What makes a good critic? & Objective vs. subjective pianism

[opus10no2]

Would it be better, or simply boring, if critics were only allowed to comment on objective facts about a performance, and not their own subjective opinions on it?

In competitions, is it best to let through a pianist who is objectively superior, but subjectively doesn't inspire much love or hatred, or to let through a pianist who perhaps isn't 'objectively' the best, but inspires passionate subjective feelings?

Is Jake a mormon? Or is there some truth in what he says?

[jakev2.0]

Nothing is objective in art.

[ultraviolet]

Competitions should be judged based on note accuracy and faithfulness to the score.

People who can play fast without missing notes, who keep a strict rhythm, who can manage louds and softs as marked, and who don't have memory slips should win.  All this "inspiring love" or "artistic originality" cannot be quantified so it shouldn't be taken into consideration.  Playing the piano is first and foremost an athletic endeavor of the body and intellect.

[mike_lang]

All this "inspiring love" or "artistic originality" cannot be quantified so it shouldn't be taken into consideration.  Playing the piano is first and foremost an athletic endeavor of the body and intellect.

You and Opus10no2 must be good friends.

[ultraviolet]

Hmmm....well he says he enjoys being hated.  Does that make friendship even possible?  I on the other hand, do not enjoy being hated.  I love everyone, and everyone loves me.

[rallestar]

Objectivism is deeply overrated. Objectivity in art has not done any good, and in fact is against my whole view of art - Although of course it depends on the composer. One must play Ravel much more objective than Rachmaninoff.

[arbisley]

I think this leads on to a much larger discussion about whether music in general should be objective or subjective. I am a very subjective performer, but I recognise that it is essential to have the "objective" basics before proceeding to subjectivity. But at the same time a lot of the "objective" material, technique, dynamics, rhythm, can be taught through musicality, through trying to grasp the meaning of the particular marking, phrasing etc.

I find purely "perfect" performances boring, and would rather have a few mistakes and something which really lets the imagination wander. Of course, any more than just slight errors ruin a piece just as well.

[invictious]

Art and Objectivity shouldn't be in the same sentence. Wouldn't that undermine the true meaning of Art?





Honestly, I have no idea what I am talking about.

[arbisley]

No that's a fair statement. When you look at art you want something subjective, inspirational, but behind that there lies a huge amount of work which the viewer does not necessarily understand or see. The same thing with music, listeners who are not trained musicians should not hear how much technical work has been put into it, and minor errors do not necessarily stike them, therefore they do not matter for the performace. But a bland performace will come across as such to an untrained listener no matter how accurate it is.

[invictious]

Hmm, after piano practice and some thinking, there IS ground for objectivity in art.

Of course, in Art, you should not say 'this sucks' or 'this is the best', but you should say 'I prefer dis over dat' or 'I personally don't like dis'

The ground for objectivity, is saying something is bad or good, and of course, there ARE cases when you can say it IS bad.

Try this:

[pianistimo]

this is why music critics should first play the music they are critiquing, imo.  then, give crit.  i don't always follow this advice myself - but realize that the difficulty level of some music is really a hinderance to giving any sort of humanly objective advice.  on the other hand - if it's some easy piece of music being butchered - what music teacher in their right mind is going to say - 'oh, that tempo is just perfect.  or - you looked like you needed a tranquilizer dart because the veins in your neck were sticking out - but no matter - you played it from beginning to end and that's what matters.'

eh.  we'd need no music critiques at all.  simply a blank page in the ny times arts section.  the artist fills in his or her own review.  raving good all the time.

as i see it - the higher your visibility - the more you are going to be critiqued both objectively and subjectively.  it's not the critiques themselves - but how you deal with them.  if you can determine which are valid and work the necessary items out - or when to be a little bit furious and write your own response back and then wrinkle it up and throw it in the garbage. 

i am not a concert artist yet - but as i visualize things - it is a matter of the right kind of pride.  the kind that gets you throught the tunnel of difficulties and out the other side where you are flying where the boeing jets go above the clouds and not under or through the clouds.  an area where you are sure that whatever you do (or change later) is alright at the moment because you created it so.  i think it would be very hard to maintain public trust if one constantly changed according to the whims of their critics.

[pianistimo]

ps even though i prefer to read crit from people who actually play the piano - it's ok to hear it from amateurs or music enthusiasts.  sometimes they can be spot on - from having heard a lot of piano music.  what i think is rare - is when you have a meeting of the minds on deeper levels that seem to be gained by longer reviews (typically of opera).  you get these short and sweet reviews of pianists.  i like the longer ones that don't go into what the audience did - and what the performer was wearing.  you know - that give a little epilogue about the program - what the performer intended in his/her programming and the elements of the program that he/she wanted to bring out.  in other words - the heart of the performer in a nutshell.  i don't want to go to a recital that is like a multiple choice answer test.  you can't really tell if the performer likes what he or she is playing.  just there to 'pass the test.'  i'd rather hear mostly music that the performer relates to.

doesn't the new yorker magazine have some fairly long critiques.  eloquent words.  and, probably a bit of pristine target practice.  accurate on the weakness and strength of the performer.  they probably run their critiques by a few people before publishing?  perhaps that is the problem with the average newspaper?  they just run the review without the review being reviewed?

[mike_lang]

Has anyone read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

[cmg]

I was once a critic and a journalist.  I left the field because, from experience, I learned that there is no such thing as pure objectivity. 

If, for example, you confined judging piano competitions to faithfulness to the score, you'd still run into issues such as "How fast, really, IS presto?"  Isn't presto relative to the preceding allegro?  And even if composers, such as Beethoven, insert metronome markings, isn't there also the variable of the particular piano and the lightness of its action that Beethoven would have written for?  Didn't Schnabel show us that it can be a real scramble to realize Beethoven's markings on a modern grand?

In truth, we bring unconscious judgment to everything we hear.  It informs our choices beyond our awareness, no matter how much we insist we are being "objective."  We see through eyes and hear through ears that send the messages to our brains where vast amounts of stored experience and education process and distort.  Eyewitness reports in courtrooms are notoriously unreliable.  Why?  Because our uniqueness as individuals colors objectivity.  It distorts our perceptions. 

Even in science, where the most scrupulous methods of observation are mapped out, there is no real objectivity.  It has been found in quantum mechanics and beyond that the very fact of the observer alters the observed. 

Personally, I don't think we need critics.  I don't think we need competitions, either.  They are both only barely-disguised marketing ploys.  Tacky.  As Bartok said, "competitions are for horses, not pianists."

[pianistimo]

good points, cmg.  although isn't 'presto' sort of decided on the bottom of those electronic metronomes.  a choice of certain predetermined beats per minute that feel like a race.  if someone is playing allegro when it's supposed to be presto - you just say - hmm.  not so good.  to me - presto is very very fast (sprint).  allegro - a running speed.  moderato - jogging.  etc.  i always think in terms of feet movement and running, walking, marching, etc.  without some sort of guidlines - a person could be playing a tempo that everyone knows is wrong for the intent.

but, as you say - if you pick one tempo at the beginning - every other tempi must fit within that range also of that particular tempo.  for instance, i don't like hearing an extremely fast tempo with a 'grave' tempo that is dead in the water.  you know - like some people take the last beethoven sonatas.  i mean he wasn't dead yet.

as you say - though - without meaning to be  - we ARE extremely subjective according to tastes. and, no competition would be truly fair - unless we were judging robots that all took from the same teachers and got the same training.  why not just sit back and enjoy recitals for who is playing and how they interpret the music.  i've learned to relax, too (unless i hear something i absolutely hate).  usually i either love or hate a piece - and the way it is played - and try not to say anything if i thought it was garbage - until i get into my car. 

[cmg]

  for instance, i don't like hearing an extremely fast tempo with a 'grave' tempo that is dead in the water.  you know - like some people take the last beethoven sonatas.  i mean he wasn't dead yet.

 

[leonidas]

This, in actual fact, is a really good topic, and it is surely deserving of greater recognition.

[retrouvailles]

This, in actual fact, is a really good topic, and it is surely deserving of greater recognition.

Being the creator of this topic, you would say something like that.

[prongated]

A good music critic is one who thinks along the same lines as you and writes accordingly

[invictious]

Just to add on, this is the reason I hate piano competitions and exams. What is a competition for, trying to play it so the judges like it?

Personally, I feel that even if judges try to be objective and judge through purely technical means, then really, it won't be a MUSIC COMPETITION, but see which one can play like a MIDI the most.

ie. for me, I like the Pathetique faster, and if I'm the judge for a tournament, I'd find it impossible to like the person who played an absolutely brilliant interpretation of it albeit rather slowly.