At 09:15 PM 2/22/99 -0500, John Dalmas wrote:
>Once again, Shostakovich's "Leningrad" Symphony (No.7) takes a beating in
>the press.  Arguably the most maligned symphony of the century now passing,
>the "Leningrad" is picked apart anew in the New York Times (Feb.22) in a
>review of a Brooklyn Philharmonic performance under Robaret Spano. All the
>same adjectives we have heard since the work's premiere in this country in
>1942 are trotted out again: bland, dull, boring, embarrassing.  Surely the
>same might be said of a few other works of the last hundred years to which
>instead we continue to pay reverent lip service (the Sibelius Fourth comes
>to mind).  Why is the "Leningrad" such fair game? Any comments?
>
I have no idea. I think it's a great work.

And why do papers/magazines continue to assign critics to performances
of established works who don't like those works.  I understand commenting
negatively on unknown works, and even then I'm leery of critics who don't
like the style of the piece commenting on it.  But there is a curiosity
among readers about the piece, and someone is going to have to describe
it sometime.  But the Shostakovich 7 is an established work.  It's in the
repertoire.  When I read a review of a public performance of a repertoire
work, I want to know about the performance (and maybe some history).  I
couldn't care less if the reviewer likes the piece.  I have not read the
review to which you refer, but, taking your word for its contents, I
believe the review serves no one.  Not the orchestra, not the conductor,
not the reader.

This critic knew the program.  As they say in law, he/she should have
recused themselves.

I, too, write criticism.  I'm sure some list members know of my aversion
to most concertos and to some modern music.  Well, I'll tell you this.  You
won't catch me reviewing performances of pieces I dislike (except maybe as
a minor coupling, in which case I'm very judicious).  What would be the
point? A new recording of the Sibelius Violin Concerto comes out.  I hate
the piece.  Who cares what I say about it in a new-record magazine, whose
purpose is to help people decide whether or not to buy that recording?

Now I realize there is a grey area here.  Maybe the Brooklyn concert was
not to be repeated so there is no question of future attending.  Still,
there is the institution of the orchestra to be reckoned with here.  And
the conductor too.  How did they do in such a demanding work? Whether the
concert is to be repeated or not, that is still a valid question and more
interesting to me than the critic's opinion of the symphony.

In a greyer area was a recent New Yorker review of an Elgar concert where
the critic ran on about how much he didn't like the First Symphony (which
has been in the repertoire for almost a century).  Now here I realize this
was sort of a review, sort of an essay: face it, the concert was weeks
ago.  But even here, I'm still more interested in the performance than the
critic's *rather extended* (I don't object to a short mention of same)
opinion of the work.

Yes, there is a place for criticism of given repertoire works.  Lord
knows, I do it all the time, but not in reviews whose purpose is to
critique a performance or recording, where there may be questions of
whether to attend/purchase or not, or how an orchestra is sounding, etc.
My practice is to criticize a work apart from a performance.  You want me
to rip the poor Sibelius? I'll do it, but not while trying to describe a
performance of it.

Roger Hecht