CRITICISM, POP AND CLASSICAL
posted by James Reel
Greg Sandow is re-opening a conversation about why pop-music criticism can seem more engaging, and more engaged, than classical criticism:
Imagine a pop show and a classical concert, both equally serious. Suppose they're reviewed by pop and classical critics of equal ability. The pop review, as a rule, will be more compelling for general readers, because the music will be connected to the world outside, and the review will show that.
In the course of this, he brings in and then dismisses some possible objections, including:
_Classical reviews aren't likely to talk about connections to the outside world, because many classical pieces are instrumental, and thus don't have lyrics that can make these connections. Or because pop musicians mostly write their own songs, while classical musicians play music written by others. Or because so much of the music played at classical concerts comes from the past._ This excuses the problem I'm defining here, but doesn't solve it. That is, we can say, if we like, that classical music reviews shouldn't be expected to do what pop reviews do. But still pop reviews will (if I'm right about this) be more interesting to general readers. And at a time when we want more attention for classical music, this doesn't seem helpful. This objection to my point, then, actually raises a challenge for people writing about classical music. If we can't expect classical music to connect readily to the outside world, what exactly does it do? What, exactly, is valuable about it? I'm not—repeat not—saying it relating to the outside world is the most important value classical music might have, but what is classical music doing for us when we listen to it? Of course it's doing something very powerful. But how would we define that—and, most important for the point I'm making in these posts, do reviews convey what the power and meaning of classical music might be?
Well, here’s an idea that I think is central to what makes classical music (or, for that matter, pop standards) “classic”: The music survives its own time and place by making a strong connection with individual performers and listeners for generations to come. Beyond the time of their origin, classics aren’t about connecting to the outside world so much as connecting to inner worlds, and it’s the personal response of generations of individuals that keeps certain songs and symphonies alive. The music that is too bound up with its zeitgeist holds little interest even a quarter-century later, except academically. And oddly enough, I think a lot of pop-music criticism, although on the surface it may document a visceral response, is really zeitgeist criticism, pondering the nature of contemporary society and how well a performer reflects its issues.
To do what Greg thinks classical criticism ought to do, if I understand him correctly, a review should reveal the critic’s personal response to the music and its performance. And yet, paradoxically, I think that’s a poor approach. Some of the worst criticism ever written is by amateurs who rhapsodize over the transcendent concert they’ve just attended, without really conveying anything meaningful to readers. So the reviewer was blown away; so what? It’s still necessary to dig into a piece and figure out exactly what in the music and its performance makes those personal connections with other listeners. Greg, if I’m interpreting some of his past posts accurately, is afraid that this leads to dry, excessively technical reviews that alienate lay readers. That’s certainly possible, but not necessary. I’d advocate more colorful nuts-and-bolts criticism, an artful blend of the objective and subjective, exploring the intersection of technique and expression, of the universal and the personal, at the heart of any classic.
