YAY!!! I Suck!!!

[Matthew S Phillips]

)(~

http://blog.al.com/scene/2007/11/guitarist_bowman_contributes_v.html

[etLux]

Only other music critics pay much attention to music critics.

Which is exactly as it should be... lol.

Best,



David
www.DavidSosnowski.com
.

[qccowboy]

Do you enjoy all the music you hear?
Does anyone?

Well, that should be the only answer to just how "important" a critic's opinion really is. A critic is allowed to dislike a piece, even vehemantly so. It means nothing, however, other than the fact that THAT person (as I believe music critics are still considered "people"?) disliked it.

So who gives a crap WHAT music critics think? Most of them don't have music degrees of any sort. Most have only read books by other people and are basing the very reason for their existance on the opinions of others. Most haven't even understood what the hell they read.

Screw the music critic )(~

[AlanPerkins]

I certainly don't recommend you screw the music critic! You never know what you might catch!! :wow::wow:

He says your work was less engaging - purely a matter of taste, and relative taste (to the other works) at that.

[Raymond62]

Just think of this. I don't mind what they write about me, as long as they write about me......... and you are not alone in this world. Mozart, Haydn, Vivaldi, Brahms, Schumann....... and now Matthew. You are honoured with this company. )(~

Raymond

[reberclark]

Matthew,

There is a wonderful book that will put this in perspective (it certainly did for me). It's entitled "Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicolas Slonimsky. The subtitle is "Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven's Time." Believe me you are NOT alone. The book is a hilarious read and includes every composer you can think of from Bartok through Webern!

Here's the AMAZON link:
http://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Musical-Invective-Composers-Beethovens/dp/039332009X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196289618&sr=8-1

"Never give up! Never surrender!" - Galaxy Quest

[Tony Monaghan]

Matthew, don't sweat it, you could be a banjo player :D

[reberclark]

Matthew, don't sweat it, you could be a banjo player :D

http://www.sweetsunnysouth.com/graphics/BanjoMadness.jpg

[Tony Monaghan]

http://www.sweetsunnysouth.com/graphics/BanjoMadness.jpg

Adults Only!!! I'd be excluding the rest of the world too :D

[rpearl]

Matthew,

The first review I received as a performer was on the, I kid you not, obituary page. Wedged in between, "Kintson man pinned in wreck", and "GM Executive felled by heart attack" was the review of the concert I had just given in Raleigh, NC. I survived - so will you! It's one person's opinion, and unless you read the paper that day, an opinion that didn't travel very far...

Onward and upward...

[rbowser-]

Well I was disappointed that the critic didn't actually use the word "suck." Public displays of bad taste can be so amusing. But he only said, of your music, "...less engaging..." How dull.

From your subject line, Matthew, I can see that you have this in perspective already, even without our reminding you about "one man's opinion" blah dee blah.

The piece of wisdom concerning reviews I like is that you're in trouble if you start believing the Good reviews, because then you'll have to start believing the Bad ones too. The inference to shrug them all off is clear, and it's very smart advice.

The only importance I put on reviews is if they can help sell tickets (theatre reviews).

This reviewer revealed his musical preferences here I think:

"...Blips of synthesized and pre-recorded sounds combined with jazzy violin riffs and steady guitar rhythms..."

How can you compete with noise when there's a critic present who prefers it to music? :D

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[Leaf]

Unengaging becuase it draws on the 20th century... like his newspaper entertainment section staff critic writing style doesn't draw on the 20th century,lol.

[rbowser-]

hehe, good one, David "Leaf" - This guy is so in love with avant garde, then why does he write like every newspaper hack since Horace Greeley?

I'm so tired of snobs --of any sort. Well - but I can allow myself to be a snob about not liking snobs. :p

Unfortunately, critics can so often be snobs about their chosen field, as if their ivory tower Ooooh so educated knowledge puts them anywhere close to being in touch with audiences. Not.

"I'm here to educate you, you poor groveling Philistines - and I am always going to ram down your throat what IIII think is the cutting edge, the Best of the NEeeeew, and I'm here to whip you into chagrined embarrassment over your own Plebeian taste for anything which I, in my Ivy League wisdom deem to be passe." --Barf-o-rama. :D

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[KE Peace]

Congrats, Matt! Looks like you made the poor bugger think too hard and his brain exploded! )(~

Some works recommend themselves by the amount of uninformed muttering surrounding them :D

[klassical]

Well, here's some questions for all of you...

If you're not going to listen to critics, where do you expect to get any positive feedback or validation? Or do you?

Barring a standing ovation, audiences tend to politely applaud for 5 to 10 seconds no matter what the piece is like. Is that enough?

Everyone wants to think that their efforts are appreciated. What would that be for you?

[Haydn]

I've found that only about 10% like my music, so don't feel bad!

Jim

[rbowser-]

I'm going to be an online Forum "critic" and say - What an Excellent post, Klassical. - And I mean that sincerely. Great questions.

It's been fun for us to vent a bit about critics, clearly in sympathetic support for Matthew. We probably should remember that critics are pretty easy targets.

But as I said, from his "YAY!" subject line, I don't think the review has worried him more than amused him.

In light of your "voice of reason" contribution, Klassical - I'll say this somewhat in the defense of journalistic critics: They are hampered by the short amount of space they're given. Everything they cover tends to get quickly pigeon-holed into "good" "bad" or "indifferent" due to extreme restrictions in the amount of words they can use. There's not a lot of room for in-depth commentary.

If we're interested in educated opinions, perhaps we'd be better instructed by essays which plumb their topics in more depth - hidden in journals that the public rarely sees.

"...If you're not going to listen to critics, where do you expect to get any positive feedback or validation? Or do you?..."

I think we all know that critics are products of their time, and over the course of history, critics have often been blind to the importance of what they reviewed. They don't have a great track record for knowing what Art will live beyond their own lifetime. That's one reason to put little weight to what critics in general are even Able to write.

But I really do feel we're in jeopardy if we look to experts for validation. The Arts are intended to communicate with the population at large. I think the best Art can upset and challenge the general population's sensibilities, but that's a reaction - and getting anything more than an indifferent reaction is perhaps all we can realistically hope for.

The most dedicated Artists are their own worse critics - Validation, ultimately, begins and ends with themselves.

"...Barring a standing ovation, audiences tend to politely applaud for 5 to 10 seconds no matter what the piece is like. Is that enough?..."

It's extremely difficult to truly move an audience. When they don't stand up, it's usually because what they've heard isn't in a readily recognizable "popular" form. If they're at a smash bang concert of John Williams movie themes, they'll probably applaud vigorously, maybe even stand up. If they've just heard a modern atonal work which seems "cerebral" to them - they'll predictably be reserved. Maybe they have to go home and think about it.

But in either case, the decibels and length of the applause are no true indicators of the music's "worth." --The composer has to re-validate his own efforts, by himself.

"...Everyone wants to think that their efforts are appreciated. What would that be for you?..."

If my lover smiles after I play her something new - That's the most important indication of appreciation I can possibly expect from anyone else alive.

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[KE Peace]

Well, here's some questions for all of you...

If you're not going to listen to critics, where do you expect to get any positive feedback or validation? Or do you?

Barring a standing ovation, audiences tend to politely applaud for 5 to 10 seconds no matter what the piece is like. Is that enough?

Everyone wants to think that their efforts are appreciated. What would that be for you?

If a critic has listened and thought about my piece, and shows that he or she has put some effort into pointing out weak areas, then I am all ears, because that's how I learn, and I feel grateful that someone took the time and effort. But to use in passing a generic dismissive word that means nothing to me or most anyone else, then I have no respect for the critic's abilities as a listener.

In fact, I just today solicited "hard" critique on a piece of mine in the listening room (Scherzo 1 - The Trickster) -- the later post not the earlier work in progress post. I would love to have a critique of it!!! Show us how it's done! Because the critic who wrote about Matt's pieces said nothing useful at all! (yes, I'm serious, I really would like it if you have the time!)

[rbowser-]

Ah, but you're asking for Mentoring, Karen. Professional critics are unlikely candidates for that important function in your life.

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[KE Peace]

Not exactly -- but a critic should (I think) mention something that one can identify and therefore change if appropriate -- that's what I mean. Yes, I do ask for mentoring from others; i know a critic cannot fulfill that role. But critics who say nothing don't help anybody. For example, the critic in question here could have said something like "The piece was less accessible to the general audience in attendance because of its avant-garde flavor and unusual harmonies. That would be specific and would tell the reader and the composer something -- at least about the audience. Those are the lines along which I was thinking.

[rbowser-]

Well, you're wanting critics to be more helpful and elucidating than they usual are - whether its due to lack of space in their columns, or their own lack of anything to actually say.

This review we looked at on this thread was little more than a perfunctory light-weight itemization of what was performed, along with teeny capsulizations of his personal reactions. It's no more than noteworthy than a society column describing a cocktail party.

--Really, Mentoring, valuable feedback from trusted peers, that's a whole different realm than anything any critic will ever write.

I repeat - You start believing your good reviews, then you're stuck having to believe the bad ones. Shrug them all off. The only critic worth listening to is yourself.

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[Leaf]

I have nothing against the critics, but have no idea what they are for really, and I have to just keep it all in the context that i have never read one of their columns that didn't make me roll my eyes some. But if it pays well, I wouldn't mind being one i guess, you would get to go to concerts and stuff :)

[reberclark]

Anyone seen "Ratatouille?" The Artist/Critic thing is presented there in an interesting way.

[reberclark]

I use critics to decide which unfamiliar movie or concert or play to see, and I usually limit my reading of critics to ones who, over time, I've learned to trust (agree with - to be honest). Using critics to develop your core values as an artist, however, is like asking the local McDonald's to teach you how to appreciate fine wine. Core values come, IMHO, from teachers and mentors and experience, not the professional writing of critics, which is often entertaining, somewhat helpful when deciding on an evening out, but rarely instructive or beneficial to anyone but the critic and his publication.

[SeanHannifin]

I write reviews of movies and books a lot on my blog, and sometimes I really dislike things and I share why. But reviewing music, especially if readers can't listen themselves, seems almost pointless; what can anyone gain from reading it? "Hmmm, do you want to go see that concert with that piece by that new composer?" ... "No, I read in the paper he was once less engaging..." I recall someone else on this forum got a review that said something like "evocative, but of nothing in particular." You can't be evocative of nothing, that makes absolutely no sense, that's objectively meaningless.

I suppose the article was more of a way to name drop who the event included rather than give an honest opinion. After all, with something like music, one can't really describe how it sounded at all. ("Early 20th century styles" is hardly descriptive.) In such specific cases as this one, I think it's safe to say the critic's words are meaningless and irrelevant, and it's nice to have made it into the paper at all.

But in general, when critics do give long reviews, I don't think they're so meaningless. (Though I much prefer to read a common man's honest opinions in his blog rather than some newspaper man's who's opinions only seem to matter because the editor thinks he draws in readers and he has a degree in such-and-such. EDIT: And, like reberclark, if I've agreed with the blogger/reviewer in the past, or if many other bloggers/reviewers are sharing the same opinion, it can definitely influence what I spend time and money on.) Even when we look back on people who gave Beethoven bad reviews, it's not as if Beethoven's historical popularity has vendicated him and proved the critics wrong. (Unless the critics made predictions, usually an unwise thing in something like music where popularity is so random.)

I don't think it's wrong to feel happy when others agree with your tastes and like your work... what would be the point of sharing music if you truly didn't care what others thought? (When posting music, I always say "Hope you enjoy!" ... and I do!) But don't depend on fans for your opinion of yourself. Never let anyone decide your opinions for you. Your own opinion is the only real "educated opinion". Be disappointed by a bad review and the opposing opinion, but not discouraged.

(Though, again, I really wouldn't call this particular article a "review", it's too imprecise.)

Congratulations on the performance and on getting your name out there in the first place! )(~ Farther than many get.

[SeanHannifin]

Anyone seen "Ratatouille?" The Artist/Critic thing is presented there in an interesting way.

Yes, I loved that, and that an animated movie was willing to have such a theme... good thing "Ratatouille" was evocative for that critic! :D And some people want objectivity... tsk tsk :D

P.S. I like your signature, I first heard it today when one of my professors said exactly that. :D

[Aziraphal]

One day when I have time, I'll program an automatic critique generator. Where do those guys learn to TALK like that?? They're worse than lawyers and doctors :D

That brings back fond memories .. my first (and AFAIK only) radio appearance was a recording of my quartet, accompanied by these kind words: "The next composition was obviously done by a self-taught, naive amateur"

[reberclark]

Yes, I loved that, and that an animated movie was willing to have such a theme... good thing "Ratatouille" was evocative for that critic! :D And some people want objectivity... tsk tsk :D

P.S. I like your signature, I first heard it today when one of my professors said exactly that. :D


Glad you liked the signature, I stole it from a very wise man on another forum (on sailing!)

[KE Peace]

One day when I have time, I'll program an automatic critique generator. Where do those guys learn to TALK like that?? They're worse than lawyers and doctors :D

That brings back fond memories .. my first (and AFAIK only) radio appearance was a recording of my quartet, accompanied by these kind words: "The next composition was obviously done by a self-taught, naive amateur"

I love it!
I didn't want to go too OT, cause i have a list of generator related stuff --so see new thread "VARIOUS TEXT GENERATORS"

[Matthew S Phillips]

Hello Friends,

I want to say thank you SOOO much for being on my side with this. I was in retrospect a bit embarressed to have posted such here. After all, I am supposed to be much better than that, and more times than I can count have I given the same advice you have all given me. "no one ever raised a monument to a critic..." etc. And its true. Brahms said that and they DID raise a momument to him.. so....

The truth is this review did ruin my morning yesterday a bit more than my brave face on the post let on. What got me most was he criticized my style. As though the very essence of my music was...well less engaging. If he had not liked the performance, or the structure, or had some sort of good reason for his reaction that would have been one thing.

But obvious avant garde bias got in the way. Apparently "early 20th century" is no longer "20th century" enough. Not that I personally feel my piece is anything like Debussy or Stravinsky. And there were other biases one could point to I suppose...The two pieces he disliked were the two written by students: the two written by composers he'd never met; the two written by younger composers...

And of course all of those avant garde pieces he raved about were written by my professors so when I got to campus yesterday they had copies displayed on their office doors for all to gawk at. Just lovely...:mad:

But you are all right, I shouldn't be upset. I have been consistently told that I'm the only composer worth hearing on those concerts:That my piece was "the only one I liked". In fact I always get at least a couple of those comments. Those people aren't critics, but they're honest.

And to answer some of Klassical's and Karen's questions: crtics are there to help the public, not us. There is a difference in "feedback" and "critique". Having said that I seek validation from no one!!! It sounds extreme but honestly they're are too many people out there just waiting to cut you down for any number of reasons to look for vindication anywhere but in your own heart and mind.

Anyway Thank you all so much. I feel a lot better about this after reading (and in some cases chuckling over) your feelings towards critics. Sorry for being a little needy.:o

Matt

P.S. HEY! It turns out I have a recording of the concert in question. If you're intrested here is my piece from it, but I warn you: I've been told its not engaging.;)

http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/show_score.pl?com=streammp3&scoreid=94425

[KE Peace]

Hi Matt,

that's what we are here for, to support one another. What is "needy"? Everyone does need support sometimes. Myself, without the encouragement and advice I've got from people here and a couple others in my life, I'd be nowhere at all. Yeah, I agree -- listen to those people who told you the good things because that is freely given; they don't have a certain number of column inches to fill (or a limit either), and no one to please or ingratiate but themselves, so they can be honest.

Another bravo to you!

Karen

[reberclark]

Matt,

The very fact that a person cares enough to comment (good or bad) or have an opinion of your stuff means that you are "hitting a nerve" of some sort and are very close to getting through to them.

I bothers me more when people don't care at all rather than if they like or dislike things.

Onward!

[qccowboy]

P.S. HEY! It turns out I have a recording of the concert in question. If you're intrested here is my piece from it, but I warn you: I've been told its not engaging.;)

http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/show_score.pl?com=streammp3&scoreid=94425

Would you mind if I posted a review of the piece?
______________________


This is music that is STILL more "modern" than I prefer, so I have fewer points of reference for appreciating it, however...

There is a strong thematic element to it, with motifs that are well-placed, and well "dis-placed". I did find the opening minutes a little blocky, with its stop-and-go rhythme, but the thematic material is presented in a lucid fashion. Where I find myself wondering if there is room for improvement, is when I consider the bass-line of the music. I found myself hoping for something that pointed a stronger arrow at a harmonic direction. Often my ear was expecting one of a few potential outcomes, and the guitar would simply cease playing any bass notes... thus leaving an unfinished layer of sound.

From the outset, I see a potential problem simply from the choice of instruments. Both are beautiful instruments in their own right. The combination is a difficult one, in this critic's opinion, to bring together in a totally felicitous manner. There are some beautiful moments of this joining, particularly in the latter half of the work, however, there seems to be a divide between the two protagonists throughout the earlier part of the work. The only criticism I could lay would be that I regret not hearing a bit more of the violin's beautiful G-string accompanying the guitar.

The harmonic language is ambiguously tonal, and it is a pleasure to hear this expansion of tonal harmony and counterpoint brought together at this time. It puts to rest any notion that tonality is a dead horse best left to its disintegration in the desert of the modern concert hall. (ooo, I like that phrase) There is still plenty of life left in her as evidenced in this work.



________________________
I hope maybe this "negative" review is a bit more to your liking.
I can assure you I would have been considerably less kind to more atonal or alleatoric works, although I HAVE been known to enjoy a few.

[trentpmcd]

Why did you make us listen to this less engaging music that drew more from the early twentieth century than the mid 20th century avant-garde?! Tonal music – how passé! And like other music of yours, you insist on putting that stupid siren in the background!

I’m sorry that the review ruined your day. There is a real possibility people will remember your music in a hundred years. The only way for a critic to be remembered in 100 years is if he/she is very wrong about somebody.

I listened to this three times (so far) and have to disagree with both reviewers. Contrary to the blog writer’s barely noticing your work enough to make a snide comment, I found this very engaging. Yes it is tonal. I even find it a little more romantic than a lot of the work that you posted from your master’s recital. However, I don’t think it is an unoriginal throwback to an earlier century.

Also, unlike Michel (who wrote a good, even-handed review of his reaction to this piece), I really enjoyed it and found it very accessible – at least as accessible as some of Michel’s own music (which I love).

Of course that is the thing – everybody hears music differently. I personally like your style. It is tonal, but doesn’t rely too heavily on pre-20th century music – there are some surprises without any sense of unease.

[klassical]

"...but I warn you: I've been told its not engaging."

I don't know you well enough to get engaged.

- k

[reberclark]

Matt,

I saw this today and thought of your situation:

"A critic is like a eunuch: he knows exactly how it ought to be done."

[rpearl]

Matt,

Keep in mind that your work was performed in a concert/at a venue that was "worth" reviewing: that, in and of itself, is a remarkable achievement. Think of how many performers/performances/composers/compositions there are, and how many never even are heard by people who are in the press. The fact that you were in that situation testifies to a level of advancement that many (most, sadly) will never see. Sorry it couldn't have been more positive - but that, too will come with time.

Hang in there.

[Matthew S Phillips]

ROTFL, there's a siren in this one too?!? Oh good grief.

Anyway, Michel thanks for a "negative" reveiw I can respect and appreciate!!! I can undersand that reaction far better because there are reasons attached to it!!! The "stop-and-go" thing was actually intentional; a programattic element about approaching our destinies and falling on our faces. And the instrument choice, wasn't completely my choice. It was written for a husband/wife duo. (Not whose playing it here obviously). I like the instruments together, but if I write another piece for this kind of duo, I will probably make different compositional choices.

The bass line thing is something I've never thought of. I have little excuse other than some things are difficult on guitar. Maybe I'll go back and have a look at this piece again, with the bass line in mind. Heck I ought to just add a cello! :D

And thanks Trent for your kind words. Believe me tonality is far, far far from dead. Most young composers in institutes today, are much more tonal than their professors. I'm no exception, but some are even more tonal than me!!

And nice quote Ron. You're right of course. It doesn't matter what they say, so long as they talk about you.;)

Matt

[Leaf]

Somewhat off topic, but i once read in some literary quarterly an art critic's review of either a painting or a print. He described the work as (I'm paraphrasing here) a coloring outside the lines all the way to the edge of the page, without going off the page.

I don't recall exactly how he phrased that, but in a more interesting way than i have, i think he borrowed it from the book, "The Shock of the New," and he also named dropped several forms such as cave paintings, cubism and impressionism, and maybe everything in-between, inside the lines, outside the lines and off the page.

It was a colorful review and if it was not a misprint, it was accompanied by a picture of the work, a work that was not outside the form of impressionism and had not even a slight resemblance to any of the commentary about it.

I guess it would be asking a lot for a music critic to include a .wav of the work being criticized, but I think it would have benefit the article if each piece had a separate critic, rather than critical commentary of some of the works and just some passing remarks about the others, comparing and implying they are lesser and unworthy. It just makes him, to me, seem like unfit to do the job. If any of the works were in his opinion unworthy of his time, then maybe they should not have been included in the review.

I see it has really not having any value and not worthy to be read, me reviewing the critic as if i actually knew anything about music or the job of being a music critic, as if the critic knew anything about music or being a critic.

I guess you and Ron are right though Matt, better to be mentioned than not mentioned, and maybe with the common assumption that the critics are mostly just kooks, will inspire some to check out your work, which they will most likely enjoy much more than that guy did.

[qccowboy]

Just to set one thing straight:

My impression from two comments after mine are that my review comes across as NOT having enoyed the work. This is quite far from the truth. It is more dissonant than music to which I am accustomed, making it more difficult to truly appreciate. Which is not quite the same thing as NOT appreciating it :p

As you surely know from my own music, tonality is quite firmly alive and kicking, heck tonality rents a room in my home and stays here on week-ends.

[Leaf]

I liked reading your review Michel, and you actually listened to the work before commenting on it, and then actually commented on it.

[trentpmcd]

Michel, sorry for implying that you didn’t like Matt’s work. You certainly wrote many positive comments, more of which I see on a second read through. I guess I was just struck by your first sentence, “This is music that is STILL more "modern" than I prefer” since I found this work very accessible.

[rbowser-]

re: Michel's "review" - I think it was admirable of him to stop and give Matthew's piece a close examination, taking the time to listen carefully and then write his very thorough critique.

There's a big difference between what Michel's intent was and a professional critic's - The latter can't afford to reveal personal preferences, ie: "...this is more modern than I prefer." That would automatically discredit a pro critic's write up. Of course a critic might have that kind of prejudice to a type of music, but he/she has to conceal that in order to appear democractic in his/her taste.

But in this more informal setting of simply sharing his informed opinions with Matthew, there's no issue about Michel being frank about his taste in music - Even though it means from the start of his post, we know it'll be impossible for him to Love what Matthew did.

----ignore all critics - They aren't there to validate you. And I repeat - start believing your good reviews, then you're stuck having to believe the negative ones. The only importance reviews have is if they'll help sell whatever they're reviewing.

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[qccowboy]

hehehe, Trent, the point was that each listener comes into a listening of a new work with different baggage and different expectations.

I am going to midly disagree with Randy on teh ideal of critics' "impartiality". I cannot believe that personal bias does not creep into a review, no matter how good one's intentions are.
If music critics were completely honest when they wrote their reviews, we would KNOW from the first phrase what sort of music they actually enjoy in their own free time. A critic who snidely refers to neo-tonal music as passé or outdated gives away a VERY personal view, and one that is not backed up by true musicological thought.

I can site one example that is flagrant, and that in my opinion should bar this critic from ever writing for the local paper:

Our paper (there's only one single large-scale English-language paper in Montréal) has three or four film reviewers. Thankfully, I've grown used to their individual styles and what I KNOW are their personal preferences in films. The strange thing is they insist on sending the same person, every time, to any sci-fi or horror film that needs a reviewer... the problem? This woman has admitted in the past that she vehemantly dislikes fantasy, sci-fi and horror.

I ask myself, why bother sending her if they KNOW she won't like it? She has trashed on some pretty darned brilliant films in the past few years.

This only makes me wonder, just how seriously can we take ANY critic?

When "Ebert and Roeper at the Movies" trashed "War of the Worlds" because it did not "have the magic and fantasy of Spielberg's earlier films", you wonder if artists are being FORCED to produce only what the critics find acceptable.

I have been to concerts where the audience reaction to a new work was cold and disinterested, yet the next day's critique gave a glowing review. And other concerts where the audience reaction was warm and even ecstatic, and again, the following day's critique was cold and demeaning.

The reviews of Sondheim's brilliant "Into the Woods" absolutely trashed on the piece, calling it preachy, pedantic, and easy. (I was in New York when it premiered)

[rbowser-]

Hi, Michel - You're not disagreeing with me at all!--Your new post is saying exactly one of the things I said:

"...a critic might have that kind of prejudice to a type of music, but he/she has to conceal that in order to appear democratic in his/her taste..."

I was saying that pro critics need to maintain the Appearance of impartiality, and you're agreeing in your new post--As per your story of the movie critic covering fantasy films when she's admitted she doesn't like the genre.

And that reminds me, somewhere on this thread, someone said that they rely on movie reviews to know what to see--OMG!---I so beg whoever said that to not do that.

The phrase I hear so often that always makes me cringe is, "I've heard it's no good."---You've "heard"--? People usually mean they caught a negative movie review. Why on earth we would want someone else to let us know what we are supposed to think is "good" or "bad" is beyond me. I have Never read a movie review which informed me in the least about what I would think.

The joke my friends and I have here in town is that when the local critic doesn't like a movie, we're very likely to have the opposite reaction - because the critic can be So predictably pedestrian in his taste. Many critics seem to be guardians of the status quo.

It's impossible to have an actual opinion on anything until we've experienced it ourselves--Until we see the film, hear the music, read the book, see the play - we don't have any idea what our feelings would be about it.

Yeah!

Randy B.
(rbowser)

[Gesticulator01]

Matt,

I saw this today and thought of your situation:

"A critic is like a eunuch: he knows exactly how it ought to be done."

Lol. I've sometimes thought a bit of penis envy operated in the motivation of some critics. Metaphorically speaking of course...

[klassical]

Now here's some worthwhile music criticism...

"Wagner's music is much better than it sounds." - Mark Twain

[Haydn]

I find it hard to judge most music with a listen or two. Most music I like the first couple times ends up not leaving a lasting impression on me. The music I tend to enjoy more in the long run is the stuff I don't quite comprehend the first half dozen listens. Critics usually only listen to it once and that's it. To me that's just not enough listens to draw comment.

Jim

[klassical]

"And thanks Trent for your kind words. Believe me tonality is far, far far from dead. Most young composers in institutes today, are much more tonal than their professors. I'm no exception, but some are even more tonal than me!!"

Matthew's right. I've been biting my tongue for years now as people in this forum talk about how only noisy, dissonant, avant-garde, cutting-edge music is taken seriously.

Folks, while there are still plenty of people who write in that 'style', it has long since been pushed aside in favor of TONAL minimalism & neo-romanticism.

Tonality (in one form or another) has been a central feature in most avant-garde, cutting-edge music for going on 40 years now. Look in any recently published 20th century classical music history book. This is the generally accepted view of what happened in the late 20th century.

So, relax. We live in an age of musical pluralism. Most of the towering figures of the mid-20th century avant-garde are dead or very old (Elliott Carter will be 100 yrs old next month). There's a whole new crop of classical composers who are redefining music to suit themselves, which is just as it should be.

Anyone who criticizes you for not being atonal/modern enough, needs to brush up on their music history. *They* are the ones who are out of date.

[DarwinKopp]

Critics run the gamut from clinically objective to rabidly subjective. They’re generally supposed to know more than the average listener, and sometimes they do, though they rarely, if ever, know more than the average composer, unless they are themselves composers.

However, more often than not, they just “got the job”. Some do it perfunctorily, others with gusto. But once in this role, they find that they need to sound informed and intelligent, so one rarely gets their real opinion anyway. All the more reason to discount it more than average.

That said, a general reviewer is, more or less, another member of the audience. Most composers compose to reach an audience, so their feedback is perhaps as illuminating as the typical concert goer’s opinion. But as with just about any review, it should never be taken as definitive or even necessarily representative of what was actually played.

[SeanHannifin]

And that reminds me, somewhere on this thread, someone said that they rely on movie reviews to know what to see--OMG!---I so beg whoever said that to not do that.

The phrase I hear so often that always makes me cringe is, "I've heard it's no good."---You've "heard"--? People usually mean they caught a negative movie review. Why on earth we would want someone else to let us know what we are supposed to think is "good" or "bad" is beyond me. I have Never read a movie review which informed me in the least about what I would think.

Hmmm... I said that! :D There are quite a lot of movies and books out there and there is no way I can experience them all. But to encourage or discourage my chances of seeing a movie or reading a book, I do consider the source. If my brother says a movie stinks, then the comment can be ignored since we have very different tastes. If one of my friends says a movie is hilarious, then it's probably worth watching since we have a similar sense of humor.

If I don't watch a movie, I don't claim to have an opinion about it myself though just based on what someone else said, but I can form an opinion about whether or not it's worth my time in the first place.


It's impossible to have an actual opinion on anything until we've experienced it ourselves--Until we see the film, hear the music, read the book, see the play - we don't have any idea what our feelings would be about it.

Exactly! But we have to use some process in deciding what to spend our time with in the first place. If there are people that tend to share your opinions and tastes, that's a very good place to start. :D

[qccowboy]

The major difference between movie reviews and a concert critique is that the movie review is one of oh so many, film critics from hundreds if not thousands of papers write their versions.

That concert where they played your piece? That MIGHT be one of the very few times it gets performed (as is sadly the case with so much contemporary music), and it might also be one of the few concerts that gets reviewed.

So people are reading this review AFTER the fact, and it isn't in any way going to make them decide to go see the future concert.. this was probably "it" as far as performances are concerned.

This adds a HUGE burdon of responsibility on the critic's back, and it's a responsibility too few of them appear willing to bear. They are neither objective, nor in most cases particularly learned writers on matters musical. They know their own little world.

In an ideal world, all concerts, were they to be "reviewed" would need be reviewed by a TEAM of people, with varied backgrounds and just-as-varied levels of scholarship.

A music review can be the death of a composer's career. There is no "box-office" to put the lie to a reviewers negativity. Anyone reading the review is basing their future opinion on this single event, and this critic's single viewpoint.

Unlike movies, where a negative review can be overwhelmed and disputed by mega-successful box-office receipts.

(and yes, I know popularity does not equal quality)

The final point of this is, a music critic is expressing his subjective impressions of a work he is hearing for the very first time, and doing so as a person with generally a limited background in music theory. This makes his opinion pretty pointless in the long run.

The label "music critic" sadly does not come with a guarantee that the wearer MERITS that label, nor has the abilities to express opinions on matters musical any more cogently than any other member of the audience.

******

and thus ends my tirade against music critics.

[nikolas]

and thus ends my tirade against music critics. Which leaves room for my tirade to start!

Thanks Michel!

Apart from everything else that has been said in this forum and I agree 100% with Michel (which tends to happen 99.9% of the times we post in the same thread... :p) I just wanted to note a few further things:

1. Not so long ago, I got an AMAZINGLY NEGATIVE review from someone from a concert last year. I didn't mind one bit, and in fact I linked it to most places I had posted the track, because it was simply stunning ammateurish review, from someone who knew very little of music and reviewing and also was rather rude (his review included personal attacks on me!) Michel has read the review probably (in YC) and can back me up on this.

2. Music critics have one thing true that's been said about them: They have failed in becoming composers! Providing feedback and most often poor and, if not feedback, just downright drop the line and degrade anything you hear, is rather easy. Doing the opposite is hard.

3. I was also looking forward to something to the lines of "the composer really sucked", but not a single line. I had much trouble finding your name to the link really.

4. There should be NO worry that someone will read this and go "Oh! this guy?!?!? I won't commission him!" Nobody bases anything on music critiques.

Nikolas

PS. I would love to link my review, but it's off topic and do not wish to high jack the thread. :)

EDIT: Finally heard the music!

WOW! This is quite nice, really accessible and approachable, for my taste Well performed, with sentiment and almost "tonal" in most senses.

I certainly didn't not expect that, but it is great (<- which goes to show that even a negative review can have great results) :)

[Von Richter]

I realize it can hurt even though you know better, but seriously, who cares what some random dude wrote? They only have as much power as you give them. Win by ignoring. They didn't put effort into listening to your piece, why put effort into their little sentences?

Remember... composers have been pooped on continually right from the start, ESPECIALLY the best ones. It has zero bearing on quality. In fact it's a badge of merit.

"THE THERMOMETER OF SUCCESS IS MERELY THE JEALOUSY OF THE MALCONTENTS!"

***

I probably get more extreme reviews than anyone because I'm involved in a countless styles. A particular thing will please one person, but not another. It's sad that people have to be locked into a tiny narrow taste bracket. Their loss.

***

The more you expose yourself, the more of a mountain of power you'll have to be. There will be plenty of negative reviews to come. Crush them underfoot!

[SeanHannifin]

Everyone should have a blog and blog their own reviews of the concert... that would be much more telling (and interesting, I think) than one guy's blurb in the paper. :)

[reberclark]

“They say Wilder is out of touch with his times. Frankly I regard it as a compliment. Who the hell wants to be in touch with these times?” - Billy Wilder

[reberclark]

Everyone should have a blog and blog their own reviews of the concert... that would be much more telling (and interesting, I think) than one guy's blurb in the paper. :)

...and then I think reviewers should review each blog and post their blog reviews in their own blog blog.:D