It’s relatively quiet in my office this week. I can count the times my phone has rung on one hand, and—except for the inevitable, automatically generated spam—there have only been a handful of emails. Most offices are closed, and people are either at home with their families, or out of town. And most people probably think I’m at home, which has allowed me time to finally sort through things that have piled up on my desk during these past few extremely busy months.
So why am I blowing my cover and writing this? Well, since the old year is ending and a new year is about to begin, it seems an ideal time to voice a concern about how we parse old and new.
The immediate inspiration for these musings comes from attending the second performance of Tan Dun’s The First Emperor at the Metropolitan Opera on Tuesday night. Before going, I purposefully avoided reading any of the pundits who attended opening night on December 21; they were pretty easy to avoid given the holiday onslaught. So I went in without anyone telling me what I should be thinking, although, as readers here already know, I had already attended the first full cast/orchestra rehearsal.
What I didn’t say at that time was that the performance somehow didn’t connect for me. It was not fair to say anything about it at the time, since indeed it was the first rehearsal. But admittedly, I was expecting to be disappointed at the actual performance. However, on the contrary, I was riveted and, at times, flabbergasted specifically by how it all did connect: elements of Peking opera, the conventions of standard repertoire opera, and postmodern orchestration. But this is not a review; I don’t really believe in reviews.
Why I don’t believe in reviews was further confirmed by the almost unanimous chorus of First Emperor naysayers I caught up with online yesterday. Still, there are comments embedded in the published accounts of the performance that bear careful scrutiny by anyone concerned about new work flourishing:
Audiences want music that holds up—as entertainment—with the best of what was written a century ago. But art must move forward.
Philip Kennicott in Washington Post (December 23, 2006)
The irony of this statement, of course, is that had Tan Dun composed a high modernist score he would have been equally vilified by the critics for being out of touch with audiences and insensitive to operatic conventions.
That all nine performances are essentially sold out is good news for the Met, for contemporary music and for opera over all. My guess is that a large number of the ticket-holders are opera neophytes attracted by the novelty of this project and hoping for a grand theatrical experience.
Anthony Tommasini in The New York Times (December 23, 2006)
The implication here is that most regular opera attendees would not waste their time on a new work and that the people who would don’t know anything about opera.
As for actual statements about the opera itself, the following comment by Manuela Hoelterhoff, published in Bloomberg.com on December 22, 2006, tells me more about the reviewer than the reviewed:
This may be dramatic by the stilted standards of Chinese opera, yet except for the tediously long expository opening scene with a shaman and the master of ceremonies, the piece mostly adheres to poorly absorbed Western traditions.
Granted, a Chinese opera neophyte might find the dramatic exposition of Chinese opera stilted, but wouldn’t someone who has never previously experienced good ole Verdi, Puccini, or Wagner be equally perplexed by how each of these dramatic composers suspends reality, especially folks whose primary to dramatic exposition is the world of film and television? If La traviata, Madama Butterfly, or Tristan und Isolde were brand new works receiving their premieres in New York City in 2006, how do you think they would be received by the media’s appointed arbiters of taste?
But, of course, now that the blogosphere has democratized criticism, we no longer need to limit ourselves to circulated publications to find folks with strong opinions proclaiming their views. You might think that as a result there would be an even wider range of viewpoints out there, but I haven’t found them yet. One thing I did find, however, was…
…the audience is cheering like crazy and it’s making me furious.
Jonathan Ferrantelli on the Wellsung blog (December 21, 2006)
This comment made me stop looking for a while. After all, it’s almost New Year’s Eve, which is time to start cheering like crazy to ring in the new!
The Last Emperor
I would have been shocked and upset at the printed reviews. They all had the same tone but the negitive details in each tended to be contradictorary. I was enthralled by “The First Emperor” – both the music and the production. I have been to an average of 15 operas a year for the last 30 years – so i am no neophyte, and the other people cheering the production, at least in the balcony, were the same people who have attented new productions for years. I’ve seen 3 new operas in 2006 and the reviews of all 3 were full of small criticisms that missed the point and feel of the work as a whole. Fortunately Composers, musicians and audiances who bring music forward, not the criicts who for the most part are failed compsers and musicans.
Critic-bashing…
I sincerely hope some critics are reading this post, because I have to honestly ask WHO NEEDS YOU? It is no understatement to maintain that most critics are nothing but purposeful infighters who’ve gone to literally untold lengths just to get their jobs to begin with. They are the slime of the art world – even the common man understands beauty in ways they never will – plus, they can be easily bought and manipulated by whoever will uphold their phony lifestyles. Yes – critic, schmiticOnly one thing worse than a self-absorbed, deluded composer, and that is a music critic. And again, with the blogosphere, WHY ARE CRITICS EVEN IN BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH???
WHY ARE CRITICS EVEN IN BUSINESS TO BEGIN WITH???
Because music is interesting, and worth writing about, and worth reading about, and worth thinking about.
Because some musical events are indeed newsworthy, and their progress deserves to be documented.
Because music, like all creative endeavors, is surrounded by aesthetic, philosophical and critical discourse whose mutual intersections trace a parallel course of intellectual discourse.
Because writing on music is extremely difficult, and those who can do it well deserve to be appreciated and celebrated.
Because music involves personalities, and history, and other human messinesses, and the act of tracing them and reading those traceries can be both informative and entertaining.
Because talking about music can be fun, challenging, enlightening, productive, fulfilling, and beneficial.
Shall I go on, or shall we give this a rest?
Me: Critics are in business because some musicians can’t afford, or don’t want, managers, and someone has to attend to their publicity.
Virgil Thomson: “Music criticism may be unnecessary. It is certainly inefficient. But it is the only antidote we have to paid publicity.”
In other words, many musicians have had their careers tremendously boosted by critics – and very few, I think, have ever had their careers truly hurt by them.
Yikkes!
The problem here is not that Tan Dun’s Opera was panned or praised, but that Tan Dun was only commissioned to compose 1 opera for the Met. Verdi composed a lot of opera before he caught on. So its not fair to judge any composer by one or two works in the opera genre. Also, these short term opera reviewers tend to change their minds when a work is revised (if necessary) and performed again. If you want a composer to write opera a contract for 5 operas seems sufficient.
Phil’s page
Yikkes!
The problem here is not that Tan Dun’s Opera was panned or praised, but that Tan Dun was only commissioned to compose 1 opera for the Met. Verdi composed a lot of opera before he caught on. So its not fair to judge any composer by one or two works in the opera genre. Also, these short term opera reviewers tend to change their minds when a work is revised (if necessary) and performed again. If you want a composer to write opera a contract for 5 operas seems sufficient.
Phil’s page
Oppsey
It looks like I repeated myself.
*laughing*
Evan, your points are well taken. However, please tell me – what on earth can a critic offer me that a well-written blog cannot? No, the days of poseur critics are gone, I’m afraid, and with it the propensity for some to pontificate their own idiosyncratic views onto everyone else. Furthermore, the notion of cricism being the antidote to paid publicity is nonsense. I wish I had a dime for every critic I knew or heard of who graciously accepted meals, tickets and gifts in exchange for writing something positive about someone’s music (especially those with too little real talent to matter in the first place). Which beings up the next question – how many of you are music critics, by the way?
JKG, based on other things you’ve said in postings on this site, I’d say that you are the critic here!
No, the days of poseur critics are gone, I’m afraid, and with it the propensity for some to pontificate their own idiosyncratic views onto everyone else.
But isn’t that what you are doing, pontificating your own views on us? Isn’t that exactly what is going on here, as we all try to make a point and say what we think?
Is that really how you feel?
Sorry to disabuse your sensitivity, Swellsort. If it is true that the demise of the “music critic” as both occupation and concern, then it must also be true that there are those who will fight to keep such an institution alive. No doubt those with the more analytical tastes have always benefitted best from criticism since the advent of the internet, as virtually no one else takes such music seriously anyway. And yes, I am entitled to my own opinion – which is nothing more or less than an opinion, however well or ill-informed you take me to be. It is true in the obvious that the casual listener or performer wothout advanced analytical training cannot rapport in technical terms so endeared by those privilged few “experts” who deem to know what is best for western musical culture, and yet it is precisely the vox populi which have deemed certain works immortal to abject exclusion of those less meaningful to humanity at large. Why not take a frank look at how many times I stand in agreement with things posted on this blog before railing about my opinion regarding the scant necessity for so-called “music criticism.”
And by the way, Mark…
How’s the snow this year in Oregon? Good luck with your theater works. Do not think I am too mean-spirited to allow the opinions of others – my aesthetic is more Vico than Cartesian, that’s all. *grin*
…as someone who has bashed critics in the past, I would like to humbly say that my own relationship to music (and dance) criticism has changed over the years the more I’ve produced work for the public and done what I had to do to promote that work. The relationship between composer and critic is a little more complicated and not necessarily as negative than JKG suggests – at least that has been my experience thus far.
That said, the relationship is a weird one – because ultimately the artist has to answer to his or herself. If you want to keep your sanity – you have to keep criticism in perspective, recognize it for what it is – and I would say realize also that even a bad or lukewarm review can have many positive repercussions on your career.
That said, I appreciated Frank giving the bad Tan Dun reviews some balance with his own commentary. I think Frank is just showing how “criticism” can get away from the critic and say more about that person than the piece they are reviewing.
We can all probably relate to that, right?
I was reading this discussion and in between sessions (I need breaks) I found this little review that I think is not so bad at all. It offers a positive outlook and even though it reads a bit like a christmas catalogue in some places also imparts constructive criticism.
Link
I’m not saying this is an ideal criticism column but it is an example of a reviewer being humbly positive instead of self-aggrandizingly shrewd and authoritative.
Having said that, I can’t imagine “making it” in the critic world without often tearing things apart, no matter what it is, and being able to do it in the most convincing and cutting way possible.
Critics
I agree with Kyle … any press is good press. A truly good critic reviews everything there is to review. The tone of the review is not too important. Fairness of coverage is quite important. A truly great critic can not be bought and sold by his/her publisher, or even swayed by his/her own agenda.
You don’t have to agree with a critic’s opinions to find a review useful. And publicity does count; I’ve been led to plenty of new music by Andrew Porter, Paul Griffiths, Kyle Gann…
As for a well-written blog replacing the music critic, many of the best music blogs around are written by critics.
When I went to hear this work at the MET simulcast I was afraid that is was merely a political work–Chinese composers can come to American and find artistic success criticizing their old homelands and of course certainly not critiquing their new homeland.
Anyway, after hearing the work on the MET simulcast–I was a little shocked as this was not the work I was expecting. I was informed and had experienced Mr. Dun as an avant-garde composer and not as a reborn Ralph Vaughn Williams or Delibes with a couple of glissandos thrown in to keep up to date. I was shocked that he chose to sacrifice everything; text, scansion, drama, character, musical integration and content, in order to create constant big operatic moments and the cheap thrill of the high note. By the way, a story in which a composer bites the hand of his benefactor certainly is a fairy tale.
Phil’s page