Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:56:34 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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
|
|
|