Last week I received two responses by artists whose recordings I had reviewed recently. One of them mainly explained the reasons for his decisions in regard to choice of repertoire and interpretation. It was friendly and he didn't specifically ask me to reply. But somehow I feel obliged to do so.
The second was a bit different. Not that he was unfriendly, but he stated that I misheard something. His first e-mail was followed by another one: he had read some of my reviews and asked me for my credentials.
I am feeling a little uncomfortable about this.
First of all, I don't mind if artists write a response to a review, but shouldn't they use the forum? This way every reader can make up his own mind about who is right and who is wrong.
But, secondly, listening to discs and writing reviews takes a lot of time as it is, and I also have a job to take care of. Answering e-mails from artists who feel I haven't done them justice takes too much time.
I also don't see any reason why a reviewer should be forced to justify every review he has written.
I'm wondering what other reviewers' experiences are. And how to deal with this kind of things? Reply? Ignore?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whoever the performer was that was questioning your opinions in your review I guarantee that they would not have written to you in that manner had your review been full of superlatives. They would certainly have taken the praise. That is the nature of some people, I guess.
ReplyDeleteWhat credentials do you need to be reviewer of classical music. The answer is none really. If we start going down that route of having specific credentials for reviewers we would all neeed to be professional musicians or musicologists or both. Surely a love of music is paramount.
I have a friend who is a chamber musician who I know is sensitive to negative reviews but I guess probably would not admit to it. I don’t play myself but this person is amazed at what I can hear in a performance for example my ear for tuning.
What I have learned is not to go over the top with a negative review as there are always some positive elements. Experience has told me that we can often fail to realise just how much hard work performers put into a recording.
I remember the time when some parents of a cathedral girls choir reacted badly to a review. It’s alright to be honest but it is best to write in a sensitive way.
I find myself writing substantially more good reviews of recordings than negative ones. I realise that occurs because I generally chose to review discs of music that I like by performers that I think will probably like.
Michael
Michael is quite right. Pass such e-mails to Rob or myself and let us deal with them. We do get quite a number because most reviewer e-mails are not accessible. They nearly always ask "what qualifications"? etc
ReplyDeleteLen
I wholeheartedly applaud Michael's eminently sane and sensible comments. I remember the argy-bargy over the girls' choir CD - the review was perfectly polite, but the reviewer (who, incidentally, was possessed of some appropriate credentials!) had had the "effrontery" to opine that the music, intended for boys' voices, sounded less effective when sung by girls.
ReplyDeleteMichael's second paragraph put me in mind of an observation I contributed to "Philharmonic", the SPO's quarterly magazine, way back in 1995:
"After the concert I was asked if I played any musical instrument. When I replied ‘no’, it was suggested that if I took the trouble to learn one then I might understand the difficulties of performing.
This is not the first time in my life that I have been the recipient of such a remark; nor, I suspect, am I the only non-playing music-lover to have been so addressed. The implication is that, if you can’t do something yourself, then you have no right to criticise the performance of those who can.
"This opens up a whole host of issues, but above all the burning question, ‘Do I have to acquire a skill in order to understand the difficulties of the task?’ Mendelssohn was no virtuoso violinist, but in his Violin Concerto he demonstrated a great understanding of the capabilities (and limitations) of the instrument. This was because he had gained an insight, an appreciation, from an expert.
"So, understanding the difficulties of musical performance (or anything else, for that matter) is a question of learning, of gaining an appreciation of the craft. But listening to music can also be a skill. Listening constructively . . . is one way of gaining this understanding. A critical response, made with all the sympathy and – yes – understanding that the critic can muster, is an essential part of the creative cycle.
"How hollow is the acclaim from an adulatory, uncritical audience – you know you played badly, but still they cheer! And, finally, the bottom line – whether understanding the difficulties or not, the audience has the right to criticise. They have that right because the performers have the brass neck to stand in front and say, ‘Here, listen to us!’"
If I'm even half-right here, to challenge a critic's "qualifications" is at best somewhat specious. Let's face it, formal qualifications are not, and never have been prerequisite for performers, so why should they be so for critics?
Of course, a "thankyou" note from a performer is as gratifying as it is unnecessary, and to my mind deserves at least a polite acknowledgement from the recipient (who, of course, should NEVER lose sight of the possibility that his next review might be much less complimentary!).
Any performer who complains about an adverse review needs to be reminded, politely but with utterly implacable firmness, that a critic can report only what HE finds, and if he did anything less he would be failing in his duty. I'm sure that Len and Rob will be quick enough to do just that.
This is indeed very interesting. I am a flute player and have therefore 'taken the trouble', but I don't feel this aspect of my skills base is any more qualification for talking about (for instance) violinists - an instrument considered unplayable by most wind musicians. The only difference is having experience as 'a performer', which I must say does help a bit, but is in no way any kind of definitive argument against non-musician reviewers.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm going to be damningly critical of a recording then I would always take pains to explain why this is my point of view: also that this is just one opinion. Other people's experience mean they can wax lyrical over stuff which your seasoned and tasteful reviewer might find a ghastly and pretentious mess. This very thing can indeed happen between seasoned and tasteful reviewers on our own pages - just compare the two reviews of Bach's Goldberg Variations played by Burkard Schliessmann. Who can say which view is right?
Ah - thank you, Dominy, for prompting my memory. I actually have "played an instrument", after a fashion. More years ago than I care to recall, I was a choral singer. More recently, and rather less conventionally, I "played" the nightingale in a performance of Respighi's Il Pini di Roma! It was one of the most nerve-wracking ten minutes of my life, though I dare say that, if I did it a few more times, it would rapidly become less so.
ReplyDeleteTo pick up on Johan's feelings of discomfort over being challenged by performers, which is after all what should concern us most: yes, you are spot on when you say that they should use the forum. Because the review that provoked the response was aired publicly, it is only fair that any challenge should be equally visible.
I would suggest two things. Firstly that NO review ever needs justifying, as such - a review is an expression of a personal opinion. That opinion is of greater or lesser value depending on how well-argued it is.
Secondly that no-one (and that's ANY correspondent, not just reviewers!) is ever under any actual OBLIGATION to reply to private mail. Respond (or not) simply as you see fit, and if anybody makes you feel uncomfortable, just do as Len says - forward it to the "management" and let them deal with it!
It really is high time that musicians understood that reviewers - as opposed to critics - are extremely hard-working, highly sensitive artists, and that it is grossly unfair for musicians to comment adversely on their performances. What are the credentials that qualify THEM to criticise a reviewer's work?
Am I being sarcastic? Probably! But, when you think about it, it does indeed cut both ways, doesn't it?
I was bemused to come across an Amazon.com discussion about one of my reviews, accusing me of being 'clueless' and doing a 'hack job'. But what intrigued me most was that I was accused of being 'very British'. I enquired what that might mean and was told we 'waffle' and are 'polite and evasive' when reviewing contemporary music.
ReplyDelete