Bill Pirkle replies to me:

>First, my question was sincerely put, despite that fact that there are
>certain questions, which by the very asking, imply insubordination to the
>established order - like "do critics serve the public good?".

I don't doubt your sincerity.  I think I may have misunderstood some of
what you asked, however.

>>Let me ask you: Would the arts in general have been different if there
>>had been no critics at all of anything?
>
>Please don't ask me, that is my question, albeit a generalization of my
>question which diverts its thrust to a vague, more defendable position.

What I meant was, "Do you ask this only of music critics or critics in
general?" You answer this in your reply - critics in general.

>Certainly things would be different had there never been any critism of
>anything.  The question on the floor is "how would music be different.
>if there had never been any music critics?" I was looking for an answer
>from the list like,
>
>Instead of Beethoven and Mozart, we would be listening to the music of Hans
>von Franker and Semolina Pilchards, or

I doubt it.

>Everyone that we call the great masters today would still be called the
>great masters, or

The problem with this is that the list of Great Masters has never been a
static thing.  Composers go in and out and back in all the time.  This, to
some extent, is due to critics, but it's also due to the general temper of
the audience.

>There was this musical genius who would have ranked with Bach, but the
>critics did a job on him, or

Hell, critics did a job on Bach, while Bach was alive.  He was far more
respected as a performer than as a composer.  His music was considered
old-fashioned - and it was, compared to the rococco, galant, and early
classical composers.  His music remained obscure for about 75 years after
his death.  He was the property of a small group of connoisseurs, including
Mozart.

>Composers A, B, and C would have been famous and wealthy in their own time
>except for their critics..

This has been true.  It's also true that A, B, and C would have been
neglected and obscure in their own time, had not critics made people
interested in their music.

>>Would the world have been any different without teachers?
>
>Are we thinking of critics as teachers, is this the "profession of
>enlightenment"? I would agree that "constructive criticism", the way
>a teacher shows a student what they could have done or should have done
>or might have done is helpful.  Do critics routinely do this? Technically
>speaking, praise is a form of criticism.

Neither praise nor blame alone qualifies as criticism.  "That sucks" is
simply an expression of bile.  "This is great" is simply an expression of
enthusiasm.  What turns either into criticism is an argument with support
from the work or performance itself.

>I don't know but wonder what percentage of critiques are positive and what
>percentage are negative.

Well, according to Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap."

>Which does the public prefer to read? Do they write to their audience like
>other writers? If they are objective, why do many Artists feel the need to
>cozy up to them? Will that affect what they will write? (BTW, I'm always
>very nice to my doctor so he won't tell me I'm sick)

I can't answer the first question, because I haven't asked the public.
No critic of art is objective, since basically one deals in the realm of
opinion and judgment, rather than fact.  However, at least some critics
aim to be fair.  I haven't counted, so I can't give you percentages.

>>George Bernard Shaw helped form the modern perception of Mozart, who had
>>been regarded as a minor master of "tuneful little ditties." Shaw showed
>>that people under the influence of High Romanticism had forgotten how to
>>listen to an earlier idiom.
>
>That is more a critism of the public than of an artist.

Read Shaw.  He also shows how Mozart's music makes its emotional points,
something he'd have to do in order to criticise the public's ignorance of
the classical style.

>>Mendelssohn in effect performed an act of criticism when he revived
>>Bach's St. Matthew Passion.  I'd say that counts as significant.
>
>Given the "in effect" caveat.  But did M. think he was being a critic?

I have no idea.  But he *did* stimulate a lot of critical and scholarly
activity on Bach's behalf (and also against Bach).  The point is, he
put Bach's music in play as something to be listened to and decided on.
Mendelssohn's Bach performance leads to Schumann's Bach articles (as well
as Schumann's piano homages to Bach).

>Again, are these critics or teachers? And I guess we should distinguish
>between scholarly critics and today's and yesteryear's critics in
>the media.

I see no difference between the activities of criticism and teaching.

>...  I was thinking in terms of the criticisms that "most" people read
>which IS in the press.  For every one person who has read the criticisms
>of Shaw and Schuman (who elevated Chopin to some status with his postive
>criticism - Hats off gentlemen, a genius), there are ten thousand who
>read the New York Times.  What if Schuman had written, "Any music Chopin
>might make is hidden under a blanket of fancy ornamentation and cheap
>ostentatious effects.  Totally lacking in development, his music, filled
>with pathetic sentiment, instead of building up from themes, it dwindles
>down from them.  He will be a great success in entertaining the milkmaids
>of Poland once he learns how to finger the keyboard correctly and play in
>strict time.  They will find no difference between his dissonant harmonies
>and the mooing of their cows." That's the kind of thing you might find in
>the New York Times.

I don't read the Times these days, so I'll stipulate.  But I used to be
a regular reader 40 years ago, and I can assure you that real criticism
did appear there.  Cleveland, Ohio, has had some wonderful newspaper music
critics, going back to Herbert Elwell, Wilma Salisbury, Bain Murray, et al.
But Cleveland's a bit unusual.  I'm sure that this must vary from place to
place.  Further, it wasn't Schumann's merely praising Chopin that made him
a great critic.  He also talked about those elements in Chopin's music that
formed of his judgment.  In fact, he illuminated what was radically new
music.  I think this separates great critics from merely good ones.  You
learn something about the piece itself from a great critic.

Steve Schwartz