Everyone is a critic
One of the many things that has been on my mind recently was the question, “should I start adding music reviews to the blog?”
Then a few memories flashed before my eyes. They reminded me of a two emails I have received throughout the years. One email, from two years ago, thanked me for my “unvarnished opinion” regarding my thoughts about a singer and then an email response (below) from a NYTimes music critic over a decade ago.
Dear Ms. Poe --
I realize that the relative paucity of discussion of collaborative pianists in reviews is a sore point among, well, mainly among collaborative pianists, and I can entirely understand that. Very often I do mention them at greater length, and in this case I tried to do it in a way that at least conveyed that the program was assembled by both (“singer”) and (“pianist”). I have also done interview pieces with collaborative pianists about what they do (most notably “famous collaborative pianist”). Given that, along with the letters and emails that periodically arrive with an admonishment similar to yours, I'm aware -- as are my colleagues -- of your frustration.
So let me give you some perspective from this end. Before we write -- before we even leave the house for the concert -- the number of words we have at our disposal is determined and is comparatively inflexible. Within that word limit (I believe it was 400 words for the (“singer”) review) we are expected to produce some sort of a general introductory lead -- that is, if we just launch right into the details, the odds are high that an editor will ask for something more interesting -- which must also include the usual details of when and where. In the case of this recital, there was also a "concept" to describe, and then 24 songs by 22 composers (plus two encores). Obviously only a fraction of that program is going to be mentioned, let alone discussed, in a 400 word review, from which a chunk is already, necessarily, subtracted from the top.
So we prioritize. What's the "news" here? Let's face it: people bought tickets to this concert, and/or are reading about it, mainly because they're interested in (“singer”) and what (“they are”) doing, and how (“they are”) doing it. Maybe they should be interested in the pianist was well, and no doubt there are a few who are more interested in the pianist than the singer, but I think you'll admit that for most readers, the subject is (“singer”). And then there's all that music -- not only how it was performed (and again, given the space at hand, the priority is going to be the main line) but how it falls together into the programming concept. All this leaves aside entirely the question of whether I felt (“pianist’s”) performance was less than, more than, or exactly what one expects. I thought it was fine, but I've heard both better and worse, and either extreme might (depending on the available space) have rated a more detailed mention.
The best I can do is promise to keep the pianist in mind, but then, I always do. I can't promise I'll be able to carve out more space on a consistent basis for a discussion of the collaborator, however.
Best,
A NYTimes Music Critic
I was surprised to have received a response from this critic. At 981 words, it was twice the length of his 400 word review. I was asked by a friend recently to discuss the artistry of two very different German baritones I heard live in concert. I thought about putting those words to internet paper. Then I thought about the other concerts I had recently attended and remembered discussing it at length afterwards with a friend. Would that discussion be interesting to read? Is it interesting to read that I was impressed by the clarinet player’s intonation? I noticed at the end of the second movement in the Brahms Sonata op. 120 No. 1 that his fingering was not the traditional G fingering on the clarinet, which is often quite unruly and hard to play in tune. Is it interesting to read about the change in sonorities of the clarinet throughout the evening and noticing it most in the Schumann “Fantasiestücke?” I learned afterwards backstage that the Schumann work is performed on the A clarinet which has a different sound and color, obviously. And I was also very impressed that the clarinetist performed this piece from memory — concertos (yes, standard) but not solo works with piano. I was also delighted with a very subtle use of vibrato on the Schumann that he did not use on the Brahms. Or would one like to read that I was a bit underwhelmed by the pianist’s performance of the Brahms sonata? I wanted to shout, “Wo ist deine Rechte Hand?” Or what did I think at another recital when the young pianist had a “false start” on one of the movements, stopped playing, muttered something to the audience, dramatically wiped the sweat off his face and then restarted the movement? I thought, okay, he’s human and if there is a place to restart a movement, it is in this small city of Wuppertal although I won’t ever forget it.
Oh wait, did I just write a review?