The opinion of experts

[Ein Heldenleben]

.

Richard Barrett, a composer, claims that composers have a particular competency to judge composers.

I know less about music criticism than I do about literary criticism. But one of the things you pick up in literary criticism is that writers are often poor judges of writers. And particularly that writers are often the worst judges of their own work.

.

There is quite a strong tradition of authors being excellent critics . Dr Johnson, Dryden, TS Eliot and DH Lawrence being four examples that immediately spring to mind . Obviously they have the advantage of having a high degree of literary ability which musicians aren’t always blessed with . There are some authors - Zola being an example - who , though geniuses , have precious little insight into their own creative processes. Just to complicate things there are others who as part a complex exercise in literary camouflage are very skilled at hiding the truth about their own creative process e.g. Eliot himself - otherwise probably the leading literary critic of the 20th century (?) Certainly the most influential.
One of the “problems” about music criticism is that while composers may often be first rate scholars , musicologists , music theorists and editors (Brahms , Rameau and Mendelssohn spring to mind) - they are often highly prejudiced critics . I am looking at you Richard Wagner. It’s worth reading Hans Keller’s book On Criticism- he thinks it’s a bogus profession - and not just critics . He extends the honour to producers , editors (in the journalism field) , musicologists, conductors and viola players.

[Serial_Apologist]

Please try not to misunderstand me. I stand in support of composers, as much if not more than, myself.

Just to say, this I believe should be the ideal of the arts critic - drawing attention, not to him or herself, but to elucidating the artist or the work on behalf of listeners and potential listeners. After all, without the work, there would be no critics and therefore no critical profession, assuming it to be a profession - jayne and I are humdrum everyday enthusiasts. In other words offering a bridge. Humanity needs bridge builders the moment. If only I had been in earlier on this discussion!

[ardcarp]

It all depends what you mean by 'a critic'. Your suggestion:

I believe [the critic] should be the ideal of the arts critic - drawing attention, not to him or herself, but to elucidating the artist or the work on behalf of listeners and potential listeners.

reminds me of Talking About Music with Anthony Hopkins. It was great, IMO. Was he 'a critic'? I believe he was in the best sense of the word, but not as we think of critics at present.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm not suggesting they should be banned from doing so. Don't be silly. But they often don't do themselves or their reputations any favours.

Of course you weren't suggesting they should be banned, but you did seem to be telling them what they should and shouldn't talk about! I didn't get where I am today (wherever that is) by caring about the effect giving my opinion would have on my reputation.

[Leinster Lass]

Of course you weren't suggesting they should be banned, but you did seem to be telling them what they should and shouldn't talk about! I didn't get where I am today (wherever that is) by caring about the effect giving my opinion would have on my reputation.

Sorry, but when I read that I could see CJ advising Reginald Perrin how to succeed in business.

[cloughie]

Sorry, but when I read that I could see CJ advising Reginald Perrin how to succeed in business.

Wasn’t that GROT?

[Leinster Lass]

Wasn’t that GROT?

Just trying to lighten the mood ... I managed to get where I am today - which is a happy place - without resorting to rancour.

[Richard Barrett]

Sorry, but when I read that I could see CJ advising Reginald Perrin how to succeed in business.

That was entirely intentional.

[teamsaint]

That was entirely intentional.

Pity your post wasn't eleven minutes late, really.

( Juggernaut jack knifed at Gerrards Cross....)

[french frank]

That was entirely intentional.

But accepting that my original comment was in no way a bar on free speech or a lecture on what Wagner would have been well advised to do, had he cared about his reputation , here's a question for you:

I wonder - that is, I muse rather than assert - how wedded a composer is to his/their own ideas on composition, his/their own methods and techniques, to be able to appreciate the composition of a contemporary who works in a totally different tradition, even with opposing ideas (on use of instruments, on established forms, such as a sonata or string quartet)? Can you/they ever think, 'That's a stunning piece - I'd have loved to have composed that'?

[Serial_Apologist]

But accepting that my original comment was in no way a bar on free speech or a lecture on what Wagner would have been well advised to do, had he cared about his reputation , here's a question for you:

I wonder - that is, I muse rather than assert - how wedded a composer is to his/their own ideas on composition, his/their own methods and techniques, to be able to appreciate the composition of a contemporary who works in a totally different tradition, even with opposing ideas (on use of instruments, on established forms, such as a sonata or string quartet)? Can you/they ever think, 'That's a stunning piece - I'd have loved to have composed that'?

I am reminded of a comment reputedly made by one composer who, on happening to catch some Stevie Wonder on the radio one day, was prompted to muse, "Oh how I wish I could just write a song like that"! I once asked the jazz composer Mike Wesbrook a question related to this topic, to which he replied that much of the composer's time is spent in isolation, sweating with deadlines over completing to a pre-agreed schedule, that this leaves little time for making comparisons between ones own work and others'. He felt that both critics and general public took insufficient account of this literally practical fact, and went on to say how disheartening it could be on occasion, when thinking one was embarking on a new and independent direction in music, going to a concert or festival to find out that someone else had been at it, and succeeded much better! Barbara Thompson even told me that she preferred not listening to any contemporary music as this tended to put her off her stride!

It probably takes a lot of self-confidence to express views about another artist or composer, or arrogance in disparaging when ones own efforts can be likewise subject. At one point does being taken to be a composer, by qualification or repute, imply any requirement to question ones own? If I often sit myself at the piano and improvise well enough on a few jazz standards to think I could probably dep for someone absent from a local gig for any reason, that people had paid and turned up to attend, does that mean I should question my right to comment on the music or opinions of, say, Boulez, when my own music comes nowhere near to challenging the obstacles, idiomatic, technical or ideological, that major musical innovators have overcome in order to fulfil my expectations?

In answer, I suppose it gives me no more or less a right than anyone, qualified or not.

[french frank]

I once asked the jazz composer Mike Wesbrook a question related to this topic, to which he replied that much of the composer's time is spent in isolation, sweating with deadlines over completing to a pre-agreed schedule

Gosh, not my (or possibly most people's) idea of a composer's life. Except the bit about isolation. What a successful composer has to contend with, I presume.

In answer, I suppose it gives me no more or less a right than anyone, qualified or not.

Not what you say, it's the way that you say it, perhaps? I don't think it's hard to criticise kindly but it's not always easy. NB Paradox. Or self contradiction.

[vinteuil]

... does that mean I should question my right to comment on the music or opinions of, say, Boulez, when my own music comes nowhere near to challenging the obstacles, idiomatic, technical or ideological, that major musical innovators have overcome in order to fulfil my expectations?

Dr Johnson might reassure you :"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."


.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I am reminded of a comment reputedly made by one composer who, on happening to catch some Stevie Wonder on the radio one day, was prompted to muse, "Oh how I wish I could just write a song like that"! I once asked the jazz composer Mike Wesbrook a question related to this topic, to which he replied that much of the composer's time is spent in isolation, sweating with deadlines over completing to a pre-agreed schedule, that this leaves little time for making comparisons between ones own work and others'. He felt that both critics and general public took insufficient account of this literally practical fact, and went on to say how disheartening it could be on occasion, when thinking one was embarking on a new and independent direction in music, going to a concert or festival to find out that someone else had been at it, and succeeded much better! Barbara Thompson even told me that she preferred not listening to any contemporary music as this tended to put her off her stride!

It probably takes a lot of self-confidence to express views about another artist or composer, or arrogance in disparaging when ones own efforts can be likewise subject. At one point does being taken to be a composer, by qualification or repute, imply any requirement to question ones own? If I often sit myself at the piano and improvise well enough on a few jazz standards to think I could probably dep for someone absent from a local gig for any reason, that people had paid and turned up to attend, does that mean I should question my right to comment on the music or opinions of, say, Boulez, when my own music comes nowhere near to challenging the obstacles, idiomatic, technical or ideological, that major musical innovators have overcome in order to fulfil my expectations?

In answer, I suppose it gives me no more or less a right than anyone, qualified or not.

Didn’t some one once describe Derives as essentially an extended collective jazz improv ? . In which your gigging abilities seem to me ample qualification.

[Serial_Apologist]

Dr Johnson might reassure you :"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."


.

Yes but, as I would tell Dr Johnson, the world will not be destoyed by my faulty sonata, whereas the table on which I am composing, and which stands for more than a metaphor, may well collapse if it is badly made!