Whether there are sailors who sail without charts is doubtful, but there certainly are travellers who prefer to journey with no map to guide them, and readers who are contemptuous of books about books. They gain no profit, they say, by looking at things through the eyes of others. But this impromptu, uninstructed way of grasping at masterpieces in spontaneous leaps of feeling is but a poor way of learning how to enjoy them. The first surprise and flush of prompt delight is, of course, of great, perhaps the greatest, value; but a true appreciation is based on something more than feeling: it demands that we should not only enjoy, but understand our pleasure, and make it food for thought; should learn the esthetic reasons for it, and learn also all we can about the origins and environments of the monuments and masterpieces we gaze on. To understand them we must know their place in history, and their relative position among other masterpieces. And I at least find that my vision of the things I like is greatly enhanced and clarified by seeing them reflected in the luminous minds of other people. Esthetic appreciation is, luckily, a thing that can be communicated, can be learnt from others—the glow of it is a catching fire. How often an admiration spoken of by someone we admire—sometimes the mere mention of a preference—has opened for us the gate into a new world of beauty ! And certainly the debt I owe to the great interpreters of literature is far too large to allow me to join in the common abuse of critics; they have given me ears, they have given me eyes, they have taught me—and have taught all of us really—the best way of appreciating excellence, and how and where to find it. How many sights unguided travellers pass by! how many beauties readers of great works will miss, if they refuse to read the books about them!
— from On Reading Shakespeare, by Logan Pearsall Smith
classical life 
Yes, literary criticism is of enormous value but the art of music is TOTALLY different.
Charles Rosen said:
“One brute fact often overlooked needs to be forced upon our consideration: most works of art are more or less intelligible and give pleasure without any kind of historical, biographical, or structural analysis. […..] In the end we must affirm that no single system of interpretation will ever be able to give us an exhaustive or definitive understanding of why a work of music can hold an enduring interest for us, explain its charm, account for its seduction and our admiration [….] Listening with intensity for pleasure is the one critical activity that can never be dispensed with or superseded”
And an excellent quote by another:
“As skilled a writer on music as a critic may be, he or she surely can’t imagine that one’s prose, even at its most lapidary and eloquent, can capture even a minim of the essential character of a piece of music which merely a single hearing of the music itself would afford but a casual listener. Alone of the arts, music addresses and speaks directly to the center of feeling, bypassing altogether, and with no need of the interposition of, the intellectual faculty. For one to imagine that one could capture and transmit even the smallest part of the essential character of such a thing through the agency of a medium that requires the fullest interposition of the intellectual faculty to even begin to comprehend is, well, unimaginable…”
A person doesn’t need to know anything to enjoy and appreciate music. I’m NOT talking about instant gratification, nor am I saying that the experience cannot be deepened or improved with time, but you do hear people criticizing those who don’t “understand” certain strands of, say, modern music where the suggestion is that they lack the intellectual capacity or taste (whatever that is) to appreciate it.
The point I am trying to make is that music ultimately should be able to transcend education, intellect and culture in a way that literature, for instance, cannot.
Without a doubt, some of the points made here by Ericlea on November 10 are true: music is not the same as literature or even visual art; it is much harder to verbally describe a piece of music than a work of literature or of visual art (though abstract art would probably come very close); reading musical criticism – obviously – does not replace listening to the music itself. However, “harder” does not equal “impossible”.
In my opinion, well-informed and well-written music criticism is valuable to the readers, at the very least, because of the following: it can clarify for them some of the reasons why they liked or disliked any given musical performance; it can also help them in directing their attention to various aspects of their future concert-going and/or recording-listening experience that may enhance their enjoyment; it can provide a nice consumer-friendly service by giving the readers useful recommendations as to the relative worth of recordings and performances, which should help them in making their choices, potentially saving them both time and money.
Music criticism doesn’t in any way “replace” listening to a piece of music. No criticism aims to replace what it talks about.
Musicians often feel that words cannot do justice to music, that music is somehow the only thing we cannot speak about, because the music’s the thing. But words do not ever replace or do justice to anything. The word “tree” does not capture the complete tree, nor does any description of it.
Esa-Pekka Salonen once told me that the minute we stop talking about music we’re in trouble. Music criticism, at a basic level, is just talking about music. It is valuable for that reason alone.
That is, in my opinion, absolutely true; but i was talking about “good” music criticism and i believe that it is valuable for all those other reasons too.
Sorry, MarK. I was really replying to the first commenter … I have no problem with what you said.
“ESA-Pekka Salonen once told me that the minute we stop talking about music we’re in trouble”
—–
I think Pekka Salonen is exaggerating here.
The only real value of music critics is to draw our attention to repertoire we might have missed.
Let’s be honest: if professional music critics were to vanish tomorrow it would not have the slightest impact on our ability to appreciate and love music in a profound way.
Ericlea . . . I agree with you, let’s be honest:
First of all, have some respect for the guy’s name: it’s “Esa-Pekka Salonen” not “Pekka Salonen.” That’d be like referring to “Jean-Yves Thibaudet” as “Yves Thibaudet” or “Sarah-Michelle Gellar” as “Michelle Gellar” or Pope John-Paul II as Pope Paul II, etc, all of which would be thoroughly wrong. If it’s a mere typo or cut-and-paste error, than so be it . . .
Secondly, what makes you think he’s exaggerating? Have you spoken to the man? Do you know him to exaggerate about such things, or anything in general? His statement isn’t that “music criticism is the greatest thing since sliced bread” or that “the world would end in a bloody apocalypse if not for music criticism.” It’s simply that “the minute we stop talking about music we’re in trouble.” It may have grave implications, but the statement itself is not exactly hyperbole.
FWIW, I think Mr. Salonen is correct. There are many reasons for music criticism to exist beyond merely drawing our attention to repertoire (as you suggest), but in my humble opinion, chief among them is to not only describe a performance and his/her reaction to it, but in doing so, spur discussion — and yes, even debate — among others, especially those who also have seen the same performance. It is healthy. It keeps the subject of the criticism relevant, even vital.
Professional critics attend more concerts/operas/etc. than the average (or even above-average) music fan, and therefore have a different perspective. They also are trained in writing AND in music — a non-trivial combination.
So, directly to your final point (which IMHO is not the same line of discussion as was the statement by Mr. Salonen): if music critics were to disappear, would that impact my ability to “appreciate and love music in a profound way?”
– In the short term, probably not. I read classical music criticism fairly religiously, but I also listen to a lot of non-classical music whose criticism I don’t follow, and that doesn’t change my like/dislike of said non-classical music;
– however, the ultimate success or failure (commercial or artistic) of any musician or performance is in people’s desire to hear that musician or that performance more than once; if musical criticism were to disappear — especially professional criticism written by people educated in the genre of music and trained in writing about it — I am confident that the number of musicians or works of music that receive repeat performances would go down.
Let’s face it: professional music critics are supposed to be ” credible experts” in their field — the better ones actually are. Their opinions, whether or not you disagree with them, actually still matter to society. In a world of crowd-sourced opinion (Yelp, Amazon reviews, YouTube thumbs-up/thumbs-down #hashtag), there is still a place needed for someone who tries to be unbiased, has a clue, and whose opinions over time and across a broad spectrum of repertoire and performances are as well known as their credentials (not to mention their identity).
Interesting discussion. I find it hard to intellectualize music, and appreciate reading and hearing the opinions of those who can. The writings of good critics are really educational. It’s not easy, “tap dancing about architecture.”
Gary said:
“I find it hard to intellectualize music, and appreciate reading and hearing the opinions of those who can”
————
There exists no genuine music — from the classics to the most avant-garde — that doesn’t speak for itself by itself, and the notion that any music is so “difficult” that it cannot be comprehended at some level by an intelligent lay audience is simply absurd… Which is not to say that a study of such “difficult” music — either formally or simply by REPEATED HEARINGS — is not a worthwhile enterprise that will serve to both deepen and enrich understanding. It most decidedly is — outside — well outside — the concert experience which experience should be devoted exclusively to the attentive listening to the work(s) being performed.
Genuine music speaks most eloquently for itself by itself always, and is in no need of words to either explain or justify itself. That’s in fact what makes music music, and is almost a definition of what music is about.
I’ve been under the gun the last few days and have found it difficult to step in here and defend my manhood, as it were. I disagree with Ericlea completely on many points (of course) but it is also apparent that I’m not going to change his mind. Therefore, I’m not really interested in arguing with him. He’s not giving an inch from his extreme statements. That’s his right of course.
I appreciate the other extensive comments here, thanks.
I will only add that when I refer to “music criticism,” I am not only referring to the work of professional music critics in newspapers and magazines, whose main business is reviewing concerts. I refer to virtually all talk and writing about classical music, including Rosen’s, which expresses opinion or preference in some way, or analyzes — which is criticism, after all.
Music criticism in newspapers is not read that widely (but then neither is the chess column or the hockey report), but I have found that the interested reader is greatly stimulated by it and many of those interested readers consume it avidly and get something worthwhile from it. It does help fuel their interest in classical music. Furthermore, it is a form of news that allows readers to know what has happened and what is going to happen on the local classical scene. Critics do a lot of reporting, you know.
What a fascinating topic; I waited an extra day to respond because it evoked so many thoughts and feelings. Many of the well-reasoned responses that followed it also have helped to clarify my thinking.
Unquestionably, I come down on the side of those who find great value in classical music criticism, particularly yours. I have neither the time nor the resources to listen to all of the recordings or attend more than a tiny fraction of the concerts you review.
But for me there is a real sense of enjoyment that comes from reading your always adroit analyses of these performances, even those I haven’t experienced personally.
Of course, reading a review of a concert that I have actually attended myself serves a particularly useful purpose because it either (a) reaffirms my own observations about a particular work and how it was performed or (b) it challenges me to re-examine the work and the performance in a manner that I wouldn’t otherwise.
Thoughtful criticism always enriches my appreciation for what is being performed, even when the work itself is not something I am naturally drawn to. I may not always draw the same conclusions about a given work, but a well written critique can and often does deepen my appreciation for the composer, performer(s) and/or the work itself.
As is true of everyone else, when it comes to classical music I have my own particular likes and dislikes. But thoughtful criticism can certainly broaden that perspective, which in turn tends to enrich the overall music-listening experience.
As a lifelong reader of local newspapers, I think it should be noted that newspapers and the reviews within them serve a high purpose simply by acknowledging and reporting on cultural events that people in a region experienced or are interested in. I find it ironic that while Ericlea purports to care only about enjoying music in splendid isolation he acknowledges the value of a shared experience of music by posting to this blog. He may even be a closet newspaper subscriber …
In my opinion, virtually everything in Ericlea’s November 13 comment is reasonable, sensible and accurate. 1. Music speaks “for itself by itself” and can always be “comprehended at some level”. Indeed. Therefore, reading good music criticism may be needed in order to raise that level. 2. Understanding can be enriched by “repeated hearings”. Very true. Therefore, good music critics have a considerable advantage over virtually all other listeners, because over the years they accumulate far more active music listening than most of us. 3. Such enrichment should be “outside the concert experience”. Without a doubt. In other words, people should not be reading reviews while seating in the audience during performances. 4. Music is “in no need of words to explain itself”. Precisely! Music itself does not have such needs at all, but we as its listeners most certainly do…
For those of you who are still reading this, here are a couple of additional pennies of my own on this subject. We experience music through three basic “channels”: aural, emotional, intellectual. They are obviously interconnected but do have certain separate characteristics. The first one can be developed individually but cannot be strongly affected by what we read. The second is rooted in our personality and the totality of our life’s experiences – therefore it might be dependent on what we have learned but to a rather limited degree. The third is definitely based on everything we know and have stored in our memory, thus making it highly effected by what we have read and heard about the music to which we are listening. The proportional distribution of activity between those three primary ingredients of our listening mechanism depends on each listener’s personality and on the type of music that is being performed. For example, “classical” music will usually require much greater participation of the intellectual aspect of perception than will so-called pop. Therefore, fine critical contribution to our experiencing of classical music is considerably more important. Please forgive me once again for being so wordy, but the subject is quite fascinating and i honestly tried to be as laconic as i could.
+1 what MarK said.
Thanks everyone for this interesting topic!
Here is a quote by the neuroscientist Steven Pinker from his book “How The Mind Works”
“As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless. It shows no signs of design for attaining a goal such as long life, grandchildren, or accurate perception and prediction of the world.
Compared with language, vision, social reasoning, and physical know-how, music could vanish from our species and the rest of our lifestyle would be virtually unchanged. Music appears to be a pure pleasure technology, a cocktail of recreational drugs that we ingest through the ear to stimulate a mass of pleasure circuits at once”
———————–
1. Do you think he’s right?
Let me quickly say that I adore music, but no matter how many times I’m lifted to the heights of aesthetic experience I always quietly acknowledge to myself that it’s still… ONLY music. I understand that the pleasure is biologically pointless and that no higher purpose is being served by it.
Also let’s be clear about something: Pinker makes no pretense to explain or even comment on the aesthetic, spiritual, or metaphysical qualities (or any qualities at all) of music. He is a scientist who studies brain function; he comments only on the measurable energy in the brain generated in response to measurable stimuli. The responses may occur in different locations in the brain, with differing intensities, but the cultural significance of the stimuli is irrelevant to Pinker’s interests and cannot be identified based on the measured response. For that matter, responses occurring in the same area of the brain, with similar intensities, may be equated even if the stimuli are of entirely different kinds or characters. So there is no point in asking Pinker for thoughts on the ability of a Beethoven quartet or a Schubert sonata or a Wagner opera to inspire higher thoughts or exalted emotions, since those are not measurable by his methods and really not of much interest in the context of his research.
2. In light of Pinker’s remarks do you think musicians, conductors and critics sometimes take themselves too seriously?
I don’t normally identify commenters … but I think everyone should know that the comment above from Peter K. came from the same email address as that of our previous Ericlea.
Mark K.
Wrong.
The difficulty with music is that it does not essentially exist in an intellectual construct. True, music has form and that can be analyzed with logic and music has harmony and that, also, can be analyzed within a logic construct but the intellectual analysis of music is most unimportant when compared to the effect music has on our deep emotions. Analysis of emotional content is not unusual but it, ultimately, is little more than the water running off the leaves of trees during a rain; it has little effect on the leaves and it is not a primary source of nourishment for the tree.
Music affects us much as the sense of smell influences us. It speaks directly to the emotional content of our lives, be they physical, sexual, spiritual or indescribable. It is the art the does not require any understanding, explanation, nor analysis. All of these things can add to the art of music but, ultimately, they are little more than rain on the leaves
Since i am more interested in ideas than in identities, i shall try to respond to the two questions in Peter’s comment.
1. Similar statements can be made about all arts, though we have by now read about many recent studies that indicate that music in particular – more so than other arts – does have a positive effect on our brains. We know with absolute certainty that music has always been a part of human existence. Humans were singing and beating on “drums” probably even earlier than they started creating drawings in caves. Those “pleasure circuits” are just as much a part of us as anything else and they do need stimulation for us to function as fully human. If you are “lifted to the heights of aesthetic experience”, then what “higher purpose” are you looking for and why are you so sure that it exists anywhere? Everything we hear, certainly including music, is processed in our brains and through the brain it affects many other functions in our bodies, so to call all of this “biologically pointless” looks like a major mistake to me.
2. One can encounter people in any and all professions who take themselves too seriously. It has nothing to do either with music or with Pinker. Even some of the blog commenters sometimes take themselves too seriously. Which is why this is it from me for now.
Seems to me that the bigger problem is people not taking themselves, or anything, seriously enough.
As for those who may take themselves too seriously: I believe that the word “pretentious” is bandied about a little too haphazardly and easily. It is used by people, mostly, who don’t understand something, and suspect that those who do, also don’t understand it and are merely posing.
A lot of great things in this world have been created by people who took themselves very seriously. Beethoven is a good example.
Pretentious art — art that takes itself too seriously — is in the eye of the beholder.
Not sure that i can agree with this, at the very least for one simple reason that a lot of tremendous evil in human history was also perpetrated by people who took themselves extremely seriously, and i don’t think i need to mention names here. However, i do very much like your comment’s arch: starting with “seems to me” and ending with “in the eye of the beholder” – that is perfect!
I’ve been very late getting to this post and the fascinating responses. If one of a music critic’s purposes is to stimulate discussion — and I believe emphatically that is true — then Tim has certainly done that! I do have one addition/change/quibble to make with one of MarK’s posts. He wrote,” We experience music through three basic “channels”: aural, emotional, intellectual.” To that I would add that we experience music — at least live performances — through visual, as well. What we see in a concert hall or an opera house certainly influences how we experience the music or, if you prefer, the musical experience.
Visual aspect may be added in certain contexts but it is not “basic”. For example, we can certainly experience music when listening to recordings, without any visual ingredient. When sitting in the audience and listening to a live performance, i like to close my eyes occasionally (and i know that i am far from unique in doing that) which makes my perception of music more intense, not less, because visual stimulation often distracts. Opera of course is an entirely different matter because it is not pure music but musical theater. So, i still believe that the three “channels” that i mentioned – aural, emotional, intellectual – are quite enough for experiencing music fully.
The latest comment by Ericlea (December 6) is puzzling. It is unclear what that one-word sentence at the top of the comment is “describing”. If it refers to my previous reply to E (November 19) in which i essentially agreed with E’s main points, then it would mean that E has now suddenly declared most of E’s previous positions incorrect, which may be unexpected but is certainly fine with me: we all have an inalienable right to change our minds. Another possibility is that it serves as the headline for the rest of the comment, which is a little unusual, but may in fact make certain amount of sense.
The image of rainwater “running off the leaves of trees” is a beautiful one, but the notion of rainwater having no effect on leaves is so farfetched (to put it mildly and politely) that it could explain a lot of other oddities in E’s comments. To be fair, E wrote “little effect” rather than “no effect”, thus coming considerably closer to my point of view. As i noted in one of my previous tirades in this thread, “proportional distribution of activity between those three primary ingredients [ears, “heart”, brain] of our listening mechanism depends [among other things] on each listener’s personality”, and therefore, according to my “theory”, it is quite possible that, indeed, intellectual facility of E does not play a very important part in E’s music-listening process; however, it does not make this true for others.