Memories of Criticism

I have paid off two mortgages by writing for money. “Writing for money” indicates that there was no particular love for the art form which we call criticism. My second mortgage was paid off by writing for a Murdoch newspaper in Australia which did not employ writers who were as expert in Musicology as the critics I had known in London. When I asked one of the critics on another Australian newspaper why he did it, the answer was, “Because of the perquisites”. I never did find out exactly why these perquisites were so attractive although meeting some the world’s greatest touring musicians was certainly a treat. 

Music criticism can be difficult. The average string player in an orchestra needs to practise for hours each day for at least ten years but usually more just to get into College. Then come the auditions before scraping away on a back desk in an orchestra. So a string section of an orchestra playing Brahms will usually have over eight thousand hours of practice under its belt. How can we criticise such dedication? 

So a critic will normally concentrate on the interpretation of the work by the conductor who has spent even more time studying before standing before a decent orchestra. 

Perhaps there is a parallel here with literary criticism. Some criticism of contemporary writing is carried out by other writers. I imagine that a practising author can offer a guide for us through a book in a way that a critic who is not a practitioner could never do. For example when A N Wilson, whose biography of Tolstoy has long been acknowledged as the greatest account of his life, hailed Rosamund Barlett’s “Tolstoy, a Russian Life” as better than his own, we are completely convinced of the truth of this criticism. In a similar way, Mozart enjoyed the work of Michael Haydn and his influence is even noticeable in some of Mozart’s compositions. 

But how does any of this apply to a critic who is in the business “for the perquisites”? My simple answer is that it does not have any application at all. 

Surely such a critic must have a mission? 

My mission was simply to persuade people to attend concerts that I was enjoying. After one performance of a symphony when only the slow movement had a passable performance, I wrote passionately about this slow movement. Surely this was wrong? Another piece where two instrumentalists fumbled a couple of solos, I simply did not discuss it at all in my article. This would not be appropriate for a London performance. 

Before I wrote to pay off a mortgage at the high rates we had in the distant past, I was required to write private criticism for an Arts Organisation which awarded money to orchestras. In actual fact, my comments were unlikely to have much influence so I could write anything I wanted. One time, I was most enthusiastic about the Sunday concerts of one of the great London orchestras which had managed to get a hefty grant from a well known cigarette manufacturer. 

Like Stockovski, I loved a good bass sound. The acoustics of the Festival Hall were still a rather dry at the time so the orchestra spent the “tobacco money” on extra Double bass players. The resulting sound was magnificent. In the end, perhaps the best critics of a performance can be the players themselves?