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.

BIO FEEDBACK

posted by James Reel

My colleague Robert Rappaport blogs about his latest assignment, writing his own bio for our Web site. Says Robert:

One of the tricky areas in a bio is making your hobbies sound interesting. Sure it's fun sitting at home watching pro wrestling and reruns of Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond, but do you really want to say that? It sounds a bit classier to say you enjoy reading Shakespeare, attending the symphony and listening to classical music.

Hey, wait a minute—I’m the one who enjoys doing those things. Well, maybe not going to the Tucson Symphony anymore.

MORE ON CRITICISM

posted by James Reel

Violist-blogger Charles Noble provides some interesting statistics linking newspaper and orchestral demographics, and critic Justin Davidson, one of the few who does still have a job in the mainstream media, offers a solution to the decline in professional arts criticism in American communities: online arts bulletins funded by consortia of local arts organizations. I’m not sure how a critic’s editorial independence would figure into this—the critic would be paid, indirectly, by the very institutions being reviewed—but it’s worth some thought.

DAVINCI PLAYERS

posted by James Reel

My contribution to the Tucson Weekly this weekend is a look at the Da Vinci Players:

In a recent lunchtime chat about his work, the only word Robert Encila used more than "community" was some variant of "connection." It's even in the name of his arts-education organization: Studio Connections. Consider his choice of namesake for Studio Connections' acting troupe, the Da Vinci Players: "Leonardo was the inspiration, because he worked in almost every artistic and scientific discipline in the Renaissance," he said. "The Da Vinci Players and Studio Connections are about integrating disciplines. We're making connections with artists in a lot of different fields."

You can read more and find out about the group’s production of Barefoot in the Park, opening this weekend, here.

WHY I NEED A BLOGROLL

posted by James Reel

When Arizona Public Media switched to this new blog platform, my old blogroll, with links to other sites of consistent interest, went away. I'm sure our tech guys will eventually get around to telling me how I can reinstate it, but for now I'll just have to be more conscientious about linking to specific items I run across. For starters, and just as an excuse to call your attention to the overall blog, Drew McManus has something nice to say about my little post on music critics, which you can find in his realm, Adaptistration. As I've said in the past, although Drew focuses on orchestral administration in a changing cultural and economic climate, his blog is full of information that music lovers as well as administrators could profit from.

MUSIC ED AND ORCHESTRAL AUDIENCES

posted by James Reel

More comments are rolling in following my column detailing why I’m no longer a Tucson Symphony season subscriber. Here’s a missive from a friend; I’ll quote her anonymously, since I haven’t gotten clearance to reveal her identity:

The second summer I ushered at the Hollywood Bowl I noticed the orchestra was playing many of the same pieces they played the summer before. I looked at past schedules ten years back and again they were playing many of the same pieces. I inquired why the orchestra did not play more of a variety of music. Why didn't they play recent compositions, exposing people to the idea that classical music lives on? I received this answer: The majority of people purchasing tickets want to hear what they already know. The orchestra needs to support itself. If they play music few people know on a regular basis they will have a small audience. Now, I like _Rhapsody in Blue_ and _Fiddle Faddle_ like everyone else, but I was a little disappointed with this answer. Jim and I have attended concerts at the Disney music hall in L.A. The acoustics are so good the musicians have difficulty concentrating. In the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion the music went out into the hall and stayed there. In the Disney hall the music comes back to the stage, making it difficult for the musicians to continue playing, for the music they just played is returned to them. Honestly, I'd rather the city or county pay police and fireman a higher wage, and hire more of them for that matter, or pave the streets in my neighborhood, or finish the road work at the hospital we visit every day, than spend the money on a new music hall. If the money for all of these endeavors was there I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, the money that is there is wasted in bureaucracy and pet activities for those who have the best lobbying efforts. A consideration, when discussing introducing kids to classical music, is the competition. With the exception of orchestral and band students, classical music just isn't cool but rather boring. Most young people listen to bubblegum sexy pop music, not because they like the music, but for the visualization that has become attached to it, and the fact that that music is all they’re exposed to. I doubt the _Lord of the Rings_ concert was attend by so many kids because they liked the music. The novelty of their favorite adventure story drew most of them in and I'm sure the parents couldn't resist. The concert was accompanied by a view screen behind the orchestra showing drawings of the different scenes from the movie, and although they were well done it did take away from the pure listening pleasure of the experience. Through my experience in the classroom I've come to understand that kids are not encouraged to use their imaginations. All the visual is provided for them. When it comes to unadulterated listening, many do not have the skills to put their own visualizations to the music and lose interest quickly. This is not true of all children, of course, but this is what I experienced while teaching. When I was an orchestral student in the late ’80s and early ’90s I learned the fundamentals of music: melody, harmony, how to read a score, theory and so on. We listened to classical music as much as we played it. An elementary music teacher I know recently left the classroom, for she was spending more time on discipline and begging her students to practice than teaching the basics, allowing students to enjoy the music they were playing. Spending time listening to music and pointing out the aspects that make it interesting was considered a waste of time. What is my point with all of this? Maybe it's the devil’s advocate in me. I don't necessarily agree with all the points I'm making, rather just looking at the reality of the situation. I know your opinion comes from a much more musically educated point of view then my own, but when discussing the programming chosen for the orchestra, I think it is important to take the financial situation into consideration. How can this situation be changed? Encourage young people to listen to music rather than watch it. Teach the basics in school or private lessons along with the playing of the instrument, allowing them to appreciate what they are playing. As you mentioned, lower the ticket prices so those under 30 can afford an evening of culture. Play the classical music stations in the car.