Date: |
Sun, 8 Oct 2000 16:28:28 -0700 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Steve writes:
>The idea that a critic has to be able to compose I think naive. I
>certainly don't believe I have to have led an army in order to criticize
>Custer's strategy during the Indian campaign.
This raises an interesting (to me) question. Would the critique of a
professional composer be different from the critique of a professional
critic, say, if they went to the same performance of some original music?
If the answer, in the majority of cases is no, then you point stands. If,
it is felt that their critique would be significantly different, then which
one should the public rely on? Suppose, for example, the composer rated it
high in musical worth while the critic rated it as second rate. Who should
we believe, given we are going to take the opinion of others in something
so personal as music.
So lets take them one at a time.
1) would the critiques of the composer community be vastly different
from the critiques of the music critic community over a large sampling
or original music? Do composers listen for and hear different things in
a composition?
2) when there is a conflict, whose opinion should prevail?
Let's assume we are talking about academically trained composers, at least
for a start.
Anyone?
Bill Pirkle
|
|
|