Which of these options would you prefer to read in a review?

[leonidas]

Obviously a very positive reaction is prefered but, between the options of absolute subjective disgust and luke-warm approval, which would you prefer?

[pianochick93]

Depending on which was true. If I played terribly and knew it, then I wouldn't mind that being written, because anyone who heard it would know it.

[quantum]

I'd rather people perceive my playing as ugly and obnoxious than pass it off as "nice" followed by an inquiry to play something they know.  The former shows at least some effort went into listening to the music, rather than treating it as muzak. 

[jakev2.0]

1. Amazing technical accomplishment and superb interpretation are by no means mutually exclusive.
2. Everything critics say should subject to scrutiny and debate. Many horrible recitals are praised to the skies while truly special performances are decried.

[viking]

Agreed.  Critics know absolutely nothing. 

[counterpoint]

It depends on who the critic is. If he is someone, who likes oldfashioned, conventional interpretations that do not hurt anyone, then I would prefer option 1.

If the critic is a person who likes an unconventional and surprising style of playing, then option 2. Of course.

[rc]

I like Rick Phillips critiques from sound advice on CBC radio 2.  He's not just spouting opinions but also gives reasons and is educational.  Opinions don't say much but the reasons behind them do.

When I've had people write up critiques on my playing for festivals, exams and whatnot, there's always something that seems to come out of left field.  Or two people will have contradictory judgements on the same piece.  But I'm always grateful for any constructive criticism, there's always something useful to take from the feedback.

Anyways, if I was a career pianist I would never want people to be reading that my playing is awful.  That's just not good for business

[invictious]

Probably a mix of both, yes I know I'm weird.
Depends on the piece and how I am playing it.

[Derek]

I'd rather people perceive my playing as ugly and obnoxious than pass it off as "nice" followed by an inquiry to play something they know.  The former shows at least some effort went into listening to the music, rather than treating it as muzak. 

In my opinion, no critic truly listens to any music. The position of critic in society is for the less talented individuals to have an arena in which they can artificially build up their own egos. Critics are human just like anyone, and unfortunately they are some of the least introspective people out there. As a result, what they say is almost completely determined by prejudice of one sort or another. Show me an "open minded" critic...somebody?

I don't even really understand why anyone would read an article by a critic. I can't remember the last time I've actually agreed with one. I'm willing to bet most normal people can't relate to what critics say, either. Since an audience of normal music lovers is who you play for, why should critics even matter? I really don't think they do.

[rc]

There's merit to Schopenhaur's idea on genius and appreciation, which basically goes that the average person doesn't know enough to differentiate between good and great (or even bad).  That people basically know enough to recognize a bit beyond their own level of understanding, so in the grand scheme of things it functions like a heirarchy of the less knowledgable taking the word of the more knowledgable.  Going up like a pyramid until you have a few experts judging the merits of art.

Which is the ideal function of a critic, not so much in the opinion but the why or why not behind it.  If somebody's knowledgable enough to know the difference between worthwhile music and forgettable mediocrity, they can do a service by sharing that knowledge.

[Derek]

That is so subjective though. There are some people, for example, who would pass off Keith Jarrett's solo improvisations as mediocrity, others who think it is great. Critics vary so much in their opinions also. If there were any sort of objectivity to whether music is good, critics would have a valid role, I think. But since that isn't the case, they basically are just hot air factories, whose sole purpose is only to annoy those who truly appreciate music for the sound of it, not for a bunch of stagnated traditions, rules, and prejudices.

This is especially true since the advent of avante-garde music. Modern music has been so long trying to push the boundaries of objectivity in music so far that all we have left is subjectivity. For a while, we had "defined" objectivity in terms of the simplest tonal relationships, and had defined it by maintaining integrity of voices within that context, by further defining independence by mostly contrary motion and use of the most "independent" sounding intervals, 3rds, 6ths and 10ths, etc. But since we've unravelled all that and proven that good music does not need to follow those rules, we've eliminated any basis upon which critics can actually base criticism, except their own opinion: Did they LIKE the music they heard, or did they not? It is a very subjective judgement, I believe. Thus, what they say is worthless. I'd trust the opinion of a normal man over that of a classical music critic any day. (because, let's face it, Metallica is more enjoyable than John Cage...to most people anyway)

[leonidas]

There's merit to Schopenhaur's idea on genius and appreciation, which basically goes that the average person doesn't know enough to differentiate between good and great (or even bad).  That people basically know enough to recognize a bit beyond their own level of understanding, so in the grand scheme of things it functions like a heirarchy of the less knowledgable taking the word of the more knowledgable.  Going up like a pyramid until you have a few experts judging the merits of art.

Which is the ideal function of a critic, not so much in the opinion but the why or why not behind it.  If somebody's knowledgable enough to know the difference between worthwhile music and forgettable mediocrity, they can do a service by sharing that knowledge.

This is very interesting, but it's all still hugely subjective.

Which is a 'greater' piece of music - a Beethoven Sonata, or Rubinstein's first sonata.

The latter wasn't really innovative, and it was composed way later than the former, so it's artistic 'impact' was never going to be as big, but as an individual work of art, I can't see why it's any more 'enjoyable', in an absolutely musical sense.

[n_n]

the longer the better no matter what the content is...
(ok, i'm half joking... no, only 20% joking...)

[jlh]

Agreed.  Critics know absolutely nothing. 

HAHA funny story... so I sang the Fauré Cantique de Jean Racine with a professional choir a few weeks ago and one of the local media reviewers actually wrote in the article that it was sung in LATIN!  Oh, and the same article also mentioned that Benjamin Britton was a 'troubled British bloke who spent much of his existence in the insane asylum.'

I for one never even knew that Benjamin Britten spent much of his life in an insane asylum, or that we were singing the Fauré in Latin.  It would really have helped if I'd been told that in advance... 

Check it out:

https://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/uponsun/2007/11/phoenix_bach_choir_trinity_epi.php