I read with interest Didrik Schiele's most recent posting on this thread.
First off, I want to emphasize that I know nothing about the art of
criticism; I did have to study it some in college but found it boring and
don't remember anything of it.

At some point in Mr. Schiele's posting, the hairs on my arm stood up in
protest.  That was when the statement was made that the review of music has
a 'specific' purpose, and that it sure isn't to tell folks that a recording
or work is good or bad.  I just hate it when folks try to restrict how
others operate.

What is the purpose of a review? Whatever the reviewer wants it to be.
That's called review freedom and individual choice, but some people don't
care to recognize any such freedoms.  A reviewer's main goal might be to
entertain the reader, or enlighten the reader, or shock the reader, or
simply let the reader know whether the performance is well liked or not,
etc.  Let's not try to limit or restrict the reviewer's purposes; besides,
it would be an impossible task.

Sometimes I'm not even sure what the purpose of my reviews might be.  It's
so easy to get into a rut and write reviews just like everybody else writes
them.  It's easier that way, since there's so many examples to go by.
Lately, I've been using the headings that most reviewers utilize, but I'm
already bored with this approach which is so institutionalized and
ordinary.

Overall, I suppose that I simply want to share my feelings/thoughts about
works and performances with those who read the reviews.  And if one person
derives any benefit from them, that's a great start.

Before doing any reviewing, it struck me that most reviews I read all look
the same and use the same approach as if the reviewers all graduated from
'Review U.'.  So, I try, succesfully or not, to be a little different and
essentially review in the same manner I listen to music - a little journey
through the recording.  Do I try to enlighten others? No way - that's too
high minded for an anti-intellectual such as myself.  But having a good
time at it is very important, and I'd bet that my reviews tend to reveal
when I am having a great time.

one thing I am sure of is that I have to really love the music to review
a large number of versions; otherwise boredom sets in quickly.  Once I had
about a dozen versions of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos; I bought another
dozen to prepare for a review project.  Before I even heard them all in the
first movement of the 1st Concerto, a dulled feeling came over me.  Then I
realized that I didn't love these concertos sufficiently to listen to them
for dozens of hours.  The different versions of Nielsen's string quartets
was somewhat of a trial to get through; the Shostakovich Opus 87 Preludes
& Fugues was a great experience for me.  I'm living and learning through
the experience of reviewing; I don't need anyone telling me what my purpose
should be, but there will always be a few 'music cops' who are never
selected, elected, appointed, or chosen.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]