David Cozy <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Jocelyn Wang:
>
>>My gripe is not with all critics, just those who think and act as
>>though their hyperbole constitutes evidence that they are more important
>>than they actually are.
>
>Name names please.  Could we have some examples of critics "who think
>and act as though their hyperbole constitues evidence that they are more
>important than they actually are."

Not on your life.  I am involved with a chamber music series, which might
stand a chance of suffering if I named names, as might certain musical folk
who are associated with me.  For me to injure them just so I can vent would
be selfish and stupid.  I suspect other listers may name names, but I have
good reasons for not doing so.  Since my observations were confined to
long-winded critics who see themselves as being more important than they
are, those critics who do not fit that description need not take offense,
sort of the way I react when I hear someone grumble about oriental female
drivers.

S. Schwartz wrote:

>Pace, Jocelyn, but criticism does perform a useful task for an artist.  At
>the very least, it allows composers to make good choices about their work
>before they begin to put notes on paper.

Of course it does.  I never said criticism was useless, I merely said it
was far less valuable than creativity.

Richard Todd <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>As critics, we must always remember that we are the bird, not the rhino,
>but that we do have a role in the musical world, and that it is an
>important one.

This is also an excellent analogy, consistent with my view of what a
critic's perspective should be.  I wish it were more prevalent.

Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series