NY Times puffs up a defence of its chief classical music critic
NewsDays after Zachary Woolfe devoted the closing paragraphs of his Boston Symphony review to a hostile briefing against its music director Andris Nelsons, the New York Times has devoted a full feature to his working methods.
Under the sub-head ‘Zachary Woolfe, the classical music critic for The New York Times, shared how he endeavors to make his writing accessible to both neophytes and experts’, we read such vital insights as:
– “I think what people are interested in is passion,” Mr. Woolfe said. “Even if you didn’t understand every word, my goal is for you to be drawn into my pieces because you can tell that I really care about what I’m writing about.”
– It’s a constant work in progress: how to make everyone feel like an article was written with them in mind. You want experts to be able to glean something, and for the neophytes to feel challenged, but not left in the dark or talked down to. And that comes down to choices about how to describe things and how much insider language to use, like “diminuendo” or “staccato.”
– It makes me super happy when there’s disagreement about my reviews. I do not aspire to them being universally agreed with. I enjoy the conversation. But hopefully there’s a sense that I’m operating in good faith and with fairness, even if you disagree with the conclusion.
Humility is so underrated these days.
How are music critics experts, I wonder.
Music journalism is part of the triangle ‘contract’ between composer (alive or dead), performer (good or bad), and audience (perceptive or obtuse), not as a direct participant but as a witness, and providing information about what is happening in one way or another, and his personal opinion about things. It depends entirely upon the writer and circumstance of his medium whether his contributions are meaningful or not, so he has to carve his place in music life entirely on his own, and has to acquire his expertise as an informed outsider who can shed light on music life, or on performances with the difficult art of finding linguistic expression of experiences which are hard to put into words. Hence the enormous variety of quality of music journalism. And of course, critics can receive criticism like anybody else.
(On the insistence of my PA I add that pronouns are used here in a metaphoric way and are not by any means supposed to be understood as patriarchal gendering.)
If I could speak Dutch a tenth as well as you speak English, John, I’d be happy. Bravo for you linguistic capacities as well as your insights.
Thank you! My Dutch is also not crackfree.
(My PA is rolling with her eyes now)
I’ve long had the opinion that Zachary Wolfe is just a lousy critic. Third-raters can justify anything they want to, but at the end of the day, for those of us who are music-lovers and who have good ears and can tell quality from crap, well, ZW doesn’t fall into the former category.
As I’ve said before, I don’t know how ZW has his job. He’s just so obviously deficient. There are many others far more credible and with better ears – and who don’t have an agenda – who would be better suited to be the lead orchestral critic for the NYT.
While some did not like Anthony Tommasini for one reason or another, compared to this clown those look like the golden days. Based on the concerts I was at which AT reviewed, I at least trusted his ears. I can’t say the same thing for ZW. He’s just not very good at what he does for a living in my opinion.
Woolfe is not only unqualified. He is an unqualified *white male*, an attribute that according to the ideals he espouses should matter a great deal to himself. He should feel disgusted that he, in his current position, exemplifies the racism and sexism he decries on a daily basis.
Perfectly put.
And how do you know he’s racist and sexist?
As a long time subscriber to the Boston symphony I will say I think he is right on the money when it comes to observing what mediocre to terrible conductor Andris Nilsson is.
Hear hear!
Seems as if he is trying to justify his salary. Too much ‘splainin’, thinks me. No problem with “diminuendo” or “staccato” but huge problems with “shimmering” (and formerly “strapping”), the former too overused by postmodern critics (or those who want to appear cool and with-it), of which I suspect ZW is a card-carrying member. Then again, given the despairing quality of contemporary classical works, how else is one to attempt to describe the nonsense? One writes “shimmering” this, “shimmering” that until blue in the face.
Zach is lucky not to live in 19c Europe, where giants like Hans von Bulow would challenge such critics to an actual duel. Or better, have the greatest composer of his time caricature time his worst critic as Beckmesser, der Merker.
A duel in 19th century Vienna???? Hardly.
It should come as no surprise that Woolfe is an acolyte of that late narcissist James Jorden. Birds of a feather ….
Yes, that also struck me. I thought Woolfe had some interesting remarks about the Mahler symphonies last year-OK-but the rest of his work hasn’t impressed me. But his profuse praise of Jorden, to the extent that he clearly influenced the NYT to allow him to write a major obit for Jorden, more extensive than for major artists, was deeply suspect.
I sat behind the two of them once at a Met “Wozzeck,” whispering and giggling for 90 interminable minutes. Didnt help at all that its one of my favorite operas, either.
You should have used physical violence. It works, trust me.
What utter twaddle! Delighted to know the review will be more about him than the musicians let alone the music!
Everything is relative. It’s easy to look to Chicago and find musical criticism in a much, much sadder state.
Kyle McMillan, who reviews CSO concerts on the Chicago Sun Times, is a regular writer on the CSO website. What would we say if Mr. Woolfe were also a regular contributor to the NY Phil website? Could we believe in his objectivity? Conflict of interest anyone?
Hedy Weiss – ever swooning over Muti – is not even a music critic and is taken seriously in Chicago, at least by some. According to this Vanity Fair article, she is a very controversial figure accused of racism: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/critic-accused-of-racism-over-controversial-theater-review
Yeah, we know: Chicago is the benchmark for badness. But musical criticism still has a place in our modern world. For example, read this insightful excerpt from the most excellent former critic of Il Corriere della Sera, Francesco Maria Colombo, who attended the CSO concert in Milan and wrote:
‘[…] the Chicago Symphony Orchestra is no longer the dazzling armored I remember since the years of Solti […] As for Muti himself […] Even those who don’t love his style of interpreter must recognize the technical mastery of a connoisseur, a preparatory and, let’s say, “mechanic” of the orchestra.
Unfortunately the program was combined very badly: two boulders that have motives of interest, but put one after the other not only fit like cabbage for a snack, but form a deadly weight on the stomach. “From Italy”, as I said, opened the concert: it’s an incredibly bad piece to be by the divine Richard Strauss, a folklore pastiche who probably wrote for snobbism and to sneakily make fun of everyone, starting from Bülow to whom he’s dedicated. […] Paradoxically, listening to the singable themes of this score (especially the embarrassing theme in E major proposed by first violins and cellos in the first half) performed […] by the Chicago arches, creates a problem instead of solving it: a dimension comes out, let’s say, from “Rustic Cavalleria”, accompanied melody, ignorant of decency. […]
In general, it seems to me that the characteristics of [Muti] the interpreter are those I already knew: […] the control of sound, rhythm, phrasing, dynamic relations is exceptional. But let’s talk, precisely, about dominance and control: not about the emotional dimension, which seems frankly inert to me. There are visionary directors capable of transforming in one evening (or in a few jokes: Temirkanov and the attack of the third movement in the Tchaikovsky Fifth, probably the most shocking 5 seconds of music I have ever heard) our perception of sound, music, art, identity, life: among those I would say Temirkanov, Prêtre, Melles, Karajan, Haitink, Maag, Végh, Kleiber. Some of them were much less technically capable than Muti, but they knew how to evoke infinite emotion. This evening I had the experience of a strictly oiled car […] from which there is not a drop of emotion: this, to be clear, is my personal impression, of a spectator among thousands of others trying to listen without arrière-pensées. Everything is perfectly executed, but I see a dead letter. Everything is carefully enameled on the surface, but you never have the impression that under the surface there are the dream, the night, the mystery, the fairy tale, the heart, the unknown, the abyss: everything is in its place, as if music was something to master thoroughly and with the highest professionalism, but not something to let go of without fear, until we put our certainties in check. But here come into play categories that would be complex and perhaps unnecessary to try to decipher: the relationship of the ego with oneself, security and insecurity, the depth or not of the cultural vision and especially the awareness or lack of style. It would take us too far to talk about it.
For now I can record the result of this concert, greeted by […] two encores, the Intermezzo of the “Manon Lescaut”, which I didn’t like because I found it loaded with a bit of plateal effects; and the Symphony of the “Jiovanna d’Arco” […]. When I go out I find myself lost and ask myself the same question I asked myself 24 years ago: why is it that this musician who is so talented, so competent, so strong in preparation created by excellent studios, so expert, after all so good, provokes me so much confusion? Why do I leave his concerts not with the experience of joy that explodes from music, but with a shadow of sadness?’
This is what skillful, objective and insightful musical criticism reads like.
(Original in Italian, translated with online translator tool)
“Temirkanov and the attack of the third movement in the Tchaikovsky Fifth, probably the most shocking 5 seconds of music I have ever heard)” It’s toward the end of the second movement actually which tells us all we need to know about this particular “critic.” The text translates really badly from the original Italian into English but Aus Italien is certainly not one of Strauss’ better pieces. Muti actually does very little Strauss (Don J Don Q Till, ASZ etc).
I shared you view of “Aus Italien” until I performed it several times. I have come to regard it very highly. For one thing, the opening chord progression is breathtakingly beautiful. Muti has “Death and Transfiguration” in his repertoire.
Thanks Max, I heard you and the orchestra do Aus earlier in the season at Carnegie Hall. I think people think less of it because of the Funiculi song in the finale (Strauss thought it was a folk song and got sued). Best of everything in those two concerts was the intermezzo from Fedora – absolutely exquisite.
John von Rhein is certainly greatly missed.
“Skillful, objective and insightful musical criticism” is defined here as “A piece that trashes Riccardo Muti, and consequently agrees with…me!”
Actually, if you are going to do a survey of the classical music critics in Chicago, I would start with the excellent Hannah Edgar, who writes for the Tribune, among other publications. But our dear rodent cannot acknowledge her existence; she commits the cardinal sin of not regarding Muti as the antichrist.
Agree – I like her reviews. Hannah has a lively grasp of language and comes up with insightful observations. I wish she’d try and drive the agenda more, however. Is the CSO looking for a truly exciting, galvanizing successor to Muti or just someone who’ll bring more safe, staid programs to Orchestra Hall that donors will like? I worry that the CSO is sleepwalking into another directorship that no one outside of Chicago’s wealthy class of donors will care about.
It reminds me of a certain musician and composer who despises and mocks a certain Chicago critic who committed the cardinal sin of finding some faults in his works.
The fact of the matter is that I do not need a critic to understand if the performance I attended was good or not. I know that on my own.
That’s fair comment. But I grew up reading the reviews of Kenneth Tynan (in anthologies), which took me into theatres for performances I could never see and brought them alive.
That can work in theatre, as texts remain very accessible to anyone in an audience (or reading a review); it may be less true of music criticism, where the majority of an audience probably cannot pick up and read a score. And yet it is possible to read a contemporary review and feel something of what transpired.
A music review may capture the moment if the pieces are known to the reader. I know, reading a collection of Neville Cardus, that I was only interested in what he heard at concerts of music with which I was at least noddingly familiar. On the other hand, Tynan’s reviews prompted me to read many plays I had not previously encountered.
The great New Yorker dance critic, Arlene Croce, called a collection of her reviews Afterimages, which captures beautifully the fact of a theatrical performance of any sort: it will never be the same again as the ones she wrote about. But where else can anyone of this generation read of many of the great (and not so great) dance performances of New York in the 1970s and 1980s and get a sense of what that scene was like?
That, to me, is one of criticism’s chief functions: to save some of these memories. They provide a viewpoint point for histories of the art in question.
A good critic takes it seriously: brings some knowledge of the form and material and artists to the table, a knowledge that only grows; responsibility to the audience to communicate what was on that stage, that night; a recording responsibility, which can offer a frame of reference for the future students of particular aspects of the art under review.
They are opinion, of course, something all audience members leave a theatre holding. More informed than most, less than others. Critics are not in the business of selling tickets, and Plush is quite right not to base his choices of what to attend upon a critic’s view. It would be like choosing not to go to a Yankees game because they lost badly to Baltimore the night before.
But criticism has a long and often distinguished history. It is no more perfect, or less human, than the artists or works it covers. But it may take as much intelligence to read criticism as is does to create it.
But I grew up reading the reviews of Kenneth Tynan
There you have it. Kenneth Tynan was also a writer and man of the theatre (if not a good businessman) and thus walked the walk. He knew of what he spoke.
I like to paraphrase what the great singer Nat “King” Cole used to say: “I don’t care what the critics say. They get the tickets for free.”
Under ZW, The Times is no longer the paper of record for music in New York City, the busiest music city in the world.
With multiple concerts every day, the paper could be a dynamic participant in the diverse abundance of NYC’s musical life. But the NYTs has tuned its back on NYC, contributing greatly to the field’s challenges.
It’s very hard to muster humility in a time when every last imbecile feels qualified to spout expert opinions on any subject regardless of credentials, and when empty verbiage so easily passes for real substance and depth. This being said, I’ve always been skeptical of the actual usefulness of critics, and this for the simple reason that no one can actually experience art for anyone else. Artistic judgment is like a sense — a sense that one can refine and educate, but still a sense that can only be experienced by the one sensing. Would any review of a concert or recording actually change that? Is reading words in an article actually going to make me experience a given version of a Bruckner symphony any differently? Are the words actually going to translate for me into a different artistic experience than the one I would have without reading them? Probably not. Audiences should be in fact encouraged to simply listen without judgment and without thinking that they are somehow not qualified to “understand” a work which the critic would allegedly enlighten for them. Oddly, by doing so, they might eventually reach a real understanding of the piece. Many critics, by the way, don’t really know what they’re talking about, since few of them, at least in today’s day and age, do have actual musical training — which would seem to me to be an absolute requirement — but they do know how to write, even if such writing is often sheer rhetoric devoid of any meaningful sense. I personally cringe when being told how to think or what to think, especially by people who are unqualified to do so. But this is the paradox of our time — on the one hand, everyone is an expert, and on the other, no one is able to make up their own mind and therefore resorts to a third party to have that done for them.
Paraphrasing here; I don’t have the exact quote. But Glenn Gould once wrote that the only useful thing a critic can do is to bring attention to something worthy that might otherwise not have been noticed.
‘I personally cringe when being told how to think or what to think’
Er…isn’t that what you are doing in the entirety of your comment.
In any case, a good critic will do neither. He/she can only tell you what he/she thinks. It’s up to readers to determine whether they value that opinion, just as they determine whether or not they value what they have just seen/heard on the stage.
A good critic explains what he heard, who the players were, and give some background of the music where appropriate, plus his own subjective impressions, nothing less, nothing more. This may contribute to the reader’s own opinion, nothing less, nothing more.
Negative criticism may have a positive effect upon attention for the concert / performer(s) / piece of music. When Hanslick condemned Wagner, this greatly contributed to the popularity of his operas, as Wagner’s sarcasm in describing Brahms’ 1st symphony as ‘Beethoven’s 10th’ did a lot to draw excited attention to the work. Also Fétis unintentionally helped Berlioz with his harsh attacks. Etc. etc…..
This is even more insufferable than the topic.
That may all well be, but music journalism DOES have a strong influence with, for instance, orchestral programmers. For instance, if a new work an orchestra has performed is condemned by the press, in spite of its obvious success with audiences and players, many programmers will drop the composer for ever. Also it happens that negative reviews of obviously very good conductors – who enjoy the enthusiastic support of players and audiences – steer the decisions of programmers who feel bound to listen to the financial department. All of this is the result of music life having been turned into a business instead of an art form as part of the common good.
A dear friend of mine saw the recent Lady MacBeth savaged by Mr. Woolfe. Said friend, a former professional musician himself, absolutely loved the show. He has far superior judgment than Mr. Woolfe, whose taste appears to be as poor as his ego is monumental. I will say on recording I haven’t found Nelsons to be a very interesting Shostakovich interpreter, but a symphonic cycle is a horse of a different hue than an opera at Carnegie Hall.
I can safely say this………he’s no Neil Fisher.
Another lousy “critic”, arriving at the performances with preconceptual opinions and always on his period
Well I sat next to him in Salzburg and he was delightful – and knowledgable. And he writes well and concisely and actually covers what went on in the performance. Like Neville Cardus and William Mann used to do.
He is a typical example of an Ivy League trained journalist that doesn’t have any depth to their background in music, and picks and chooses narrow agendas to lean on. How delightful he is in person isn’t of interest. If one covers what went on in the performance, but can’t relate their writing to a broader conception as a musician, then that writing remains shallow in terms of actual observation. It’s sad that what most of us would consider the main paper in New York City (at least in terms of arts coverage) can’t hire music critics that have an actual background as a musician beyond playing in an orchestra as an undergraduate non major.
‘Hostile”? One can read far more “hostile” words on this website and in the comments nearly every day. Don’t be so dramatic.
If we hold him to the same standards as commenters on a blog, then Woolfe should not be paid. Nor should he be entitled to free tickets.
No one ever made a statue of a critic.
https://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/03/statues_of_crit.html
Woolfe would be best served going back to school for remedial musicology. He is utterly deficient when he attempts to write about historic reference, his opines are often utterly wrong. Woolfe fit a DEI criteria the Times was looking for at that time to replace Tony Tom. While I did not always agree with Tony Tom and for instance found his criticism lacking, for instance describing tenor Jose Cura as “Hunky” and spending several sentences about his appearance; at least Tommasini knew his stuff. Woolfe’s Princeton degree which is contantly brought out as one of his better qualities does not mean he knows his stuff when it comes to music criticism. Great critics like Allan Kozinn were let go, who in his case is a true music expert. Woolfe’s time as Chief Music Critic at the Times should come to an end.
I am sitting in the smallest room in my house, I have your review before me, in a moment it will be behind me. Max Reager
*Reger.
My Background
I grew up playing the cello, and, as a pre-teen, fell in love with opera. I studied literature in college but music has been a central part of my life from before I can remember; I’ve been writing about it since 2009 — first for The New York Observer, then for Capital New York. I began writing reviews and features for The Times as a freelance critic in 2011, and joined the paper’s staff as the classical music editor in 2015; I continued to write and also created features like our “5 Minutes That Will Make You Love Music” series. In 2022, I was named the classical critic.
Enough said…lol
I must say I miss NYT reviewers who were “good” – Rockwell, Henahan and especially Kozinn (who was stupidly fired by the NYT – the best of the lot).
I do agree with your comment, particularly as concerns Mr. Kozinn. I feel a great sense that instead of reporting and critiquing what actually happened at a concert, these days music critics are expected to be social commentators whose connection to the music performance is allowed to be more tangential, tenuous, and less direct. None of those names you mentioned ever dropped to that lower level of writing.
I dunno. I liked Kozinn but there were a lot of cranky, fusty old men in the Times critical roster. Anne Midgette was still far and above my favorite to read. A shame she’s no longer on the scene.
She’s only known for her social agenda. Thank God she’s gone!
I’m an NYT subscriber and I did not know they still had a classical music critic. I don’t recall ever seeing it promoted, even among other arts articles I read.
Music is obviously not as important to the paper any more and the choice of critic consequently matters much less.
I used to read New Music Box almost daily. It is an interesting web magazine for contemporary American music. Woolf was on the regular staff for years and did a great deal of writing there (not mentioned in his short bio!). He was ok as far as things went.
But the NYTs used to have critics like Schonberg who was good enough to have published collections of his pieces. He also wrote many fine books including the much loved The Great Pianists, a standard work on the topic for 60 years.
The NYTs music archive is still valuable for music research, however, even if its recent output is not at the same level. Obviously, a great many here share that opinion. My conclusion is that it is simply not a priority.
Correction to the above: Woolf did not write for NMB 15 years ago. Seems I was thinking of another writer and got the two mixed up. Apologies to Mr. Woolf. But my general comment about the state of NYTs criticism still stands.
Please disregard my observation that there is no assistant classical music critic since Woolfe took over. The assistant is Joshua Barone.
Go to the lower right-hand point of your smartphone and hit “Sections,” and you’ll see Arts as well as Music down on the scroll. There’s Classical mixed with pop. It’s not that hard.
The best music critic I have ever encountered was during a recital of Yuri Bashmet at Jordan Hall. Bashmet had a very individual sound that made everything into a something completely proprietary. At the end of the recital, he played an encore, and as he was playing, two gentlemen’s seated behind me spoke to each other. One asked “what piece is this?”, and the other responded “It’s either Bach or Rachmaninov.”
Perfect.
I have no issue with anything quoted here. I don’t always agree with critics but love reading them, including him (though I did prefer Anthony Tommasini as the Times critic).
So often in the past art critics got things so horribly wrong… Both their praise and its’ opposite should be taken with a grain of salt. Any critic is at least expected to know the sad history of his profession and be more cautious.
Always, always the diametric opposite of “in good faith.” Comes in with an axe to grind, and grinds it real slow-like. He’s been transparent here for 15+ years, and how he landed this, er, position is baffling.
If you saw the Grammy awards this past Sunday it was evident that pop music has hit rock bottom. Luckily or unluckily social media has made newspaper critics irrelevant for the most part. I read the Times mostly to see the concerts I missed. It’s a journal for what happened in the city. The problem these days, there is very little to get really excited about. You Tube and good speakers turns my home into a concert hall that I can curate myself. And Carnegie Hall prices cater to the elite.
I am hardly from the economic elite, and I have had multiple subscriptions to Carnegie Hall for decades. I also haven’t ever paid more than $100 for a concert ticket there, usually coming in at half that or less. It’s fine to sit in the balcony (unless you simply can’t make it up the stairs, or have a really bad back).
I well remember the era of Harold Schoenberg and his elegant reviews and Sunday pieces in the Times. He had the ability to make his opinions known without giving offense. Evidently that gift has been lost.
It’s so curious, as to how this is this just like the full-court-press defense that the NYT did of Henry Timms, CEO of Lincoln Center, just days after Alex Ross in The New Yorker had the courage to trash him over his dismantling of Mostly Mozart — a rock in the New York classical-music world, that provided so much joy, and so much vital employment to so many musicians in what was once a viable free-lance scene. You could be forgiven for thinking that the Times, in its woke-capitalist fever dream, would love nothing more than for classical music to disappear — as a kind of smokescreen, in order to distract from the real iniquities that plague America.
Compared to Andrew Porter all other so-called music critics are all amateurs.
BTW what ever happened to Tommasini?
As Yascha Heifetz once quipped, , “Critics are words without the music.”
*Jascha.
As a follow-up, it is interesting to note, the NY Times added the ability to comment on this article. I know of at least 5 individuals, all involved in one form, or another in the professional music world who wrote about Woolfe and his problematic history and lack of qualifications as a critic at the NY Times level. Right now, there are 6 comments all carefully curated to either reflect on classical music criticism, or to praise Woolfe. An extremely low number of comments after any Times article and an expected result as the Times weeded out anything that spoke truth. They are at least aware he lacks popularity after his feckless BSO review and hopefully the comments not approved for publication are at least brought to the attention of the Times editor. They have a problem.
It’s comforting to see the NYT completely eschew ‘diversity’ in its music staff while calling for it from everyone else in society. What a loathsome rag.
As someone who performs music for a living I have endless respect those in a similar position and the pressures they often have to endure in their everyday professional lives.
As someone who performs music for a living I’m often asked my opinion about other people on stage. As a matter of principal, I never utter a negative word about them. I’m not perfect and have no right to stand in judgement over others.
As someone who performs music for a living, I could never become a critic.
“No one ever erected a monument to a critic.” We used to laugh at the reviews in the newspapers following an evening performance of our major American orchestra. The papers would be spread out on the tables in the dressing room. “How did we do last night?” The critics had no idea so they made stuff up!
Before Andrew Porter, Ernest Newman was a darn good music critic too!
Today, I do not know any. They all write in rambling prose and gauche adjectives.
the NYT is taking a massive tumble into irrelevance – with its blatant lies about the “Savagery” of the Oct 7th attack in Israel, to it’s pathetic coverage.of.classical music, and contemporary jazz. Now – it’s any headline to grab attention, and pocket a few extra sheckles!