I went to a concert at the RFH where the American pianist Eugene List played three concertos in one programme, Shostakovich 1, Rachmaninov 2 and Tchaikovsky 1. A few rows ahead of me sat Joan Chisell, music critic for one of the broadsheets and acknowledged expert on Schumann. Ms Chisell had with her miniature scores of all the works being played and they were covered with written notes presumably in her own hand. Ms. Chisell , in the course of her career, must have heard at least two of the concertos numerous times but she still followed the scores throughout the performances in order to enable her to write a proper review. To my mind this shows that she knew her stuff, knew what she was listening for based on the scores and performed her job with integrity.
When I see things like the Classic FM review (which I could well-believe was compiled by a Diversity training officer who has built up a small cd collection in the last few years) I don't get any impression of someone who knows his/her stuff --Marin Alsop and Nadia Boulanger are there but not Ansermet, Ancerl, Walter, Kubelik (you could go through the alphabet) and, of those from the past ,why Chevalier de Saint-Georges but not Wagner or Mahler? The FM list is preceded by a statement which reads:
"We explain through each choice what makes a maestro a master, and why these conductors are cemented as some of classical music’s greatest."
But after reading through some of the descriptions I'm reminded that Karajan had links to the Nazi party, that Stokowski conducted without a baton,that Ozawa wears a white turtleneck when conducting etc., but still haven't a clue why they've been picked out as masters in the art of conducting (which I'm sure they were) alongside Ms. Mälkki, Nadia Boulanger or Nathalie Stutzmann - about whom I have even less of a clue about.
This seems to be musical journalism of the most puerile kind.
On the question of how much trust to place on musical literacy - well, it depends. If I'd wanted an opinion on the popular musical theatre I think I might have trusted anything that Sir Noel Coward -who, it seems, couldn't read a note - might have said but if I wanted to buy a cd set of rather more complex musical material such as Bach's Art of Fugue I think I'd like to know I was getting advice from somebody who had studied the work and knew something about how the work should be realised and performed.
Speaking of Bach, I have often heard it said (I heard it when I was a student) that should "A real musician" be presented with a copy of a work consisting of nothing but notes on the stave they would be able to judge accurately things like tempo, dynamics, phrasing etc., from what they see on the page....the fallacy of such an argument is proved by examining editions of the "48" edited by, hopefully, "real musicians" like Czerny, Longo, Tausig, Busoni and others who, in many places don't agree on anything.
I'm afraid that I rarely read reviews nowadays. I don't really know whose opinion to trust -(although a picture of each reviewer can gradually be built up) and I've got such a large record library (that desperately needs to be winnowed) that I don't feel much need to add to it. If a performance contains poor ensemble, excruciating singing, masses of innacuracies or is badly recorded I'm grateful for the warning. Otherwise I tend to prefer my own judgement which far from being expert is , nevertheless, a poor thing but mine own.
Apologies for rambling but many of the points hinted at in Ralph Moore's post could be expanded at much length and would probably need a Tovey to do them justice....and even he was accused of being tedious at times !
In a previous thread, Mr Lague mildly challenged my suggestion that something of a consensus on the quality of classical music and recordings can be derived from the collective opinions of "experienced, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and informed" writers and here questions whether the compilers of silly "best" lists are "qualified" to do so at all. Speaking as someone who has had the temerity to post lots of "best of" recommendations in my surveys and reviews, I hasten to confess that I make no such claim beyond a love of and long acquaintance with such music and am in no sense qualified by skill, talent or academic training to pontificate, but in the end we tend to gravitate towards commentators whose opinions chime with our own. I have certainly come to distrust the opinions of many "real musicians" some of whose judgements I have come to regard as positively perverse. This is not a new phenomenon; for example, Renata Tebaldi lamented the rise of a generation of conductors who knew little or nothing about the operatic repertoire and the mechanics of the voice, and could not play several instruments like those of the old school, and whose "guidance" was thus wholly unreliable and even counterproductive; I have commented on this elsewhere. So perhaps, ultimately, helpful critique is just as likely to be contributed by the "enthusiastic amateur" as the "qualified professional"...
Message Thread
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb