A critic walks out at Edinburgh Festival
NewsThis is Hugh Kerr’s response to Cecile McLorin Salvant in Concert at th Usher Hall yesterday. Hugh Kerr is editor of Edinburgh Music Review:
It wasn’t my thing so I left!
It’s not often a critic begins a review with a statement like that above, but I believe it’s a critic’s right to leave if they really can’t stand it. Last November in Berlin I walked out of a new production of Wagner’s Ring Cycle which was a truly awful production and called for the founding of a new organisation called SPOC (the Society for Protection of Critics). Its fundamental principle is that critics have the right to leave a performance if they are finding it painful. When Cecile destroyed my favourite Brecht\Weill song, ‘Pirate Jenny’, I thought it was time to go. I did enquire whether there was an interval but was told it went on non-stop from 7.30 till 9.15 pm. I left at 8.30; I’d had enough to write a review and don’t believe she would change too much in the last hour.
Firstly a question. Should jazz be a central part of the Edinburgh International Festival? After all we have just had a very good jazz festival with lots of international stars. I’m sure Cecile would have fitted in fine there, indeed I suspect there were quite a few jazz festival fans in the audience whooping for Cecile. The Festival was of course founded on opera in 1947 and sadly we have no fully staged operas this festival although some interesting concert performances. It was also built on classical music and occasionally on Scottish traditional music since one of the Festival’s mission statements is to show the best of Scottish culture to the world. It’s true occasional singers who cover jazz have been present in the Festival, but jazz has never had a central role. Maybe that’s one of the things that Nicola wants to change and it’s significant that her Festival question “Where do we go from here?” came from Martin Luther King. It’s also significant that the great jazz trumpeter and composer Wynton Marsalis was in a discussion group in the Hub this afternoon and talking about the importance of music in the fight against racism in the USA. So maybe jazz is going to become more central in the Festival, although I have to say it seems to be partly at the expense of Scottish traditional music which was heavily featured two years ago and seems to have disappeared. Still a new Festival Director has the right to take a new direction, but critics also have the right, indeed obligation, to be critical.
So if you are going to have jazz at the centre of the Festival, is Cecile McLorin Salvant the right person to be there? She is a very established international star and Grammy award winner and did perform ‘Ogresse’, a jazz theatrical parable about a monster the other night, getting a favourable review from Kate Calder in the Edinburgh Music Review. I have no doubt that Cecile has a very good voice; it has a great range and colour and is a very powerful instrument. What I object to is her interpretation of the music. Every song she tackles she totally reinterprets in her unique style sometimes so much so that you don’t recognise the original. I have listened to jazz greats in the past, from Ella Fitzgerald in Glasgow in 1959, through Billie Holiday, Cleo Laine and indeed last night Cleo’s daughter, Jacqui Dankworth, in Edinburgh. All of them were great singers and all of them interpret great songs in their own way but none of them totally reinterpret the songs in the way Cecile does, making them almost unrecognisable from the original. Most of the time she gets away with it; she has great voice and stage presence and a group of accompanists who are clearly at her disposal. However when she destroyed ‘Pirate Jenny’, the great Brecht/Weill song from ‘The Threepenny Opera’, it was a step too far for me. This song has a particular style relevant to the work; in Cecile’s interpretation it became a self-indulgent parody of the song. It will be interesting to see the Berliner Ensemble’s version of the song next week. I suspect even the radical producer Barry Kosky won’t destroy the song in the way that Cecile did tonight.
So I invoked the SPOC principle and left. I had seen and heard enough to know that I didn’t like it. Some other people left too – I don’t know why – but the majority stayed and seemed to be enjoying it. Was I right to leave before the end? I think so, I was hating it and I didn’t think she was going to change. Does that mean I’m right? No, aesthetics are subjective and critics can be in a minority, and, whisper it, can be wrong. But they also have rights and I exercised my right to vote with my feet.
Some may regard walking out as unprofessional conduct for a critic. Mr Kerr, we shoulkd point out, is not a paid critic.
That said, what would it have cost him to have stayed? A walkout is surely far too strong for mere discomfort.
Who Kerr. The opinion no one wanted.
Why cannot critics share the fate of the snobs?
Shhh! Don’t anybody tell him about Betty Carter!
Cecille couldn’t hold a candle to Betty Carter, who was one of the greatest Jazz singers in the history of the music.
There are classical works that classical critics do not get. I don’t expect them to understand every piece from the past 500 years that they encounter, but if they do not understand it – they have to leave their ego behind and not do the review. The performance could be absolutely perfect… then it’s unfair on the performers.
I feel saddened Mr. Kerr does not see genius in Cécile McLorin Salvant. Maybe the aesthetic pulse is different here in America than in Scotland.
Never ever confuse Edinburgh with Scotland. It is mot a real place but rather a confection made out of shortbread for tourists .
Spot the idiot who doesn’t have the slightest idea about Edinburgh, its history, or people. Clown!
Is it you? Historically it was always English or at least part of Northumbria. Not much has changed
Would you like to discuss that with the 500,000 residents?
A bit tricky during festival time, since most of those able to do so have fled the city.
Actually, most of my friends and I stay in Edinburgh and have a wonderful time enjoying all the Festivals (International, Fringe, Book and this year Film). But what we do avoid is Mr Kerr and his reviews.
Bitter weedgie in the comments haha
McScotchland the world’s biggest living museum, dedicated to a fake history.
Total idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about. It is insulting, and far worse than saying London is not in or part of England and fake. Bet you have never lived there as I have, and met the people from Edinburgh.
Lived there for 8 years and am an actual Scottish person who grew up 30 miles away. Met maybe 10 people from actual Edinburgh in nearly 40 years, It’s a long term tourist and student hub.
I can understand the desire to “walk-out”. After all, I walked out on the post above after about 3-4 sentences.
You missed a great typo further on in the post.
Shoulkd.
One jazz concert does not make jazz the “centre of EIF”. I hate jazz but given the choice between jazz and an evening of bagpipes, well sorry Scottish friends but jazz would win or I would probably choose not to go to either. If as you say Kerr is not paid why go in the first pace he obviously doesn’t like jazz and seems to have decided that the new artistic director will not be making decisions to his taste either?
I suspect Mr Kerr was more interested in voicing his opinions on the EIF than Cécile McLorin Salvant’s performance.
Why do you hate Jazz?
I have disagreed with Mr Kerr on every single review of his you have republished here, so his credibility runs rake thin for me.
I can’t believe it even needs discussion, but you don’t need to be paid to be bound to the duties and responsibilities of a critic. Which involves hearing an entire performance.
I would assume that Mr Kerr didn’t pay for his ticket? If so, he should give the monetary value of it to the Usher Hall, or they should remove him from the press list.
If he has a seat next to the aisle and close to a door, why not. Otherwise he’s just not very polite. And since he calls Barry Kosky a radical producer and the excellent but challenging new Berlin Staatsoper Ring truly awful, he doesn’t seem to be very competent either.
Oh splendid ! We have the return of disgusted of Morningside. The EIF has missed righteous indignation by the bourgeoise and I for one celebrate its return.
To paraphrase one of the greatest singers of all time, Nat ‘King’ Cole: “I don’t care what the critics say. They get the tickets for free.”
If this critic compares Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday to Cleo Laine’s daughter in the same sentence, he should not be critiquing Jazz at all.
It would have been instructive for Mr. Kerr to describe exactly how Ms. Salvant “destroyed” ‘Pirate Jenny.’ Saying only that it was “a self-indulgent parody of the song” does not allow the reader to share his ears or his mind. A different interpretation alone does not warrant walking out. It is also possible that the last hour could have included a song that captivated him. Neither he nor we will ever know.
Critics are just people who failed to be a real artists.
Thank you for all your comments and keep reading Slipped Disc and of course the Edinburgh Music Review ! What you all have in common is that you weren’t there last night to hear Cecile and I was,that does give me a slight advantage over you! Of course it’s my view and you and the Usher Hall audience are entitled to disagree but the Edinburgh Music Review takes the view that critics where appropriate should be critical,sometimes very critical.If you read my review of Jacqui Dankworth you will see I don’t hate jazz and if you read Kate Calder’s review of Ogresse in the Edinburgh Music Review you will see she gives Cecile a decent review.I gave you my view of her concert last night and that is my right including the right to walk out.Finally I notice I’m the only person here to use my own name and to be open to criticism the rest of you hide behind pseudonyms some might even call you trolls and some say don’t feed the trolls it only encourages them but I don’t mind keep on trolling! Hugh Kerr
Dear Hugh, no, we were not at the concert, which is why a review can substitute for attendance. As I said above, you did not tell us what was so terrible (in your opinion, of course) about the performance. That would either enlighten or stimulate discussion. Being dismissive does neither.
Despite your implication, criticism is not necessarily negative – it is educated observation, citing both good and bad elements of a performance. You spoke with Jacqui Dankworth after her performance. Perhaps if you had done the same with Ms. Salvant you would have understood her artistic decisions, and then agree or disagree.
To eliminate your invective of troll, I will use my full name. You may find my reviews on TexasClassicalReview (17) and SlippeDisc (3). Lawrence Wheeler (Larry W)
Besides your paltry critic, I’d like to point out that ‘using a real name’ on the internet is not a thing. You are putting yourself out there, and you decided not to use a nom de plume. That’s entirely up to you, and ultimately your problem.
I wonder how often people approach you in the street by name to be combative about your bad EIF takes? Not too often I’d wager.
But using a ‘pseudonym’ on the internet is, and has always been, safety 101. You thinking that makes us trolls betrays a profound misunderstanding of the way the internet works, and to be honest, probably also a sense of paranoia.
People can’t genuinely think your opinion and attitude is rubbish, right? That would mean perhaps you’re doing that whole critic thing wrong? No, no, they must be trolls! That way you can be in your right. Your right to leave a performance midway and still review it, your right to bash EIF for trying something different and not pigeonholing itself in the same thing since 1945. Your right to only critic and never say anything nice or constructive.
Well, I’ll tell you, while using a real life person name, that people like you should learn to check their privilege and also pay full price for their ticket.
A professional critic is paid to attend a performance and write a review for the readers of his employer/publication. If he can’t take the rough with the smooth, he’s in the wrong job. Far too much prominence given to Kerr here – no-one in the business really knows or cares what he thinks.
If he’s “not a paid critic” he’s not a professional critic, and not worthy of being called a critic, except in the sense that even a child is a critic.
That is absolutely untrue. There are many excellent, well respected critics who write for websites and are not paid. Just because someone swans out of university into a paid critic role in which they stay for 30 years, does not mean that they have any superior knowledge or experience.
He’s not a paid critic, he’s just a very naughty boy!
I really don’t mind the inclusion of more jazz, it certainly isn’t taking over the billing.
Last year I went to alot of acts. I believe Herbie Hancock was one of/perhaps only jazz artist on the billing (what a one to have tho). The jazz festival can also be a little weak, I remember a gifted guitarist doing a Eric Clapton themed tribute act for a lot of nights at the jazz club that I’d argue didn’t really fit.
In matters of taste who would give a second’s thought to someone else’s opinions, paid for or not?
Perhaps the readers?
If you’re comped, you stay. If you’re being paid to review a concert, you stay. Otherwise, you can walk out, but your review is then a self-indulgent thing that doesn’t properly cover the whole experience.
Hugh’s complaint is that he doesn’t like McClorin Salvant’s vocal deconstruction of jazz standards, very much her thing. But she’s not doing anything that great jazz instrumentalists haven’t done before, from Monk to Miles Davis and beyond: using a song’s chords and structure as a springboard for adventurous journeys way beyond the limits of the original context.
Whether she does this well or not is another matter but it spectacularly misses the point of Cecile’s music to criticise it for straying too far from the original.
Two words: “Barbara Sukowa.”
This is not a critic of Ms McLorin Salvant’s performance but merely the bitter opinion of a backward and conservative audience member! Her accomplished musicians are not at her disposal but fully and independently engaged in every performance. Ms Benedetti and Mr. Marsalis have the utmost respect for Cecile and their opinion count far more than Mr Kerr’s who would be well advised to stick to he is beloved scottish bagpipes
The critic is as much criticising the poor programming of the festival. There is a jazz and blues festival in Edinburgh that would have been a more appropriate showcase for her talents, not the world’s biggest/worst arts festival. Sorry to say most people don’t care about jazz.
Keep your ignorance, bagpipes aren’t traditional Scottish music and the association with Scotland is a recent one as part of the cultural genocide of Union.
Critics have every right to leave, but no right to submit a review in that instance
What this festival needs is Shetland fiddlers. And a riotious Scottish ceili, courtesy of a delegation of pipers, fiddlers, dancers, and pianists from Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, bringing the house down with Scotland’s best import, traditional Scottish music as preserved and still blazingly celebrated there. Not to mention, piping, fiddling, and dancing from Scotland’s Highlands and its West Coast.
A joke festival with no quality control for a joke of a city. McScotchland full of long term tourists and bellends that couldn’t cut it in London. Embarrassing that this two bit provincial backwater full of sellouts and cowards is the capital of our district, from a non weegie.
Pure hubris. If you can’t watch a performance from beginning to end, don’t be a critic. It’s a matter of professional courtesy.
Perhaps not so much rude the critic walked out but left such a terrible review, although I’m off the opinion if you have nothing of value to add, keep quiet