Which got me thinking: who are our favourite reviewers/writers on music and why? Do we gravitate to those we agree with most often or do we respond to other aspects of their writing? Some of the most respected reviewers can be a little dry so I usually turn to those who write entertainingly. Years ago I remember enjoying a collection by Neville Cardus, whose disarmingly simple style disguised a sharp intellect.
I imagine we all have different priorities and levels of expertise and it's that range of perspectives that makes music reviews/criticism so fascinating. And that raises another question: is there a difference between a reviewer and a critic? I certainly feel more comfortable with the former than the latter, which is the province of those much more accomplished than I could ever hope to be.
Any thoughts on reviewers/critics past and present and what makes a good review?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd give up two two digits to write like Martin Bernheimer. Especially when he's kept to under 350 words, it's pure gold.
ReplyDeleteHe's one of the few critics who is also a good, nay: excellent, writer. I sure don't know any CD reviewers--certainly & sadly including myself--who are better than just decent.
And then there are the polemcists: Good or at least OK writers, but content-hacks.
How I remember the reviews of Deryck Cooke and presumably all available again now that Gramophone has put its reviews on-line.
ReplyDeleteI never though I would read a book of reviews but I bought Andrew Porter's Music of Three Seasons 1974-1977 and was so entranced I went on to buy Music of Three More seasons 1977-1980, Musical events 1983-86 and eventually managed to get a pre-cursor of these A Musical Season: An English Critic in New York. He makes such sense out of contemporary music.
Another writer who could do that was Ernst Roth and it is worth hunting for a copy of The Business of Music. Otherwise read the copy I put on line on MusicWeb (under Complete Books in the left hand side bar)
Len