Kevin writes ...
>As the artistic director of a young and struggling (financially)
>professional chamber choir, I can say that I am delighted to have critics
>come to my concerts. For good or bad, people take stock in what they say.
>If we get a positive review, then the chances of someone who has never
>heard us risking the ticket price for our next concert jumps tenfold.
This is critic as promoter more than critic as critic. I would agree that
teachers [Steve's analogy] and promoters can and do have a helpful effect
on the Arts.
>Where live music is concerned, the critics help to spread the word that
>a new group or a specific concert or production is worth investigating.
>Furthermore, a copy of a good review from a respected critic tucked into
>a fund raising letter does a world of good in helping people decide on the
>yes vote to send a check. The Dallas Morning News critic, Scott Cantrell,
>has done wonders for us and I for one am delighted he is around.
Yes, but is the future of art in the hands of these critics? Someone once
said to me on this list "the future direction of music is what the next
genius says it will be". I would like to think that but it seems likely
that is will be what the critics say it will be by their choice to promote
or destroy.
Would you be afraid of insulting or offending a critic? Should composers
have have to pander to them? "Make sure you are very nice to him. He is
very important. He is a critic. Make sure he has a good seat and ask him
if he needs anything. Shhhhh, here he comes now, smile" What kind of way
is that to run a civilization?
>Certainly, and certainly not. It depends on where you are and who
>is involved. Harold C. Schonberg took every shot he could at Leonard
>Bernstein. (Bernstein, in turn, loathed and feared him.) John Ardoin did
>not care for the late Eduardo Mata when he was at the helm of the Dallas
>Symphony Orchestra. Personalities and politics certainly play a role.
>Just look at Fanfare magazine where ad dollars = positive reviews without
>fail!
To me this is a sad state of affairs, especially in the Arts, given their
uplifting role in the course of human events. Artists fearing critics?
Geniuses fearing medoircrity? What is wrong with this picture? Think about
it.
The problem for me in all of this is this. We have discussed "ad nauseum"
(sp?) on this list that whether music is good or bad is totally subjective,
personal, and a matter of taste and life experiences. How then can the
opinion of one person possibly be given any weight? Maybe every printed
critique should carry this message.
"Please understand that this is my personal opinion on this composition.
Also, you should understand that I have never written a symphony, concerto
or other major composition and am being paid to offer this critique."
My question, impertinent as it may seem, was perfectly serious. History
ultimately judges who was great but can anyone think of a mediocre composer
who was made great by the critics or a great one whose effect was lessened
by the critics? Have they been consistently correct in their judgments over
the long sweep of history?
Bill Pirkle
|