Pierre Boulez, who knows a little about music and music writing, said that music criticism was like poetry. Good work conveyed much more than simply words. It ties in with the observation of so many, including Mahler, that "music isn't just in the notes". There is much more to understanding music than simply reading notation. Two musicians may be technically on the same level, but one might create art, the other purely surface sounds. Being able to play alone doesn't make anyone a musician. To return to what sparked the thread in the first place. Peyser is to music writing what light beer is to the finest vintage champagne. OK for popular reading, but not characteristic of the genre. To read Peyser on Boulez without reading Jamieux on Boulez is unthinkable. Jamieux spent years with Boulez, learning to understand Boulez "from within" as far as it's possible. His insights on the music are therefore exceptional. There's plenty of wonderful music writing around, but what seems to characterise is it the writer's ability to get beyond just the technicalities. Donald Mitchell is another example. His writings on Mahler (and Britten) are so good because he writes with intuition, "beyond" the notes. Anne [log in to unmask]