How dare you critic me!

[lostinidlewonder]

It is funny, in some macabre way, the amount of competition there is in the music world. But i still cant get my head around the "criticising" side of it all.

Even here on the internet more so, I mean just look at the number of people with big “one and only truth” opinions! Look at the thread on a guy who played fur Elise then went to Chopin fantastie impromptu for instance lol. Look at the amount of opinion flooded into that! And so much opinionative ramble which, maybe is some form of therapy like post is for me lol .

But am I alone when I say criticising someone is useless unless they ask for it? The form of critique should be helpful, not say things like, not enough this or that, or too much this or that. Why don't ppls demonstrate their disapproval with example and evidence, not general and uncommitted answers? If that was the case a lot of people would be shutting up because they know they are just talk and they never actually have done what they say. Yes, that would mean less posts but who ever said quantity means quality?

Do you think that the music world is just full of critics who just complain because they can? Is this useful at all? Am I just paranoid thinking that useless critics are the result of what happens to people who have failed in their own musical endevours or absence of, and need to share their own failing experiences through rash disapproval? Does anyone know a good shrink they could reffer me to? lol

[willcowskitz]

Some people like to invest their share of consciousness into self-consciousness to an extent that it happens on cost of their awareness of others' ways of seeing things. These people believe their opinions hold some objective, absolute value in them, and feel the urge to stuff this view down everyone else's throats. This is nothing but lack of perspective, and it has the tendency to only feed that particular individual's beliefs in their own conceptions' ultimate righteousness. If you can't relate to anyone but yourself, you only see one truth. Their need to expand their awareness is then substituted by attempt to force their own subjective view on others instead of hacking their own mind to see things from another perspective - this is why they're so aggressive to continuously announce their opinions as some sort of fundamental, trivial truths, looking for conflicts that would allow them to gain an upper hand in these battles between abstracts by using rhetorics that subdue the differing view, not because they're built on a more solid basis, but because aggressiveness is used to drive others away and make sure that people around them know to not open their mouths about the subject if they don't want to get attacked for their views. This gives the "one and only truth" aggressors self-comfort, thus strengthening their self-esteem and certainty in the objectiveness of their subjective views. It makes me think, don't these people get enough satisfaction from the way they experience their "objective" reality, say, music that they value most? Why do they have to keep trying to prove it to others, and via others to themselves?

"Just my two cents."

[SDL]

wow!  welcome to the music world

[xvimbi]

Why don't ppls demonstrate their disapproval with example and evidence, not general and uncommitted answers? If that was the case a lot of people would be shutting up because they know they are just talk and they never actually have done what they say. Yes, that would mean less posts but who ever said quantity means quality?

Do you think that the music world is just full of critics who just complain because they can? Is this useful at all? Am I just paranoid thinking that useless critics are the result of what happens to people who have failed in their own musical endevours or absence of, and need to share their own failing experiences through rash disapproval?

In general I agree, but not concerning this aspect, which I think is one of the greatest fallacies in the critiquing business. Granted, critique is most constructive if you show the solution to the (perceived) problem, but it can be constructive in itself. After all, if I contract a builder to build me a house, and then realize that one of the walls is not straight, I do not have to be an expert in wall-building to voice my critique in a competent way. I do not have to show the builder how to make a straight wall for my critique to be valuable and meaningful.

In music, it is sufficient to tell someone to play louder, softer, etc. without knowing how to actually do this on a  given instrument. I've said it a few times before: critique in music requires the ability to listen, not the ability to play. Serious performers take critique not only from those who can play as well or better as themselves. In other words, anybody who thinks that critics are simply failed musicians can't be taken seriously. Of course, there are bad and good critics, but to assume that there is a correlation between the lack of musical accomplishments and the profession of critiquing is foolish.

Most top pianists have coaches who can not play better than them. Same thing in sports. A critic reveals flaws, a teacher helps to fix them. The two may or may not be the same.

[pianonut]

don't feel bad, lost-in-idlewonder.  i follow your posts around everywhere you go.  i have found your insight most helpful and got red-necked when i saw the post.  then i realized that when someone writes 'idiot' - it shows that they are extremely judgemental.  i guess the higher up someone is, the more flack they get.  and, the more gracious you have to be about letting it go.  if it doesn't fit - just laugh.

[ted]

I don't think you need worry about me. I hardly ever say anything critical (how could I ? Most people here are probably much better players than I am.) and I'm so dense I often don't register an insult until weeks after the event. I'm a very long way from normal musically but luckily I'm also aware of that fact and try to tread lightly in my posts.

[rodrk352]

Before I learned to play the piano, I was very hard on musicians who lacked "feeling," who "played like a machine." It is only when I realized the great technical problems one needs to overcome before one can even think about adding "feeling," that I revised my opinion and am now easier on other people's performances. I do think that in order to be a critic you have to have reached a certain level of accomplishment in the art you are criticizing. Only then will you know the real difficulties involved. And so many critics think it shows more spirituality to put down somebody else's work than to look for reasons for praise. Mockery brings out the best (or worst) in some people. When they praise it is lukeworm and unconvincing, but they hate with relish. And since so many people like to be on the laughing side, a good hater will often find an audience. Think of talk radio.

[xvimbi]

Before I learned to play the piano, I was very hard on musicians who lacked "feeling," who "played like a machine." It is only when I realized the great technical problems one needs to overcome before one can even think about adding "feeling," that I revised my opinion and am now easier on other people's performances. I do think that in order to be a critic you have to have reached a certain level of accomplishment in the art you are criticizing. Only then will you know the real difficulties involved.

I don't quite agree with this. Whether somebody "can do it better" should not have any effect on the validity of the critique. If I use my "crooked-wall example" above: the fact that one critic knows how to build a straight wall, whereas another one does not know how, does not change the evaluation of the wall. It is still crooked, whether a child tells that or a world-renowned architect. Knowing that it is not easy to build a straight wall might evoke sympathetic feelings (exactly as you described), but it is no reason to hold back with the critique or even forgive bad performances.

And so many critics think it shows more spirituality to put down somebody else's work than to look for reasons for praise. Mockery brings out the best (or worst) in some people. When they praise it is lukeworm and unconvincing, but they hate with relish. And since so many people like to be on the laughing side, a good hater will often find an audience. Think of talk radio.

This gets into a different direction. The fact is that "critique" nowadays means finding flaws, not praise. It wasn't always like that, though. Initially, it was quite neutral, but things have changed. There is also a difference between cultures. In some cultures, only mistakes are being discussed, things that are OK do not need to be discussed. This is harsh, but it is the fastest way to make progress. In other cultures, every effort is praised, no matter how bad it is. This leads to mediocrity (at best). I guess, the healthiest way is to find a good balance.

[Bob]

Sometimes people are just offering to help.  You should do what they say because it worked for them, it's their belief or something they 'know,' or it's something their teacher told them.  I think it can be natural to instantly compare what you see with what you do yourself.  If someone doesn't agree with you, you can instantly see what's wrong with their thinking  can't you?  If someone makes a mistake, you can spot it, whether it's a technical mistake or an interpretive one.  If you spend lots of time perfecting your own playing, it's very easy to hear mistakes in yourself and in others.

[steinwayguy]

I wonder who this was directed towards 

No hard feelings.

[donjuan]

No hard feelings.

haha I couldnt resist.. ok, Im gonna make my random post and leave:

Impotence: Natures way of saying "__ ____ ________"
 
donjuan

[pianonut]

men have strange humor.  'no hard feelings.'  i would say 'it doesn't fit.'  oops.  well, what i mean is... 

[lostinidlewonder]

So many amazingly gifted thinkers here. Willcowskitz logic is astounding eheh.

No hard feelings? *looks in pants* nope lol. Do i sense a feeling of guilt expensivepiano Guy?*jokes* hehe, no i am hardly upset. It takes such a great deal more than internet posts to get me (@#*&$* off lol. I wanted to get a general idea of what people thought about critique. Because the belief of what critique is all about for those who are critiquing is so important to understand in my opinion. If they have no opinion i guess that means they are not very insightful in their critique.

With the brick wall analogy; isn't music such a more various, subjective thing? A brick wall is either straight or not. Music... well, it bends, twists, and it sometimes is amazing when it is different. I guess a wall could be the same. But I find it hard to appreciate musical critique which doesn't offer example, because sometimes words are too subjective to offer an explaination of a subjective matter. dunno!

I do reckon critique is so important though. I have learnt a lot more from critique than i have from praise thats for sure! Even when they make me cry lol ahaha.

If someone doesn't agree with you, you can instantly see what's wrong with their thinking can't you? If someone makes a mistake, you can spot it, whether it's a technical mistake or an interpretive one. If you spend lots of time perfecting your own playing, it's very easy to hear mistakes in yourself and in others.

Yes and No to this for me. I cannot udnerstand what is wrong with their ideas if it goes against my own, because different paths in musical interpretation are always there. But yeah i guess technically you can observe things, but whether their technique has an overall ill effect on the presentation is again subject to subjection lol. or not? For example if i hear someone playing very fast arpeggios in a peice, often i am not satisfied with the clarity or flow, but that doesn't cloud their overall presentation, it is just a little little dent to me.

[xvimbi]

With the brick wall analogy; isn't music such a more various, subjective thing? A brick wall is either straight or not. Music... well, it bends, twists, and it sometimes is amazing when it is different. I guess a wall could be the same. But I find it hard to appreciate musical critique which doesn't offer example, because sometimes words are too subjective to offer an explaination of a subjective matter. dunno!

Well, I was deliberately talking about a rather technical aspect. One cannot discuss or critque subjective aspects, e.g. matters of taste. One can only discuss aspects that can be clearly defined and where there are agreed upon standards to compare against. Every other type of critique is almost useless. People should either mark such critique clearly as "opinions" or not dispense it at all, and performers should not react to it, unless they want to play the market.

[rodrk352]

<<Whether somebody "can do it better" should not have any effect on the validity of the critique. >>

I agree.  For example, Baudelaire was a great poet, but despite only writing one (early) novel his criticisms of novels are forcefully argued and convincing. His taste in music was also good-- he championed the "music of the future" of Liszt and Wagner-- but those opinions are only convincing because of the intensity of his belief. He also wrote about painters. He was an all-around "aesthete", meaning he had a good eye and ear for the beautiful without being an expert in anything but poetry. I doubt his views on painting are still as valid as his views on writing.

<< I use my "crooked-wall example" above: the fact that one critic knows how to build a straight wall, whereas another one does not know how, does not change the evaluation of the wall. >>

Samuel Johnson said something to the effect that "I may criticize the workmanship of a table without being able to make a table. It is not my business to make tables. It is his." So Samuel Johnson obviously agrees with you. And I would never dare to contradict Samuel Johnson. He lived at a time when poetry, and art in general, was governed by a strict set of rules. He probably would not have cared for the Romantic age, when all the rules were set upside-down. When the rules are not clear-cut anymore, the only way to tell who is "right" is the one who can actually create something good: not the simple critic, who can do nothing.

<<This gets into a different direction. The fact is that "critique" nowadays means finding flaws, not praise. It wasn't always like that, though. >>

If you insist on your own individuality and the rightness of your own beliefs, you can become a prig, overbearing and intolerant. Actually Samuel Johnson was something like that, but he was an amusing and intelligent prig so modern readers can forgive him. On the other hand, if you flatter others, or meekly follow along with what others are saying and doing, you are a coward. There's so much to say on this subject, but it's not really piano-related

[pianostudent99]

I think criticizing somebody over the internet is very hard to do.  Because the reader doesn't know exactly what the critic means.  It's just written words.  I think it would be much more helpful if a person talked to the performer face to face.  Then it would be worthwhile.