2012: A MUSICAL SPACE ODYSSEY
Part 5:
Music Criticism
JEREMY
SIEPMANN, Speaker & Presenter
Hong Kong
City Hall Concert Hall
Friday (12 October 2012 )
The final session saw veteran music critic,
writer, broadcaster and educator Jeremy Siepmann speak about the functions and
limitations of music criticism. Simply put, a music critic is merely a
reporter, and his opinion is the least important bit of the so-called critique.
I love this, because he has confirmed my suspicions all along. Having written
over a thousand reviews for the national newspaper, I begin to learn that I am
a glorified journalist and little more. The more I write, the less I consider
my role as an arbiter of musical quality (if there is such a thing) and grow to
respect the composer and performer more. The sad thing to all this is that
those who have written far less may still be wallowing in that puffed-up notion
of being a “music critic”. By the time they learn, much damage may have been
caused.
Siepmann goes on to read some of the worst
critiques in history, specifically those targeted at Beethoven by cloth-eared
non-entities and more recently, an irresponsible review of a masterful solo
recital by Michael Roll, perpetrated by “a mediocre compose who could not
compose his way out of a paper bag”. Did he not note the 10 minute long ovation
accorded to the artist? His verdict: Critics often confuse criticism with the
confirmation of their own musical prejudices.
So who needs critics? Promoters and agents who
need words and hyperbole to hang on to. Young artists who need to advance their
careers. Ultimately, all artists need to be appreciated because they came to
give, to share their vision of a piece of music, and by baring their souls to
the public they become totally exposed.
Siepmann plays Gould in Brahms |
On a more thespian side of things, Siepmann
recounted the day he attended that infamous 1961 concert of Glenn Gould and
Leonard Bernstein in the Brahms First
Piano Concerto. He spoke less about the performance but demonstrated more
on Gould’s body language and extreme fidgetiness. The photos above give you an
idea of what happened then. He also touched on Sviatoslav Richter’s American
debut, and how he polarised listeners into two camps.
Finally he revealed what a critic ought to be:
A reporter.
A stimulus of independent thought and
reflection.
An acknowledger of the evanescence of musical
performance.
An educator, for whom someone would have learnt
something by reading his article.
Good reviews are easy to write, but it is
impossible to write a responsible bad review in a few words. If music criticism
expires, Siepmann will not be at its funeral.
It's Question and Answer time, and Jeremy Siepmann takes on queries from the small segment of audience that remained. For example, what were his favourite pieces of music? Included were Bach's Mass in B minor, Beethoven's Piano Sonata No.32 in C minor (Op.111), Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro and Handel's little-known opera Sosarme.
1 comment:
One pertinent issue not addressed by Siepmann was this: What sort of reader does he (or other critics) have in mind? For example, does he primarily write for (i) people who attended the concert (or not), and (ii) people who are classical music-lovers (or not)? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes’, then perhaps a music critic will need to be more than just a ‘music reporter’? A survey on people who regularly read classical music reviews would be helpful here.
Post a Comment