense of what a good performance of a Haydn sonata involves.

[Alison]

I'd take AC over Ivan Hewett anytime!

Yes Stephen Plaistow is a splendid writer. Gives his opinions and shows his working. The Haydn CD an excellent example

By the way I do agree with Jayne about a reviewer saying too much about the work rather than the performance of it -especially when part of the standard repertoire.

[Richard Barrett]

I had no evidence that they were biased towards particular performers or recording companies.

I'm sure this was true. I'm equally sure that it's no longer true.

[Richard Barrett]

I'd take AC over Ivan Hewett anytime!

A plague on both their houses. Plaistow is in a different class IMO.

[Hornspieler]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem to be a golden age of music criticism. It seems to have all but disappeared from the daily papers and what remains isn't of the highest quality. Andrew Clements, the Guardian's critic, is (imo) not qualified to do his job.

“The music critic has read more, heard more artists and attended more concerts than most of us. The one thing his competence does not extend to, is the ability to perform! He is a musical eunuch.”

Anon. Sometimes ascribed to George Bernard Shaw

... or Sir Thomas Beecham?

'nuff said
HS

[vinteuil]

“The music critic has read more, heard more artists and attended more concerts than most of us. The one thing his competence does not extend to, is the ability to perform! He is a musical eunuch.”

"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."

Samuel Johnson

[Richard Tarleton]

I sat just in front of the great Felix Aprahamian at a QEH concert in 1972 (Peter Pears and Julian Bream, as it happens), and it would have been difficult not to overhear his expansive conversation with his companion - I see from his Wiki entry that we have the authority on FA in this forum . He had a fine turn of phrase - a review of his was the first time I came across the expression to "pile Pelion on Ossa" - a recital in Oxford Town Hall in 1969, when Daniel Chorzempa played the Waldstein (with Andante Favori) and, without an interval, immediately sat down again to play the Diabelli . Anyone who was hoping to nip to the loo, tough.

[Richard Barrett]

the great Felix Aprahamian

Always an entertaining and informative writer, and I say that despite once in my tender years getting a review from him which ended in the words "Not a piece one would wish to hear again."

[silvestrione]

"You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."

Samuel Johnson

Excellent stuff!

[Richard Tarleton]

Always an entertaining and informative writer, and I say that despite once in my tender years getting a review from him which ended in the words "Not a piece one would wish to hear again."

Oh dear! I knew someone who knew him well, and who was present in his home when the great man was paying a tradesman for some completed work - painting or carpentry, I forget which. Handing over a cheque for a 4-figure sum with a flourish, he said "There you are, my man, I can earn that in a couple of hours!"