To Criticize the Critic
I am deeply, deeply impressed with a post on the fascinating Detritus Reivew which has as its sole aim a crusade to right the wrongs in music criticism. From where I sit, a lofty and under-funded ambition. Found during a "vanity Google," this made me smile from ear to ear because it did what I think the blogs are good to do: it called me out, gave lengthy and intelligent digression to a fine point, and goaded me into a response.
Case under assessment: my brutal attack on a disc of piano music by Salvatore Sciarrino on ClassicsToday. Allow me to add a bit to this dialogue (as they chose not to consult me--their absolute right, might I add--indulge me a retort). When this review was writteny (and I am unsure of the year, but I am going to say it was 2002 or 2003) I had been subjected to a lot of Sciarrino, and for my part was likely dishonoring this particular disc based on the sheer amount of this music I'd heard--in other words, I did do something rather outside the ken of the vauntedly fair and moral mission of my outlet by over-pummeling a composer's work rather than the specific recording. I was, in retrospect, a little unfair, so thank you Empiricus, whomever you are. I deserve what you said--you did, in fact, "get me good." Even composer-critics have their off days--well, I suppose, especially composer critics.
Your comments to me were kind enough, and I am not usually one to participate in such a "hatchet job" as this. Were I in your position, working with your stated mission, I might offer Felsenfeld-in-abstract the same vivisection. Not that my opinions on the composer have changed--I cannot say I've seen the proverbial light on this, or that Empericus has showed me the error of my wicked, wicked Sciarrino ways--but I think today I'd be less inclined to be too-clever-by-half while saying it. I like to think I've grown a little, and have mostly prided myself on being fair.
And while I don't think my little review on a niche Web site written several years ago deserves comparison with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I admit points for sheer brio, for bloggish moxie in doing so. If we are to save classical music, we have to think big, and metaphors need plumping as much as budgets or newspaper column space. (Though now that I think about it, it makes my registering of Sciarrino's rather limited palate into the onomatopoetic "plink" and "thump" seem rather tame. But who am I to say? I just work here.)
What makes me so happy about this whole posting--aside from the comments of some readers who were generally kind to my music and my writing--is that I've always felt that these kind of "police actions" were the exact purpose of this weird volunteer army of bloggers. Would any other outlet allow for this exact dialogue to take place? It means that the blogs are alive and well, and are even going to the back of the files to find things otherwise long-since buried. Can you imagine the same thing happening with spools of microfiche in a previous era?
So Empiricus, I do have one small bone to pick with you--you hide your light under the bushel of a nome de blog, while I choose to attach my name. And from the comments portion, you seem to know me--or someone on your team does--and even be a little familiar with my work. I'd love you to come out from the shadows, because as a fellow blogger you are no doubt aware that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with a shadow-colleague because the terms are uneven. We are clearly on the same side, even if my work is the work in question.
But please, all reading, follow the example of these bloggers and do point out the injustices when you see them. One of the things many critics lack is accountability, and in the blogosphere, everyone has to own it.
And by the way, whomever goes by the name of AnthonyS in the comments portion, please do get in touch.
Case under assessment: my brutal attack on a disc of piano music by Salvatore Sciarrino on ClassicsToday. Allow me to add a bit to this dialogue (as they chose not to consult me--their absolute right, might I add--indulge me a retort). When this review was writteny (and I am unsure of the year, but I am going to say it was 2002 or 2003) I had been subjected to a lot of Sciarrino, and for my part was likely dishonoring this particular disc based on the sheer amount of this music I'd heard--in other words, I did do something rather outside the ken of the vauntedly fair and moral mission of my outlet by over-pummeling a composer's work rather than the specific recording. I was, in retrospect, a little unfair, so thank you Empiricus, whomever you are. I deserve what you said--you did, in fact, "get me good." Even composer-critics have their off days--well, I suppose, especially composer critics.
Your comments to me were kind enough, and I am not usually one to participate in such a "hatchet job" as this. Were I in your position, working with your stated mission, I might offer Felsenfeld-in-abstract the same vivisection. Not that my opinions on the composer have changed--I cannot say I've seen the proverbial light on this, or that Empericus has showed me the error of my wicked, wicked Sciarrino ways--but I think today I'd be less inclined to be too-clever-by-half while saying it. I like to think I've grown a little, and have mostly prided myself on being fair.
And while I don't think my little review on a niche Web site written several years ago deserves comparison with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I admit points for sheer brio, for bloggish moxie in doing so. If we are to save classical music, we have to think big, and metaphors need plumping as much as budgets or newspaper column space. (Though now that I think about it, it makes my registering of Sciarrino's rather limited palate into the onomatopoetic "plink" and "thump" seem rather tame. But who am I to say? I just work here.)
What makes me so happy about this whole posting--aside from the comments of some readers who were generally kind to my music and my writing--is that I've always felt that these kind of "police actions" were the exact purpose of this weird volunteer army of bloggers. Would any other outlet allow for this exact dialogue to take place? It means that the blogs are alive and well, and are even going to the back of the files to find things otherwise long-since buried. Can you imagine the same thing happening with spools of microfiche in a previous era?
So Empiricus, I do have one small bone to pick with you--you hide your light under the bushel of a nome de blog, while I choose to attach my name. And from the comments portion, you seem to know me--or someone on your team does--and even be a little familiar with my work. I'd love you to come out from the shadows, because as a fellow blogger you are no doubt aware that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with a shadow-colleague because the terms are uneven. We are clearly on the same side, even if my work is the work in question.
But please, all reading, follow the example of these bloggers and do point out the injustices when you see them. One of the things many critics lack is accountability, and in the blogosphere, everyone has to own it.
And by the way, whomever goes by the name of AnthonyS in the comments portion, please do get in touch.
posted by Daniel at 7:52 PM
3 Comments:
Well reasoned, my man. Obviously, our little project is a sort of meta-____(criticism) of criticism. Your writing, only every once in a while, ruffles our feathers, i.e., gets our goat, which we think we, concerned citizens, have a responsibility to... goad. We try to emphasize good writing about music, especially for the general public (there are too many writers who outright dismiss much of what has happened in the last 100 years as a trivial pursuit). In many ways, our livelihoods depend on public perception (most/sometimes).
While, we may make fun of those we admire, we love them, too. No hard feelings. You are one of our favorites (NOT to make fun of).
Your other concern--that of our anonymity--is still under debate. My significant other does know you from NEC; I, not so much. Until we can rationally conclude that critics have little or no effect on the public's perception of new music (and specific composers and theorists, for that matter) with which we both are active and relatively young, it is difficult to reveal ourselves. I, and my partner in crime, both think that we would eventually like to reveal our identities as a matter of principle, but right now, being that our blog is only three-months old, would entreat your patience, while we render our verdict.
And by the way, who is David Hurwitz? Seriously, it has been debated whether or not he's fair game (seems like a nice dude, but his anti-moderist streak is sometimes appalling).
For your good-hearted appreciation, we will unquestionably link you to us. Thanks, brother in crime.
Well reasoned, my man. Obviously, our little project is a sort of meta-____(criticism) of criticism. Your writing, only every once in a while, ruffles our feathers, i.e., gets our goat, which we think we, concerned citizens, have a responsibility to... goad. We try to emphasize good writing about music, especially for the general public (there are too many writers who outright dismiss much of what has happened in the last 100 years as a trivial pursuit). In many ways, our livelihoods depend on public perception (most/sometimes).
While, we may make fun of those we admire, we love them, too. No hard feelings. You are one of our favorites (NOT to make fun of).
Your other concern--that of our anonymity--is still under debate. My significant other does know you from NEC; I, not so much. Until we can rationally conclude that critics have little or no effect on the public's perception of new music (and specific composers and theorists, for that matter) with which we both are active and relatively young, it is difficult to reveal ourselves. I, and my partner in crime, both think that we would eventually like to reveal our identities as a matter of principle, but right now, being that our blog is only three-months old, would entreat your patience, while we render our verdict.
And by the way, who is David Hurwitz? Seriously, it has been debated whether or not he's fair game (seems like a nice dude, but his anti-moderist streak is sometimes appalling).
For your good-hearted appreciation, we will unquestionably link you to us. Thanks, brother in crime.
If your aim is accountability, I think you need to fess up, especially if your fiancee knows me. I'd be happy with a private email, but honestly, if you want to call someone out you have to attach your name. Otherwise you could be Mr. Sciarrino, you could be my old professor, you could be my wife.
If you complain about critics--who, like them or not, do stand tall and admit their opinions as aspects of themselves--then the only way to do so is to bite the bullet and come out. This is in fact the way we balance ourselves--if you, like myself, worry how this will affect your future career, you are not being as careful as you should. Risk is involved--I may have screwed myself out of any grant where Sciarrino or his admirers are on the panel by writing this review--but that is what a critic ought to do.
So show yourself, and let's get down to it. Otherwise, I fear to say this thread needs to end. I cannot tilt at windmills.
Post a Comment
<< Home