Stanley Cavell in his “Music Discomposed” wonders why there is a disparity between competent music criticism and competent criticism as it exists for the arts of literature and painting. Whereas the arts of literature and painting, and criticism thereof, exist simultaneously; this is not the case with new music. That is, there are very few critical works devoted to serving the needs of non-professional music audiences. Like most of the analytical philosophy journals which serve professional philosophers; journals such as Die Reihe and Perspectives in New Music serve the interests of professional musicians and composers. The journal discussions focus on the problems of the composer, not on the problems of the non-professional listener. In other words there are very few critical bridges of understanding for non-professional music listeners as there are for literature and painting. Criticism of new music, according to Cavell, lags behind performances of new music - new music and competent new music criticism are not contemporaneous.
Andrew Porter the former music critic for The New Yorker was a most competent music critic. Somewhere in his five published volumes of New Yorker pieces he writes that he felt it was his business as a music critic to devote a great deal of his time to covering new (and infrequently presented) 20th century music. As a critic, Porter had pretty rigorous requirements in writing about new music. He wanted a score of the music to follow with his pen flashlight and a tape of the recorded performance to listen to before writing his review. I mentioned Porter's requirements to a friend of mine, the principal violist with a major symphony orchestra; he thought Porter was a bit over the top in this. I don't think so; I think that before philosophers and music historians start riffing in print they should take the kind of care that Porter used to take - they should at least attend to the music, listen to it, give examples of the music; not just second and third order 'learned' professional journal riffs. "Studies show...." instead of "listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto" reveals some quite beautiful melodic bits and contrasts; "remarkable, really ... perhaps I'll have to adjust my theory based on this hearing-data...."
Andrew Porter the former music critic for The New Yorker was a most competent music critic. Somewhere in his five published volumes of New Yorker pieces he writes that he felt it was his business as a music critic to devote a great deal of his time to covering new (and infrequently presented) 20th century music. As a critic, Porter had pretty rigorous requirements in writing about new music. He wanted a score of the music to follow with his pen flashlight and a tape of the recorded performance to listen to before writing his review. I mentioned Porter's requirements to a friend of mine, the principal violist with a major symphony orchestra; he thought Porter was a bit over the top in this. I don't think so; I think that before philosophers and music historians start riffing in print they should take the kind of care that Porter used to take - they should at least attend to the music, listen to it, give examples of the music; not just second and third order 'learned' professional journal riffs. "Studies show...." instead of "listening to Schoenberg's Violin Concerto" reveals some quite beautiful melodic bits and contrasts; "remarkable, really ... perhaps I'll have to adjust my theory based on this hearing-data...."
No comments:
Post a Comment