|
LISTENERS' BOX
|
Responses to Recent Issues
The Discussion Continues
Regarding "Come to the Aid of Music Journalism," in the Oct. 17 issue: Congratulations on Robert Commanday’s piece on music criticism. As a music critic myself, based in London (UK), I shall be doing what I can to draw attention to it over here. — Martin Anderson Thanks for your article on music journalism. Though, I wonder if it’s the editors who are taking away column inches from classical music. The editors I know don’t have that much power. I think it’s part of the general decline of classical music coverage on the air (as you in the Bay Area should know best) and in print, and maybe we’ve done it to ourselves in a way. Orchestras have expanded their seasons and there are more concerts of all types of groups than ever, but the audience numbers are staying steady. Are we diluting our own product and experiencing audience and donor fatigue? Anyway, keep up the good dialogue. — Marty Ronish, editor, NPR Music
To use the vernacular, your essay on music journalism is "right on." There are elements overlooked: [There is] a tendency of music critics to nit-pick and neglect reflecting enthusiasm both of a personal nature and of the audience. Theater and film critics have long had the knack of expressing enthusiasm for the arts that resonate with the public (and their editors). Most "entertainment" editors today are relatively young with little or no exposure to classical music resulting in little respect for its audience or the genre itself. Their hearts and minds are set in a rock and rap mold from their tender years when their parents worshiped at the feet of Elvis. Aside from the influence of the powerful in a community with the publishers of local newspapers, the power of the advertising dollar is the most influential. When smaller nonprofit musical entities fail to advertise their activities, and rely only on press releases for public attention, they exert no sway over publishers when they contribute nothing to a newspaper's welfare and are indeed fortunate to have elements of their press releases published at all. Music critics have failed to point out to their public that the powerful artists' managements, in collusion with arts presenters and orchestra managers, have placed a priority on pushing name artists. This has stymied the growth of new and emerging artists except in the few instances when the youthful artists are graced with hype and recording contracts (read: Lang Lang) and garner exceptionally high fees completely out of sync with their experience and level of artistry. The American Symphony Orchestra League and the Association of Performing Arts Presenters are contributing members of this cabal that music critics have failed to recognize (and to write think pieces about). While this priority first resulted in higher levels of ticket sales, the public at large has grown tired of seeing the same names in repeated performances ad infinitum. The cabal has done little to bring forth a new set of younger names stepping in as replacements for their older peers whose fees are stringently expensive. In Sol Hurok's day, his management-agency rarely signed a contract with a presenter or orchestra for the services of an Artur Rubinstein unless that entity also contracted for the services of an upcoming younger artist or two. The presenting organization sold its subscriptions with the glamor of Rubinstein attached and the joy of discovery of then lesser-lights for its audiences. That was a win-win scenario for all concerned. — Leon Van Dyke Here in New York, the lack of coverage of recitals has led to a phenomenon that I discovered by accident. I noticed that many aspiring classical performers quoted critical praise from the New York Concert Review in their ads and Web sites. I picked up this magazine in the New York music store, Patelson's, and saw it contained substantial reviews of New York recitals, with lengthy analyses of the performance, including highly quotable praise. An Internet search discovered — surprise — New York Concert Review is a publication whose reviews are paid for by the performers. If you want your review to be covered, it will cost you $395. If you'd like a black and white photo to accompany your review, that'll be $420. So, performers are purchasing the services of this magazine in order to have critical praise to quote in their publicity. This is the result of the lack of coverage of recitals in The New York Times. It is in my opinion rather pathetic. New York Concert Review has filled a need, and if the performer pays for coverage, there is no chance of being panned by the critic. — Eileen Pollock Thanks for your piece on the demise of newspaper music journalism and the importance of music journalists to the community. I was a music critic for the Kansas City Star and for the Arizona Republic until last year. That's when the Republic decided I would write about pop culture exclusively, leaving the coverage of classical music in Phoenix to writers already burdened with other beats. I resigned rather than continue under such conditions. Web sites such as yours are certainly the logical answer to the ignorance of newspaper editors. And yet, there's still something about print that makes people take what they see there more seriously than pieces read over the Internet (probably for the reasons [Robert Commanday] cited). Perhaps, however, that will change as people start to trust the Internet more and mainstream newspapers less. — Kenneth LaFave
But ... how was it?
Regarding "All in the Family," in the Oct. 17 issue: I write to point out shortcomings in Anna Carol Dudley's review of the California Bach Society performances the weekend of Oct. 13-15.
Out of a 618-word review, only four sentences bothered to qualify the performance. (Only five lines out of about 40.) Every other sentence (four paragraphs out of six) was a factual retelling of
information that was listed in the program, on the Web site, or perhaps
culled from music history books. While her notes surely went beyond the
program notes in their detailed retelling of how pieces were voiced, I
was left with no sense of the quality of the performance. The review
reads like a college music-analysis essay. This is information that I
can learn by visiting the UC Berkeley music library.
I am disappointed because in the past, I have relied on Dudley's
vast experience as a teacher and performer to get a nuanced, knolwedgeable take on early music vocal performance. She has written sensitive reviews of other vocal groups as deserving.
While the review certainly gives CBS more public exposure (indeed, it
is an honor to be reviewed by SFCV), I am disappointed to not better learn how Dr. Flight and CBS performed at their inaugural performances under his helm.
— Celeste Winant
Anna Carol Dudley's response:
When reviewing a concert of new music, the critic usually focuses on the composer's work, and the performer is lucky to get a sentence or two. I felt the same principle applied here, since so much of the music was little-known, and by little-known composers. I thought it was more important for the public to know that this repertoire exists, and that J.S. Bach's musical forms emerged out of a significant family and cultural context.
What I expected the reader to learn from the review: the existence of this repertoire, the creative imagination of Paul Flight in putting it together, the fact that CBS still exists and began this season "auspiciously," and the considerable information about the performance in the last paragraph.
Praise
Regarding "Fresh Music and a Fresh Face up North," in the Oct. 24 issue: I loved the highly intelligent and articulate review written by Mark Alburger of the recent Santa Rosa Symphony Orchestra's first concert under the direction of their new conductor. The world of classical music needs more reviewers like him — fair, honest, and perceptive.
— Gary J. Beswick
|
