Page 132 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7
P. 132
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
der to conceal the fact. Thus, as criticism and reportage are understood
today, the former is the more responsible task, but it should really be the
other way round whenever the facts are more important than the crit-
ic’s opinions, which is not seldom. At the same time, opinions do enjoy
greater popularity with both the reader and the critic himself: they are
easier to get for either. The unpopular truth is that while any fool can
opine and indeed perchance opine rightly, only a qualified observer can
report, and only a qualified reader is interested in facts, plenty of them
and nothing but them.3
This locates the position of the music critic, to report or to criticise.
What the critic reports will depend on the knowledge of the audience. For
example, does the critic inform the audience of the facts about a new piece of
music before making any critical remarks? One would think that this is al-
most self-evident. The more that the critic has to report, the less scope there
will then be to make criticisms. There is, on the other hand, the situation
where the audience is fully informed of the facts and simply ‘needs’ to be
given the criticism of the music itself, or more likely, the distinctive quali-
ties of the performance. Perhaps we should now consider the critic’s position
in this. No matter how much the critic has reported about the work/perfor-
mance in question, there is assumed to be an entitlement to make criticisms.
Some of these will be fair, as Keller suggested, but others will be foolish and
ultimately invalid. All this depends on the character, experience, and quali-
fications (in the broadest sense) of the critic in question.
This leads us to the example of the English musician, William Glock,
who was propelled by circumstances into the complex and unpredictable
world of newspaper criticism of music, in which listening is the first prereq-
uisite of the critic. He was widely knowledgeable about music of many peri-
ods. He was also very much aware of the restricted repertory current at the
time in England and the very limited viewpoints of many English musicians.
Above all, he was especially interested in contemporary music and by vari-
ous means sought to increase the public’s awareness and knowledge of its na-
ture, especially the music of what he saw as the most important composers.
Newspaper Music Critic
After showing considerable talent as a pianist at school, Glock then stud-
ied at the University of Cambridge, absorbing the lively Cambridge musical
environment and attending concerts in London. First of all he completed
3 Hans Keller, “Stravinsky’s Performance of ‘Agon’: A Report,” Tempo 100 (1972): 19–22.
132
der to conceal the fact. Thus, as criticism and reportage are understood
today, the former is the more responsible task, but it should really be the
other way round whenever the facts are more important than the crit-
ic’s opinions, which is not seldom. At the same time, opinions do enjoy
greater popularity with both the reader and the critic himself: they are
easier to get for either. The unpopular truth is that while any fool can
opine and indeed perchance opine rightly, only a qualified observer can
report, and only a qualified reader is interested in facts, plenty of them
and nothing but them.3
This locates the position of the music critic, to report or to criticise.
What the critic reports will depend on the knowledge of the audience. For
example, does the critic inform the audience of the facts about a new piece of
music before making any critical remarks? One would think that this is al-
most self-evident. The more that the critic has to report, the less scope there
will then be to make criticisms. There is, on the other hand, the situation
where the audience is fully informed of the facts and simply ‘needs’ to be
given the criticism of the music itself, or more likely, the distinctive quali-
ties of the performance. Perhaps we should now consider the critic’s position
in this. No matter how much the critic has reported about the work/perfor-
mance in question, there is assumed to be an entitlement to make criticisms.
Some of these will be fair, as Keller suggested, but others will be foolish and
ultimately invalid. All this depends on the character, experience, and quali-
fications (in the broadest sense) of the critic in question.
This leads us to the example of the English musician, William Glock,
who was propelled by circumstances into the complex and unpredictable
world of newspaper criticism of music, in which listening is the first prereq-
uisite of the critic. He was widely knowledgeable about music of many peri-
ods. He was also very much aware of the restricted repertory current at the
time in England and the very limited viewpoints of many English musicians.
Above all, he was especially interested in contemporary music and by vari-
ous means sought to increase the public’s awareness and knowledge of its na-
ture, especially the music of what he saw as the most important composers.
Newspaper Music Critic
After showing considerable talent as a pianist at school, Glock then stud-
ied at the University of Cambridge, absorbing the lively Cambridge musical
environment and attending concerts in London. First of all he completed
3 Hans Keller, “Stravinsky’s Performance of ‘Agon’: A Report,” Tempo 100 (1972): 19–22.
132
