ON REVIEWS AND REVIEWERS

[Eric Goldberg <ericgoldie...>]

>>Velvele,
>>
>>Ya know, if you take every bad review to heart, you're going to be a very
>>aggravated person - even the best artists have gotten bad reviews. Don't
>>argue, just ignore it. Or even better, a lot of artists simply don't read
>>reviews, leaving their friends to bring them the good ones, so that they
>>don't have to ever see the bad ones and feel bad about it. Take my advice,
>>it'll keep you from an ulcer.
>
>Velvl,
>
The recent vitriol that has been squirted on these pages concerning reviews
causes me to write this slightly lengthy reply.

it seems that most performers and composers take only the negative reviews
to heart. The good reviews they acept as their rightful reward.

Let me site two examples. For 15 years I was the music reviewer for the
Poughkeepsie Journal. I wrote a couple of reviews a week and covered all
kinds of music. I didn;t mind the ocassional nasty letter from the fan who
felt that I did not anoint his or her favorite performer with appropriate
accolades. What bothered me and upset me very much were these two
instances.

I reviewed one player a number of times always praising her performances. I
even wrote a work for her that she performed a couple of times. Of course I
was not paid for the commission, but then I thought we were friends. After
several excellent reviews of her playing I dared to criticize her once
thinking that she had not sufficiently prepared for the concert. Finally
she found the time to write a letter to my editor attacking me for writing
such a review. The next time I ran into her I asked her why she had never
taken the time to call me or write to the editor thanking me for the kind
words that I had lavished on her over the course of the preceeding decade.
She had no good answer!!!!!!

Another instance was that of a fairly well known composer who had received
a number of wonderful reviews from me. I had even done him a favor and
reviewed a CD of his for a magazine which paid me in copies (I was not
doing freebees for a lot of people). One other factor was that the review
had to be written quickly and the magazine was going to take the copy over
the phone (this was just before fax became common). I called in the review
two hours after I learned that my father had died.
 Another piece of his was performed a year or so later. Since it was a
'jazz' symphony, he needed a jazz alto sax player. I suggested a friend who
did a wonderful job and then went with the composer to Lithuania and
recorded the work. (The sax players name was mispelled on the cover even
though the composer owns the record label). I took exception to the work
since I feel that jazz is difficult if not impossible to play with a
symphony orchestra. (Perlman vs. Klez argument here) The original review
was very long and detailed and I was forced to cut half of the review so
that it would fit the space that the paper allotted. I did the cut in order
to insure that the important parts of the review would be included.
Balancing the negatives were comparative positives from other works by this
composer. This was probably the 10th review of this composer that the paper
had published over three years.

The next time I saw him at a concert, being so naive as to think that
honest criticism would have little effect on our friendship, I said hello
to him. Without even a grunt he turned his back on me (in the aisle of a
concert hall) and walked away. He did not deign to speak to me for six
months. Needless to say I no longer consider this man a friend and I am
reminded of Toscanini's comment to Richard Strauss when he stole the
Italian premier of Salome  "As a composer I take off my hat to you, as a
man I put on ten hats".

A far classier instance of interaction between a reviewer and performer was
the case of conductor Imre Pallo. As the music director of the Hudson
Valley Philharmonic I had reviewed his work many, many times. I ran into
him the morning that one of these reviews ran. I had criticized a
performance of Bartok that he had done and when I saw him he thanked me for
the review. When I pointed out that it was basically negative his reply was
that it was basically fair and that he felt that it was not an attack but
rather an honest appraisal. Needless to say I take off my hat to Maestro
Pallo as a man.

Before attacking the reviewer ask yourself these questions:

Have I read him or her enough to know his or her biases?
For example I hate Minimalism, so a bad review of Reich, Glass or Adams
might not be surprising while a good review would be high praise indeed.

If I been reviewed by this writer in the past has he or she been
fairminded? Have I accepted the praise, and if I have what right do I have
to attack the criticism?
If the reviewer is intelligent because he or she likes you in one instance
why is he or she suddenly stupid because s/he now has critical words.

After the initial disappointment and anger over negative comments dies
down, is there any validity to the comments? Did I play out of tune, or
sloppily, or even unmusically?

Since so many members of this newsgroup are performers I hope that these
examples will give you some idea of how it is from the reviewers side. Most
criticsm is not meant personally so don;t take it as such.

Eric Goldberg