Were we even at the same concert?

[NikolaTomic]

This week, I write about my response to a concert by the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, and contrast it to that of a New York Times critic. This happens to be the same critic who recently claimed the New York Philharmonic was being hurt by its brass section.

https://nikolatomic.com/nikolas-musings/2019/2/20/were-we-even-at-the-same-concert
_________________
Nikola Tomić
https://nikolatomic.com/nikolas-musings/

[area51recording]

Those who can, do.....those who can't (and wish they could) frequently become critics.....

[robert_white]

The role of a music critic is to write thoughtfully about the art form in a way that can potentially shape discourse around that art form. By this, I mean deepening and enriching the way we think about and even how we perceive the music we care about. The critic needs not only developed, discerning ears (which naturally means they will have a taste that may or may not line up with ours), but must also be skilled and compelling writers. This is a noble pursuit, and largely a thankless one. But if it was serious enough for Robert Schumann to devote much of his professional life to, then I think it's serious enough for me to, well, take seriously.

What most people believe a critic to be today is a professional Amazon reviewer; a consumer guidepost for what is good or not so that we don't accidentally spend money on something that sucks. This confusion is natural; critics do offer ratings and recommendations sometimes (Ms. Fonseca-Wollheim and the NYT classical crew do not). And sometimes they don't like stuff we like. The linked counter-review above even posits that she should change her tone or risk losing her job - which seems to reflect a truly bizarre notion of what a critic is for.

My question is, why does a negative review make people so uncomfortable? Do you think the NYP low brass are overly concerned about what she thinks? Her review about fortissimos with the NYP frankly coincided with some thoughts I've often had about many orchestras, and as a professional performer myself, I think it's important to ask ourselves "why are we doing it this way?" So, brava to her for raising the point, whether or not I agree with it.

The OP also asks "were we even at the same concert?" - isn't that kind of cool, that the same experience can be processed so differently? It takes nothing away from one's enjoyment, ultimately, that others don't agree. Criticism can hurt, and can sometimes be mean-spirited. But it can also make meaningful impacts on people, fields of endeavor, and forms of art. It's understood a priori that you don't have to agree - read the writing for the thoughts it reflects. Or don't. Why get mad about it?

[NikolaTomic]

Dr. White,

Thank you for your response. Since you chose to post it here, I will respond here, as well. I think you are largely right in your assessment of what "most people" think a critic is. I am not one of those people. You seem to take issue most with this sentence from my blog post:

"PR is not a critic’s job, but perhaps if this critic would like to still have a job in ten years, she should consider hearing music for its potential to inspire and sustain an audience into the future, and write about it accordingly."

Please note that I begin with the phrase "PR is not a critic's job." I do not expect a critique to be an advertisement. However, when you write that "the linked counter-review above even posits that she should change her tone or risk losing her job - which seems to reflect a truly bizarre notion of what a critic is for," you are corrupting my meaning. The point I was attempting to make is that the derisive tone used to discuss the youth orchestra members and what I would argue was an objective failure to interpret musical choices for what they were without forcing them through the lens of a previously published article about the conductor, are contributing to a larger problem. Specifically, the problem is an audience for art music that is dwindling by the second, no matter what gimmicky costume affairs, cocktail lounges, symphony at the movies events, etc. are being used to put a band-aid on the systematic cultural debasement of our country. I don't need a critic to be a cheerleader, but if nobody makes the general public and young people in particular excited enough about these kinds of events to attend them, then they will cease to exist, as will the criticism jobs. That is not a call for firing; that is a simple cause and effect relationship.

Also, I am not "mad about it." I just care enough to devote a little blog space to it.

Respectfully,
_________________
Nikola Tomić
https://nikolatomic.com/nikolas-musings/

[robert_white]

Thanks for the reply, Nikola. I have not intended to corrupt your meaning, and I don't actually think I have. Are your criticisms of this critic valid? Certainly. Do they strike me as bizarre? Frankly, yes. That's not meant as a personal attack - I don't know you, after all. And honestly, your writing shows wit and interesting perception. Your piece made me think, as did Ms. Fonseca-Wollheim's, and that's a pretty ringing endorsement.

I do fully understand that your point about her job security was in defense of what you seem to perceive as a dying art form. To that, I'd only submit that old people are really the only reason anyone is interested in old art; namely, the old people that all of us (fingers crossed!) will eventually be one day. This is music for grown-ups. Even those of us who are (or, in my case *were*), youthful fans of what orchestral music offers up are hearing the call from across the rainbow bridge when we listen. The older we get, the more palpable and immediate this noetic experience becomes, even as the immediacy of the sense perceptions often begin to fade. So - I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Carnegie Hall will probably be mostly grey-haired heads on most nights until kingdom come. (But kids are welcome too, of course).

However, this needn't make us pessimistic! Just as a decent person takes the elderly seriously, and tries to engage with them without condescension or patronization, so should a professional critic engage with this music. Ms. F-W does that very well (and that's probably why the Times hired her, even with her "non-conservatory" background). I'm all for positivity, but the older I get, the more I feel that the real cheerleading to be done is simply trusting in the music to speak for itself - regardless of the tremendous variety of resulting experiences for those of us listening. The critic who gives us a window into their experience - whether we can dig it or not - is doing honorable work.