|
LISTENERS' BOX
Response to "Hiring a Critic . . . the Luck of the Draw"
March 29, 2005
|
The question of where critics are to come from is an extremely good question — difficult to grasp in its many forms — and impossible for me to answer with anything approaching direct knowledge. For many years (over 40), I've pondered this at various times.
Is there a "political" element involved to some extent? There must be. Does a newspaper or other review publication (general music, specific instrument, etc.) consider the possible influence of the person to be hired? Just what is the influence? One would assume that for a paper such as the New York Times or the Philadelphia Inquirer or the Washington Post, or for periodicals such as Fanfare, American Record Guide, Gramophone, The Piano, Choir and Organ — to list just some disparate examples — there must be significant influence by the writer, whether that is opinion stated about a concert or musical "trend", or recommendation to buy a recording.
Is it considered a conflict of interest if a critic writes for more than one publication (say, a newpaper and a recordings review periodical)? I have no answers to any of these considerations — but I think they are very important. For many years, for example, the music critics for the two major newspapers in Philadelphia were absolutely vitriolic in their reviews and opinions about the Philadelphia Orchestra and Eugene Ormandy. At the same time, the Philly had its highest subscriber rate, attendance rate, and was most recorded in its history.
Currently the Philadelphia Inquirer has two knowledgeable critics, who write substantive, albeit often controversial, reviews and articles. Neither, so far as I can tell, has a major "axe to grind", except that one has a difficult time writing positively about Christoph Eschenbach. Following the surprising (to many, glorious) Directorship of Wolfgang Sawallisch, along with his major nurturing of the Orchestra and incredibly good personnel choices — over one-third of the players are his appointments, and of those over 15 are Principals or Associate Principals — well, he really did provide a surprisingly "hard act to follow," that not many (except the players and some of the veteran subscribers) might have anticipated.
The retired senior critic of the Inquirer writes some reviews — never of the Orchestra, and never very "helpful" — they are not different from those he wrote 35 years ago. Here, is a situation where the newpaper has found two very fine writers, who almost daily produce reviews and articles that are very good. How were they found? What enticed them to write here? I have no idea, and no one whom I know that might be in a position to give me a little "gossip" is saying anything. It is almost as though the funding, administration problems, union problems, and other issues would be the headlines, were it not for the critics — who do give those issues just due, but don't make them headlines day after day, as was the case before.
Everyone can remember critics of the past with varying degrees of respect and fondness: Harold Schonberg; Michael Steinberg; Richard Freed; Winthrop Sargent; Irving Kolodin; James Lyons; Virgil Thomson — the list is long, yet how were they chosen? Today we think of such as: Donald Vroon; Richard Dyer; David Patrick Stearns; Tim Page; Anthony Tommasini; (the writers for SFCV, of course!) — and I still can't figure out how these and all their worthy colleagues arose and came to fill their posts. Then, there are those who seem eternal, timeless: Shirley Fleming; Harris Goldsmith; and others who re-appear now and then to help guide us and inform us. We are lucky to have so many good ones. Discerning those who are less helpful becomes easier with, well, age. I still read as many as I can.
_____John Turner, MD, Philadelphia (Deptford, NJ)
|
