What is music criticism? A lawyer writes…
Daily Comfort ZoneIn a passionate act of independent advocacy for BBC Radio 3’s Record Review, which is being shunted next weekend to a snooze slot, criminal lawyer Oliver Wilmott offers a new definition of music criticism in an age of diversity and inclusion.
Try this for size:
… The strange thing about such inclusivity, which one might associate with the cultural left, is that it sounds remarkably like the thinking of the economic right. If the question ceases to be, what is most worthy, what is most beautiful (because such judgments are subjective and who dares claim a better view than anyone else), and it becomes instead, what will be most approachable to most people, how does that differ from the mindset of the marketer? What is the point of public service broadcasting of music at all?
Record Review embodies a wholly different conception of inclusivity. It is a programme of musical criticism, and implicit in the very status of the critic is the belief that some listen better than others, that some people have an ear better attuned to beauty and meaning. Implicit also is the belief that beauty is something we can actually talk about, not a purely subjective matter of which any discussion would necessarily be pointless. It follows from these beliefs that the rest of us have something to learn, and that process will not involve simply giving us what we like, but requiring us to listen to music with which we struggle, and demanding we listen better. What it does not involve is building a graven image of us, like a Tik-Tok algorithm, and then manipulating us, feeding our desires so as to persuade us to keep the radio on. Unlike the situation that applies in the case of a market-orientated programme, in the case of Record Review there is no buyer and seller, no manipulator and manipulated, only parties to a conversation. Anyone with a radio set or on the Internet in this country may listen and be caught up the conversation. And if the references in that conversation are obscure to begin with, time and attention will make them meaningful. That, I suggest, is truly democratic radio…
Read on here.
.
“in the case of Record Review there is no buyer and seller, no manipulator and manipulated … truly democratic radio”
How utterly naive.
Record Review is part of BBC Radio 3 which is part of the BBC, operating under the Royal Charter granted by the King at his pleasure, owned by the British government subsidizing it at its discretion, financed by a mandatory annual TV license fee paid for by every household in Britain… needing to capture a certain market share of a certain target demographics of the general population of Britain (that is paying that annual TV license fee) if Record Review wants to survive and be on the air….
I need say no more.
A “truly democratic radio” approaches something like Wikipedia, financed by people *directly* *and* at their own free will, *anyone* can be a host of Record Review….
This already exists, it’s called YouTube. There you will find a very prominent critic whose main aim in life is to ensure that people have exactly the same record collection as his mother.
Incidentally the control exercised by British governments over the BBC is limited. After years of Conservative government, we find that the BBC generally promotes views similar to those of the opposition Labour Party …
Yes and couldn’t it provocatively be retitled ‘Building A Neoliberal Library’? That is, since it follows a market logic of recommending a version to purchase based on subjective ‘like’ or ‘dislike’, based on the ‘authority’ of the author commissioned to offer their judgement of taste to the audience? Hate to say it, but this follows the basic market logic of recommending things to spend money on that you find in innumerable other forms. Like which toothpaste to buy. There is no historical judgement of the work under consideration, or any thought given to its meaning as a work in itself, and how it stands today. Let’s be honest you get technical observations regarding how well the piece was performed – rather superficial considerations that are void of any more significant sense of the meaning of the work. And at the end, the final recommendation – which version to purchase to add to your library for an increased sense of self-satisfaction with having accumulated yet another ‘classic’ recording…
Bandying about the neoliberal label here is adorable but inapt. The program seeks to educate its audience rather than pander to it, which isn’t a very efficient way of selling records.
Perhaps the ‘apt’ in ‘inapt’ was a Freudian slip. Consumer choice is just a neoliberal market-based version of ‘freedom’.
One might argue that ‘Building a Library’ ultimately perpetuates the commodification of music; that it could be interpreted as reinforcing elitism within classical music by privileging certain composers and works over others.
The emphasis on comparing aspects of different performances of a work could be seen as symptomatic of the commodification and fetishization of music.
By focusing on technicalities such as sound quality, interpretation, and performance technique, the program may contribute to reduction of music to a series of quantifiable and marketable attributes, rather than engaging with its deeper artistic and philosophical dimensions..
This approach overlooks the fundamental essence of music and its potential for critical reflection and cultural critique. Instead of delving into the music’s meaning, historical context, or socio-political implications, discussions centered solely on technical aspects risk reducing music to a mere product to be consumed and evaluated based on its surface characteristics.
This emphasis on surfaces may perpetuate a form of pseudo-intellectualism, where the discussion becomes divorced from genuine artistic engagement and critical reflection. Rather than fostering a deeper understanding of music as an art form, it promotes a shallow and superficial approach that reinforces existing power structures within the cultural sphere.
i don’t know whether I can agree. I think there’s probably just different music created — for and by — different people, with different sensual capacities and mental expectations. The same is true of art and literature, and probably cuisine if you want to be perfectly honest. There are people known to me who prefer a hamburger from Wendy’s to a well prepared steak. They prefer NOT to eat slowly, chew and savor. They’d rather wolf it down and move on. That’s why it’s called fast food. There’s fast music and art and text as well. There are some on the other side who confuse the indecipherable and meretricious with the demanding. They think their failure to absorb something is their inadequacy when it just may be that they are confronted with a poor work of art. If they habitually nod their heads in mindless approval of the ‘in-the -know”, they are phonies. It’s group-think whether it’s high-falutin’ or not. I frankly don’t see why the one is preferable to the other.
Well said.
Hallelujah, he speaketh the truth!
“. . . . Its decades-old series, “Building a Library”, in which a guest reviewer compares endless recordings of the same work before declaring their recommendation, is of some practical use, but the greater interest is in what the process of comparison tells us about the work. And what it tells us is regularly profound. . . .”
One way to approach the issue is to focus on why it is that people even want music criticism, and for me personally, why they wanted record reviews. And obviously there is no one answer to that question. Some people just enjoy watching arguments between persons who evidence some level of knowledge and background. Some want affirmation of their own views (fan mail is rare but that’s why it exists). Some want/need to keep up to date on music, artists, and recordings and the views expressed by a reviewer or critic are secondary (if that). That is partly why Fanfare and American Record Guide are/were read, because they review so much.
I long ago came to the conclusion that in writing my reviews I was probably making the most people happy by getting all the facts right in the headnote, since so many readers would have long since made up their own minds about the record label, the artists, and the music; what they needed to know was that the recording exists. [And yes I am well aware that there are and were reviewers who had already made up their mind about the record label, artist and music before listening to a note. To some extent this is justified — it makes no sense for a reviewer to write at how shocking well Jascha Heifetz plays the violin.]
The term ‘music criticism’ is too broad a topic for me to be able to wrap my mind around. It includes, concert reviews, recording reviews, commentary on music trends, personnel changes in music or music-related organizations and many other aspects of the arts, both ‘high’ and ‘low’. I feel Mr. Nelson’s comments are applicable to all of those categories. I had a professor stated that for any type of journalism, e.g., sports, financial page, arts, culture, news, etc. the point is to tell the readers or listeners what happened along with providing them with the benefit of what insight the journalist has into the subject. That would apply to a concert review along with discussion of personnel changes to any other music institution whether academic, not-for-profit or commercial.
I’ve been listening to Record Review on Saturday mornings since the 1960s, and I’m sad to see it moved.
I agree that “Building a Library” is special, but I also feel that it has lost some of its impact of late. Some editions, such as those presented by Marina Frolova Walker and Sarah Willis, are superbly authoritative – at the end I feel confident that the chosen version is absolutely the best one. However, on other occasions recently, the reviewers have acknowledged that there are just too many versions for them all to be considered, and have therefore elected to start with a short list which often inexplicably excludes important recordings. For example, the discussion of Peter Grimes made no mention of the recordings made with Jon Vickers in the title role.
It would be understandable if, after 26 years in post, Andrew McGregor has lost some of his earlier passion. I feel that the whole programme has become formulaic: guest – “on repeat” – BAL – record of the week. My recollection is that there used to be more variety: interviews with musicians, reports from recording sessions, discussions about the recording industry, features about National Record Store Day etc.
In short, Record Review now feels a bit pedestrian to me. That’s not a word I would apply to Tom Service, who is R3’s blue-eyed boy and who will now inherit the croissant-and-coffee slot on Saturdays. The writing has probably been on the wall for AMcG for a while, given that the interviews with major recording artists Semyon Bychkov and Christian Thielemann were both conducted by Service.
But don’t get me wrong: AMcG and TS are both superb and well-informed presenters, and I will continue to listen to them both. And of course I can now do that whenever I like, thanks to BBC Sounds.
For me the importance of Oliver Willmott’s excellent piece is to draw attention to BBC Radio3’s incomprehensible treatment of our beloved Record Review and incomparable maestro Andrew McGregor! He certainly spoke for all the musicians and music-loving friends I know when he wrote of our sunlit Saturday mornings in the company of this program and I had already made many of his points in an impassioned complaint which I made to the BBC when I first heard of the rescheduling to snooze-slot in the afternoon when few are sitting listening to the radio, especially the young who they may be hoping to capture! I received a fatuous reply saying that “change can be unsettling” and sighting “audience data, feedback and research” which seems to me like shooting themselves in the foot. As always, they push the BBC Sounds App where we can listen to anything at any time. Although this awful App is better than nothing if we need to catch something we miss, it takes away the whole magic of listening to live radio, deeply rooted in childhood. You have to reset your speakers from radio to Bluetooth and you have to go to the BBC website if you want to find any relevant information.
Was there a poll? Were any of us asked to vote for our favourite programs and when we listen? I then learned, to add insult to injury, that they had lopped 45 minutes off the program. As Willmott says, it is about so much more than criticism. McGregor besides being so knowledgeable, has that gift of sharing his knowledge with infectious enthusiasm like dear much missed Rob Cowan. I would learn and discover a lot from every program. Yes this is a program for music lovers, should Radio3 not be? Too exclusive? I cannot believe that future music buffs would not be inspired to listen to such a variety of wonderful music with such accessible insights. If you don’t know what a mass or chorale is, you soon will without it being pedantically spelled out. It doesn’t matter if we disagree with a Building a Library choice or even lament that our own favourite version isn’t played or mentioned, or that we don’t particularly like the work under review because the program is always interesting.
Another great Radio3 favourite, Composer of the Week, has also been penalised and shunted off to 4:00 pm!
I will continue to respond and fight and encourage all who feel as I do to complain and complain; inundate them as their precious audience numbers dwindle! Let’s give them some real data to mull over!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints
I regret that the BBC complaints system usually results in cut-and-paste off-the-shelf corporate-speak platitudes, very often not addressing the specific complaint, just superficially glossing round an overall idea. Plus, when is “Live” not “Live”? When it’s “especially recorded music from the BBC’s performing groups, the EBU and more” as they’ve seen fit to explain the replacement of “Afternoon Concert” to “Classical Live”. At least Ian Skelly will be back on “Essential Classics” next week (hooray). As for the move of “Friday Night is Music Night” to Radio 3, wasn’t Friday night always a music night on Radio 3 anyway? My memories “FNIMN” is light, sometimes classical music, that was a shoo-in for Radio 2. Because of routines and other commitments, there are a lot of things I’ll no longer be listening to on Radios 3 and 4, even as catch-up on Sounds, because I can’t fit even that into the routines.
The responses on SD to this nebulous rubbish are far more interesting and lucid than the original screed.
Read Andrew Porter’s books “Musical Events” if you want to know and learn real music criticism.
Some rather curious comments. Record Review is one of the BBC’s most humane broadcasts – the suggestion that it represents the political view of the Opposition suggests that the current Government is inhumane.
But music criticism is something very different from consideration of new recordings, or even of all recordings available of a particular work. If Mr Wilmott doesn’t realise that it is difficult to make sense of his curious political assertions.
I understand people’s allegiance to the timetable of broadcasts they are used to, but I would like to think a valued programme moved to a different slot still has value. While perhaps Andrew McGregor’s style has become more avuncular with age, he has retained the ability to maintain a conversation with the BoL presenters that keeps the chosen experts grounded and avoiding assumptions of expert knowledge most of us don’t have. They do have an impossible remit though in the major repertory works which have been recorded frequently since the dawn of recording, and it would be helpful to know what criteria were used to limit themselves to a manageable shortlist (thinking of the Vickers/Grimes comment).