On the music critics of the world.

[Muzakian]

In my own personal experience, most people express very unfavourable or nihilistic attitudes to critics. This isn't a charge against anyone here, as I haven't been here long enough to observe anything like that. But it is my opinion that those who fail to find any value in a time-honoured institution express nothing but their own their own flaws, rather than the flaws of the institution.

Let us take the case of music critics: they have been around as long as the music itself, so they must play a necessary role of some sort. So my question is this - what do you all perceive the role of the music critic to be?

I have my own opinions on this matter but I think I must withhold them for just a while, and see what you all have to say.

Thoughts/opinions, anyone?

[Aniam]

I guess the function of a critic is twofold. One, they inform the public what's going on in the music world, and to some extent inform their taste as well. Second, they can tell a performer when they're going off-track. It's good for a musician to get an outside opinion. I live in a very small country and in the music world everyone generally knows everyone. So criticism can get too personal and critics don't want to say bad things about musicians from here. With visiting performers from other countries they can be more honest. But this means the native musicians can be left without some much needed guidance.

It's good to remember though that a critic's opinion is just that - an opinion. Sometimes if a certain critic likes something I can be pretty certain that I'll hate it, and vice-versa. I expect it can work the same way if you're a professional performer, but since I'm not (yet ) I couldn't say.

[bernhard]

"A crtitic is to a creative individual what a dog is to a lamp post."

(I will try to find out the author of this quote and come here later, but in reading some of the threads here about Meiting, overrated pianists and so on, I cannot help but agree that while lampposts are busy spreading light, dogs are busy urinating on them).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Muzakian]

Aniam,
You make a good point. A critic is, in theory, an impersonal judge of the "objective" properties of the music, and therefore not concerned with their own "subjective" tastes and preferences. I think that much is often true. Schoenberg is called "chaotic" or "incomprehensible" not because it disagreed with the critic's own tastes, but because (according to the critic) these are properties inherent in the music itself. But we must remember too that the critic can only work with his or her own interpretation of the music. The critic's interpretation may indeed be quite terrible, but another's interpretation may be very enjoyable, even beautiful. The critic is just another interpreter really.
I agree with you that the critic's role is partly to inform the listener's on what is available, and also to offer interpretations for the listener.  But perhaps most important is that the critic has an impersonal, unbiased perspective (or is meant to). By watching over the music scene from afar they may see things we do not - if more people had listened to critics we might never have rejected post-romantic/impressionist idioms in favour of serialism and all things modern.

And Bernhard - you're a champ.