- .VFW - W -, .. V_ ,-_ k - -sw-**.- - w w Page Twelve THE MICHIGAN DAILY Thursday, February 7, 1957 Thursday February 7 1957 THE MICHIGAN DAILY . ,..,. .E.....,.. J . . . J E THE MUSIC REVIEWER A Listing of Criteria A Reviewer Should Use in Criticism By BRENDAN LIDDELL Daily Music Reviewer OF ALL the printed word on the " editorial page, probably none are read by so few, but have such effect, as the music review! Com- ments range from the mildly ag- gressive to the superbly ferocious. And almost without a doubt there is only one consensus, "This re- view stinks!" The critic is abused for his ignorance, lack of imagi- nation, frigidity; for his "vicious, vitriolic, and vituperative" words; for his Communistic, anti-cultural attitude. Were it not for the Re- gent By-laws against lynching, said critics would be burned in their own copy. Now, obviously, this is an ex- aggeration, but not too much. As anyone knows, or should know, the purpose of any art criticism (not only music) is four-fold: to judge, to inform, to encourage the good, and correct the bad. The last three items are actually sub-items of the first, the judgment. When we say "Rubinstein plays well," we are telling others of Rub- instein's excellence, we are in- forming. And were Rubinstein to read this, he would be encourag- ed to continue playing well. On the other hand, if we told him he played badly, we should be try- ing to correct his performance. Furthermore, if someone sets himself up as one who should know, and said, "Rubinstein's playing is faulty, in that . . .", and another, as his reader, did not agree with him, there could be at least three reasons why they so disagree: a) either might be ig- norant of the proper criteria of good playing; b) their subjective, aesthetic attitudes could differ; c) the writer failed to be explicit enough as to why he said what he did. There may be more, but these are the ones we will consider. T IS APROPOS, before proceed- ing further, to point out the purpose of his essay. It is aimed more directly at the reader, many of whom do not realize the real purpose and criteria of music crit- icism. It intends to point out these criteria, so that the reader will understand why the good critic says what he does. Also it may give the would-be critic a chance to compare notes, and perhaps consider this activity interesting and rewarding enough to prompt him to write reviews himself. And finally, it will give the poor critic a basis, although somewhat rudimentary, for better criticism. It will ,attempt this by examin- ation of the attributes of a good critic, particularly the good music critic. It does not pretend to be the final word on the subject, but at least one which will fill a cry- ing need. Of primary concern is the ques- tion, what constitutes a good re- view? This is a very difficult query to answer. An easier beginning is achieved by considering what faults cause a bad review. Al- though their absence will not guarantee a -good review, the latter will definitely not have these drawbacks. First (although the order is ar- bitrary), the critic may neglect the performance In favor of the music. His review becomes a re- hash of program notes. Such an error would be an analysis of Bee- thoven's Ninth Symphony, with only a mention, as an after- thought, of the ability and ac- complishments of the chorus. This is a dangerous temptation, and ceived ideas or opinions about either the work or the performer, or both. An instance of this would be to approach a M'ilstein concert with the feeling, "O, Milstein is the greatest! He can do no wrong!" This critic will obviously fail to do Milstein justice, because of the preconceived opinion. It is almost axiomatic to say that we do have some already formed opinions on everything- but they are not adamantine to the objective critic. This latter will not hesitate to say, "Milstein was poor tonight," if Milstein was poor tonight. Nor, on the other hand, will he express great sur- prise if a usually poor performer gives a really good showing. Each concert, all things considered, must be judged on its own merits. Finally, and of the four points what is the most difficult to over- come, the critic lacks pertinent knowledge. He does not have the intellectual, technical, and psy- chological background to write a good review. Usually a hint of this is found in the reviewer who uses words like "nice," "good," and "very, very." Basically, he doesn't know how to judge a concert or piece of music good or bad, and the reader suffers, HOWEVER, before we delve into the technical background nec- essary to a valid music criticism, perhaps it would be wise to elab- orate our point above on precon- ceived opinions-which we may refer to as aesthetic attitudes. A good review is objective, or should be. But since it is indeed one per- son's judgment, this objectivity is highly shadowed by the writer's individual, subjective inclinations. Avoided, the review is objective. But the critic, to avoid them, must be aware of them, And just what are aesthetic at- titudes? Like any other more in- timate feelings, as in ethics or religious experience, they are easier to illustrate than describe. Still a workable meaning might be given, however rough, for our pur- pose here. Aesthetic attitudes are those personal attractions to cer- tain aspects of art rather than others, based not on reason or value, but primarily on the sen- suous responce within . each per- son. It is because of this that one person prefers romantic music, with its extended melodies, to the more rhythmic, harsher modern. Or the absolute historically ac- curate interpretation to any in- novations of approach (such as Bach Suites with muted strings!). Why is this? We cannot positively say. Background, association, edu- cation-all have their own in- fluence. The good critic is aware of his own aesthetic attitudes, and will not be swayed to one view or an- other just because of these. He realizes their purely subjective value for himself, but their per- haps contrary value for others. They will aid or obstruct his own personal enjoyment of music, but do not help him in an objective criticism. This point is stressed because of its wide-spread viola- tion. HAVING CLEARED the way of. lesser, but important consid- erations, we can now consider what technical knowledge is req- uisite for valid criticism. Or in another way, what minimum com- mand of - musical knowledge is necessary for a music critic? As may be commonplace, few critics are graduate musicologists. Musi- He must have an elementary grounding in musical form, such as sonata, fugue, and variation. He must be acute enough to dis- tinguish individual factors in dif- ferent performances. He must rea- lize what is allowable to an in- terpretation, and what is intol- erable to musical integrity. The list could be extended for pages, but what has been said suffices to indicate the rather tremendous store of criteria needed for valid comparison. A FEW illustrations will not be out of place. In a performance of Poulenc's Mass in G, which is entirely vocal, the critic has to note the balance of voices, the ability of the various "choirs" (as soprano, alto), whether the high notes are smooth or schreechy, whether the low notes are clear or muddled. Is the tempo appro- priate for the scored instructions? Does the choir follow the director? All this demands a speaking acquaintance with Poulenc's Mass, an appreciation of choral diffi- culties, and an objective view of interpretative possibilities. Again, in reviewing a quartet concert, other questions arise. Are the performers technically quali- fied for ensemble playing? Do they perform as a group, or merely as four soloists? Do they respect the composer's wishes (as far as these can be known), or do they strive for effect to the detriment of the score? A review which judges an ensemble as a gathering of solo- ists, that is, which overlooks the ensemble aspects in favor of in- dividual playing ability, is miss- ing the essential point. It takes an acute sense of discrimination to know when to mention one above the other. The foregoing shows clearly that a review is far more than an essay entitled, "Why I liked the concert." The examples given are sketchy, and could not be other- wise. Each performance demands its own criteria. But given this background and technical know- ledge, the critic must be bold enough to state his honest, reas- oned opinion. That is, he must state his conclusions, follow what may. SUBMISSIVENESS to popular acclaim has no place in a critical approach. If a performance is bad, be it by Toscanini himself, it should be so stated. If a new work lacks inspiration (a more dif- ficult judgment to make, surely), even if by a latter-day Bach, it should be so judged. It goes with- out saying that the critic needs the support. of his paper, or at least a free hand in writing his re- view. So far we have only hinted at See THE CRITICAL, Page 22 TORTURED-Gr the 1940's is curr her best 'agony' man's amnesia m (bottom) Walter' Hollywood Infiltration Old Movies Are Often More Popular Than Live' T f Distressed Producers Are Discovering TELEVISION, in the middle of its dreariest and most unimag- inative season, has finally discov- ered the way to keep audiences home and away from movie the- aters: show old movies.f The "old movies are pre-1948 t -films made by most of the major studios. In many cities, they have ., more attendance than -the top "live" television shows. *.Their success has excited small television stations who cannot af- ford well known performers; it has also distressed the top net- works, who now have to compete with their old rival, the movies, in a new guise. DESPITE their fantastic suc- cess, these Hollywood films have done little to raise the level of television programming. For every Ninotchka, there are dozens of entries like Julia Misbehaves and The Passion Flower. Recently, a real "stinker," the Clark Gable- Lana Turner starrer, Honky Tonk, eer Garson, a popular 'suffering' heroine during proved a one night sensation. rently making the television rounds in some of The television movie goer also has his share of problems. Many COMPETITIVE-Frank Sinatr films. In 'Random Harvest' (top) Ronald Cole- films are cut to shreds. A showing Kathryn Grayson in 'Anchors akes her life unbearable, and in 'Mrs. Miniver of Rita Hayworth's Tonight and mid-forties. A 139-minute film Pidgeon and Blitz bombs upset her. Every Night a few weeks ago re- drastically cut to fit limited p vealed television mechanics had television 'spectacular.' v.reduced the film to a musical re- vue, omitting some of the most im- portant musical numbers and com- pletely leaving out any semblance of dramatic development. The average "movie show" has an hour and a half on the air. With commercials, station identi- fications and program credits, films running 100 minutes and more get cropped to 75 minutes- if the sponsor is lenient. FURTHER, the Hollywood stu- dios have continued to work in "package deals," a process that reveals most American films hve either become outdated, serving only as sentimental memories, or are hopelessly poor. Metro-Gold- wyn-Mayer has sold 740 of its films to television. Included are most of Greta Garbo's films, some of the best musicals the studio produced and a good many excel- lent dramatic offerings. But some- thing like 500 or 600 of these works are trite productions, many of which were flops in their first tries at movie theaters. ng MGM's 740 films sold to TV are most of the Bad or good-these films are a ant musical offerings. Judy Garland and Peter tribute to that vegetative ventri- n the Ziegfeld era of 'Easter Parade (top) and cle in the American soul that con- Eleanor Powell take time off from singing and ceives of "relaxation" as the end INQUIRING-Joseph Cotten a dway Melody of 1940' (below). of life. They are also a nemesis to the television industry which in few quiet scenes from 'The F five.years has reached the level of tional politics and politicians. I mediocrity it took the American own saccarine television series cinema fifty years to attain. work in this film, a vivid exam JUBILANT--Amo studio's extravaga Lawford cavort it Fred Astaire and dancing in 'Broad ARTUR RUBINSTEIN .. .might be encouraged the critic ought always be aware of it. Of course, one often justi- fiably analyzes the music itself, as in the case of new or seldom heard compositions; but even here the performance should never be relegated to a minor role. For the critic, the two are inseperable, and when the music is familiar to the reader, the performance demands his greater attention. Secondly, a criticism has been defined as a "reasoned opinion," and should the critic merely state what was his first impression, or casual opinion, or his capricious inclinations, he does his reader an injustice. Of course a critic is opinionated-anyone who likes or dislikes anything is opinionated. But being "reasonably" opinion- ated is another matter. It would be unreasonable to say that Stra- vinsky's music is dissonant, there- fore bad. Or that Tebaldi. sang faster than another, therefore she sang poorly. This point will be further elaborated in a moment. Next, a poor critic has precon- NATHAN MILSTEIN ...*no preconceptions cologists themselves may deplore this fact, and with some good rea- son, but their position is not ab- solute, for $not all musicologists make good critics. But lest we cause a revolution by this statement, let it be hastily added that by and large, the critic must be at least an amateur musi- cologist in his own right. He must be able to view a work, as per- formed, with an over-all approach, and still have the knowledge re- quired to judge. the particular parts. The touchiest point in all the discussion is this minimum tech- nical knowledge. In general, the critic must be well versed (note, not expert) in all fields of music. That is, he must be familiar with choral, symhonic, ensemble, and solo musical literature; he must know the elementary aspects of Baroque, Classic, Romantic and Modern musical periods; he must know generally the requirements of both vocal and instrumental performance. NOSTALGIC-Greta Garbo's films are back to delight another generation. At top is Miss Garbo with Melvin Douglas in her bril- liant drunk scene from 'Ninotchka,'-a 1940's satire on Com- munism even more timely today. At bottom is Miss Garbo in a scene from an earlier picture, Grand Hotel,' with John Barry- more.: CONFLICT-Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter in a scene fro American films, "Adam Had Four Sons." Most of Miss Bergmar available to television producers.