Music Critics

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Me neither. Perhaps we were just a little more deferential years ago. A few names had the field very much to themselves.

Yes - the Internet reveals the redundancy of Music Criticism (as Hans Keller demonstrated over thirty years ago). Now informed debate, discussion, and dissemination of repertoires and performance is open to whoever has anything to say. Critics can no longer restrict a career as easily as they used to (just imagine if all the people who paid for tickets and enjoyed Sinopoli's concerts with the Philharmonia in the '80s had had access to the internet to refute the handful of critics who gave them the thumbs down from their free best seats in the house! Word of mouth would have ensured full houses, and might have persuaded him to stay on longer as Chief conductor.)

The demise of the profession of "Music Critic" is something to rejoice over.

[Conchis]

Yes - the Internet reveals the redundancy of Music Criticism (as Hans Keller demonstrated over thirty years ago). Now informed debate, discussion, and dissemination of repertoires and performance is open to whoever has anything to say. Critics can no longer restrict a career as easily as they used to (just imagine if all the people who paid for tickets and enjoyed Sinopoli's concerts with the Philharmonia in the '80s had had access to the internet to refute the handful of critics who gave them the thumbs down from their free best seats in the house! Word of mouth would have ensured full houses, and might have persuaded him to stay on longer as Chief conductor.)

Very true, but Sinopoli survived and, indeed, prospered; which, as a Sinopolist, I'm glad about. But I do wonder how he managed it? He must have had powerful 'behind the scenes' friends.

Hans Keller is a great name from the past. Sadly, he is principally remembered (and wrongly ridiculed) today for his 1967 interview with Syd Barrett and Roger Waters (in which he made a serious attempt to understand and appreciate their music, which he isn't given credit for).

I believe Richard Osborne is still writing, though he's sadly absent from R3 these days. I think his music criticism is at a higher level.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very true, but Sinopoli survived and, indeed, prospered; which, as a Sinopolist, I'm glad about. But I do wonder how he managed it? He must have had powerful 'behind the scenes' friends.

Or just the absence of the London Music critics in Dresden?

[Conchis]

Or just the absence of the London Music critics in Dresden?

My understanding is, he was pretty much universally trashed - not just by critics, but by fellow conductors as well; and by orchestras.

But he was big in Japan and he had a golden contract with DG: that might have been enough!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My understanding is, he was pretty much universally trashed - not just by critics, but by fellow conductors as well; and by orchestras.

Really?! I didn't know this - and he worked with some of the best: Dresden Staatskapelle, VPO, NYPO, La Scala, as well as the Philharmonia. These are mostly self-governing bodies - would they appoint a conductor to work with them (two of them as Music Director) if he had been so lowly-regarded?

[Conchis]

Really?! I didn't know this - and he worked with some of the best: Dresden Staatskapelle, VPO, NYPO, La Scala, as well as the Philharmonia. These are mostly self-governing bodies - would they appoint a conductor to work with them (two of them as Music Director) if he had been so lowly-regarded?

The VPO supposedly terminated his contract with them after he 'lost his place in the score' during a concert.

I believe he was universally considered a good opera conductor and was appreciated by singers.

I think his DG contract may have opened a lot of doors to him that would otherwise have been closed.

[jayne lee wilson]

At this point, I'm supposed to say something like "what about the Gramophone"?

But as no-one here seems to read it anymore (Richard Osborne is still around, as is his fine Brucknerian successor, Christian Hoskins; back in the day, Sinopoli got far more positive reviews than negative), or appreciate the best writers in it or what it still, as music journalism, invaluably does - what's the point of, as ahinton has implied, pointing out that this kind of thread (as with so much else, political and cultural, these days) falls into the classic trap of "the myth of perfectibility" - oh, if only x or y were still here, if only this or that magazine was what it once was, everything would be wonderful! If only the (reliably erratic) IRR hadn't gone bust, if only Cardus was still writing and we could defer to him, or the conditions still obtained for his successors to flourish, we'd all be content....

Like it or not, every word uttered here about music is - music criticism. (Of...variable quality). What else is it? Unlike the press we have unlimited opportunity for wordage....

If it's true that "forums like this one" are a better source of classical musical comment well - fine...
But as someone who has, very recently and repeatedly (in researching Knappertsbusch & Furtwangler recordings) had cause to regret the serious unreliability of, among others, Amazon and Musicweb reviews (oh, the tiresome time some of the latter spend describing the work, never committing to the rather more difficult points of performance interpretation and comparative evaluation), and found older Gramophone reviews by among others, Rob Cowan, uniquely accurate and reliable (and concise) - let's never pretend that "present conditions" of online publication are any kind of substitute for an older, deeper, profound and, most essentially - arcane, individual knowledge - gained through: listening, more listening, and nothing but that passionate attention. Perhaps THAT myth was real. Perhaps it does - just - still abide.

But who is listening like that anymore, anyway? Too many wilfully dilute their discrimination with lossy streams and low-bitrate internet radio.
So - We're fighting a rearguard. Time will spirit us away. But like the rocks, the recordings will remain.

[Alison]

To be honest Jayne I'm surprised you defer so much to Grampophone reviewers given your own considerable knowledge and insight. We're all in danger of over generalising and I admire no end Richard Osborne and Stephen Plaistow and a few others. For myself I have not found Rob Cowan to be 'uniquely reliable.'

Of course you have to pick and choose online material and the best of it can demonstrate that deeper knowledge that (I think) you are looking to ascribe mainly to a smaller, earlier generation of relatively 'big name' critics.

The Penguin Guides were great fun to read and taught me a lot but hadn't they already started to lose their exalted status in the new order of things? Three (admittedly likeably readable) men wouldn't have such clout now.

[verismissimo]

... If it's true that "forums like this one" are a better source of classical musical comment well - fine...

'I like it' ... 'I don't like it'.

There's a lot of that to wade through.

And who cares?

[french frank]

'I like it' ... 'I don't like it'.

In the end, for what I'd estimate to be the majority, that is all that matters - to that listener. For others, gathering insights that impress (as in 'say something to that reader') is valuable. In which case, read on with your trusted critics. My own 'worst purchases' have been the result of going by Gramophone rosettes. Yes, these may be 'great' recordings/performances - but if they don't please when listening, that is the final yardstick.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

To be honest Jayne I'm surprised you defer so much to Gramophone reviewers given your own considerable knowledge and insight.

Indeed. We have one of the best music critics on our own forum.

I do read Gramophone though, and it has improved in recent times (though I wish the editor wouldn't try so hard to look "casual").

[Alison]

Indeed. We have one of the best music critics on our own forum.

I do read Gramophone though, and it has improved in recent times (though I wish the editor wouldn't try so hard to look "casual").

Agree with all that.

[jayne lee wilson]

To be honest Jayne I'm surprised you defer so much to Grampophone reviewers given your own considerable knowledge and insight. We're all in danger of over generalising and I admire no end Richard Osborne and Stephen Plaistow and a few others. For myself I have not found Rob Cowan to be 'uniquely reliable.'

Of course you have to pick and choose online material and the best of it can demonstrate that deeper knowledge that (I think) you are looking to ascribe mainly to a smaller, earlier generation of relatively 'big name' critics.

The Penguin Guides were great fun to read and taught me a lot but hadn't they already started to lose their exalted status in the new order of things? Three (admittedly likeably readable) men wouldn't have such clout now.

I know, I know....
...I guess I can't forget how much I owe Gramophone, for the knowledge of the catalogue, the history of performance styles - how to listen widely and comparatively to them (Bruckner from Knappertsbusch to Nézet-Séguin!) - to some extent how to write about that and - crucially, through Sounds in Retrospect and its successors - bringing that together with playback equipment and sound quality....

The quality in the writing isn't there as consistently now, no, but - the principle and, with some contributors, the practice still is...
(and with the archive, the best is there for anyone, for ever....)

[5against4]

…listening, more listening, and nothing but that passionate attention. Perhaps THAT myth was real. Perhaps it does - just - still abide.

But who is listening like that anymore, anyway?

For what it's worth, i am.

[Richard Barrett]

let's never pretend that "present conditions" of online publication are any kind of substitute for an older, deeper, profound and, most essentially - arcane, individual knowledge

What does that actually mean?