Why do Reviewers Get it So Wrong?

Most professional musicians secretly or otherwise openly have little but contempt for reviewers - either of their concerts or their recordings. It is certainly true that there is little more contemptuous a musical creature than a reviewer. It has been said unkindly that an academic analyst of music is a failed composer. If that is the case, what is a reviewer? - a failed musician, or worse a record collector who has anointed themselves an expert.

It is high time that there be reviews of the performances of reviewers. These, should, in general be bad. Their ilk has generally earned a black eye or two. A professional musician has to know the score intricately, have studied it for hours and hours, year in year out, sometimes even over many decades. There is a lifetime of knowledge in every performance. Reviewers seldom know their scores in even as fraction as much detail. Yet, your judgement of an interpretation really is only so good as your depth of insight into a score. If you don't know the score that well, it is best to shut up, rather than removing all doubt of your ignorance by spouting a long rant in a world where everyone like to pretend to be an expert.

Nor does it matter how well you enjoyed the performance (or otherwise), or how many recordings you own of the work. Chances are you won't know it anywhere as well as the performer you seem to regard as your junior, and upon whom you wish to pronounce your Holy Than Thou Papal judgement.

Here is list of common sins of "expert" reviewers:

1. Hero Worship
This version by my hero X is the greatest because X is the greatest. They can do not wrong in my eyes. That is why the version by X is the greatest. Yes, but what about the score? After all being someone's "hero" doesn't grant you any special insight into a score. Never dismiss an interpretation just because a performer is unknown or not a house-hold famous name. Never uncritically accept an interpretation by anyone just because they are famous. Fame tends to beget fame, but fame does not beget deeper musical insight.

2. Poor Knowledge of Recording Engineering and Acoustics
Some concert halls have dead spots where anything sounds flat, not matter how good the performance. Likewise, the sound engineering plays a big role in how a recording sounds. A very good recording played on a totally mediocre system can sound more lifeless than a poor recording. This is why if you have a cheap recording system, a 1950s radio recording can actually sound more exciting than a really top quality modern recording - because the recording was probably made more for a system like the one you listen to.  This is probably one reason why some reviewers overwhelmingly prefer old mono recordings to more recent ones - "the old timers always did it better."  I used to think that way too as a student who couldn't afford a good stereo system.


3. Imprinting
I first learned this work through recording X. This version is completely imprinted in my mind and every other performance that sounds even slightly different sounds "wrong" and thus "bad" to me - by virtue of merely being different. Furthermore the passage of time helps to deeper imprint the interpretation into the mind. Older recordings are better imprinted into the mind, thus giving the impression that older recordings are better.
It is best to gain your own independent view of the score through your own study rather than just blindly following someone else's interpretation - least of all your "hero-who-can-do-no-wrong's" view. It is equally important to be open to having your view of a work changed. If there are imprints of someone's else's view in your mind, try to erase them and re-imprint your own hard won interpretation.


4. Poor Knowledge of the Score
A reviewer of a performance of a Shakespeare drama would be expected to be well versed with the written text. The same thing should be true of a reviewer of an interpretation of a musical score. Professional musicians spend years and years studying the score. It isn't acceptable for a reviewer to have no more credentials than having a big record collection. Your ability to judge a performance is only as good as your knowledge and insight into the score.


Now, this doesn't mean there is no room for sensitive musical criticism. Infinitely less is this a polemic arguing that newer recordings are better than older ones. It just means that you really have to know your business well, and above all know the score well and know it extremely well, before you can say anything worthwhile. Just being a casual armchair know-all listener simply won't do. There is too much spouting out of superficial stream-of-consciousness impressions raised to the level of Papal Pronouncements by ignorant self-appointed "experts" convinced of their self-importance.

It matters little how big your record collection is or how many concerts you've attended. It matters even less that you love the music so much that it unfailingly reduces you to a puddle of tears every time. You still have to study the score extremely carefully, over and over again. Likewise, any interpretation put forward by a professional musician has to be thought through extremely carefully. They have spent years thinking through the score and it is a reviewer's professional duty to give this interpretation careful thought. Otherwise, if you spout your ill thought out impressions, chances are, there will a professional musician out there reading some of this rot and roaring with well deserved contemptuous laughter.