Jump to content

Do today's judges shake their heads at yesterday's judges?


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Ghost said:

I'm guessing most DCP folks East of the West Coast are in bed or off of DCP.

  We respond to posts made late at nite on here, sometimes in the morning, or even days later. In the off season, most everybody in Drum Corps seemingly goes into the Federal Witness Protection Program and  is resettled for the winter in internet barren hidden caves, or on the remote Islands of Greenland or Newfoundland or some such. DCP'ers are rounded up by DCP mods and  temporarily resettled  in the winter/ spring months to internet free remote mountain cabins in the province of Manitoba, Canada. So far, it looks like you and me and about 8-10 other DCP regulars have been left behind at the moment, ghost. Maybe they don't want us on the long rides resettlement buses... who knows... lol.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bob P. said:

Using critics as a reference or example is not helpful nor relevant in this discussion.  Music critics are not judges.  They critique on the work as a whole and rarely judge the performers unless the performance was really bad.

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that classical music critics are usually reviewing a well-established piece, and their opinions are almost entirely restricted to how well the conductor and musicians do in conveying what the composer intended. You rarely read a review where the author questions what, say, Mozart or Brahms thought they were doing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Stu said:

A person writes a post in an informal blog about classical music; within that post are references to a defunct bankrupt company which published opinionated lists of LP recordings and the possibility that modern critics would disagree with archaic critics concerning those lists; then that post is extrapolated here on DCP to be equivocated to DCI Judges.  Yep; that is what we call a typical day on DCP!!!!

Well then, my work here is done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Well then, my work here is done.

 No... say it ain't so.... Its the off season... we've only just begun.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that classical music critics are usually reviewing a well-established piece, and their opinions are almost entirely restricted to how well the conductor and musicians do in conveying what the composer intended. You rarely read a review where the author questions what, say, Mozart or Brahms thought they were doing.

I think it depends on whether the composer is living. The Boston Symphony usually performs on traditional work and one contemporary piece at concerts. The genius of the classic composer is never challenged, the selection may be (local critics are tired of the BSO performing Brahms Symphony #1  and Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique), and usually the performance is reviewed. Contemporary works can be slammed, but the orchestra's performance will be praised, so you know it's the composer and his/her composition.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tim K said:

I think it depends on whether the composer is living. The Boston Symphony usually performs on traditional work and one contemporary piece at concerts. The genius of the classic composer is never challenged, the selection may be (local critics are tired of the BSO performing Brahms Symphony #1  and Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique), and usually the performance is reviewed. Contemporary works can be slammed, but the orchestra's performance will be praised, so you know it's the composer and his/her composition.

This is largely true. I attend Cleveland Orchestra concerts as often as I can. Amazing orchestra! Truly one of the world's great performing ensembles. I don't always read the reviews, but when I do rarely is a work by a dead, established composer challenged (Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Bach, etc.). Now maybe if it's a dead, non established composer (usually one from the 20th Century whose library output isn't universally accepted), then perhaps the composition will be challenged in addition to the performance.  Even works by 20th Century composers like Bernstein, Gershwin, Copland do get challenged.  Since the review is specific to the performance it is usually how the orchestra performed that is discussed.  But in general it seems composers from the 20th Century onward, and especially living composers, tend to receive more criticism or praise, along with how the orchestra performed the piece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 All true. Established iconic Music composers  from hundreds of years ago with acknowledged Masterpieces have stood the test of time. As such, they become unimpeachable as Masterpieces to most. Its true in the Art,  Literature, Film, realm too. Great Literature, Great Art Masterpieces, Great works of Film become, in time, acknowledged as " Classics ". Classics do not lose their lustre over time.. its the definition of a " Classic ".  Modern works, by modern composers, writers,film makers, artists, are far more subject to criticisms, some of it perhaps unfair, or unwarranted, but oftentimes, appropriate. Lest we forget too, all great Artists, Composers, Writers, Film Makers, produced some duds too in their lifetimes. Not all their works became " hits ". Not then, not now.... haha.

 And of course, then there are the Artists, Writers, Music Composers, Film Makers, etc whose published works were not as well received at the time they were produced by " Critics " . But as years have gone by, their works became far more appreciated by the Intelligentsia, Art " Critics ", etc.  For example, Norman Rockwell's works of " Art " were poo pooed in many circles of Academia and the Intelligentsia for his being an " Illustrator " instead of a true ( in their view ) " Artist ". But as the years have gone by, his works of " Art " ( always accepted and loved by the Joe's and Jane's of the world right from the getgo ) have increasingly been accepted as works of artistic " genius " in many Art Schools and Art circles around the world,. Its an idealized, optimistic portrait of America that he always saw in his mind's eye and from which he then conveyed brilliantly to canvas. He made no apologies for that optimistic, hopeful view of America that he had. Ironically, Rockwell in his home when he was alive had lots of different styles of Art that he personally liked and that adorned his homes walls... including that of the works from Artists from all over the world doing Abstract and/or Modern Art.

 Some works of Classical Music are accepted better years later than they were at the time they were produced and performed. Most of us can name some of these from our music studies.  But these tend to be anomalies, the exceptions to the rule. Most works that are criticised at the time of its production/ performance generally deserved to be so. They were lackluster then..... they remain so today.
.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that classical music critics are usually reviewing a well-established piece, and their opinions are almost entirely restricted to how well the conductor and musicians do in conveying what the composer intended. You rarely read a review where the author questions what, say, Mozart or Brahms thought they were doing.

Yes, you are correct, as far as that goes.  However, you were referring to the critiques of new works in the past and if today's critics would "judge" (critique) those same works differently and comment on how past critics were incorrect.  If those critiques which you have seen in Schwann triggered this line of thought, then fine, but that is as far as that analogy can be drawn or used.

Respectfully, Bob P.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob P. said:

Yes, you are correct, as far as that goes.  However, you were referring to the critiques of new works in the past and if today's critics would "judge" (critique) those same works differently and comment on how past critics were incorrect.  If those critiques which you have seen in Schwann triggered this line of thought, then fine, but that is as far as that analogy can be drawn or used.

Yes, I was, in the initial post, but I was responding here to a reply which said that classical music critics don't talk much about performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jwillis35 said:

This is largely true. I attend Cleveland Orchestra concerts as often as I can. Amazing orchestra! Truly one of the world's great performing ensembles. I don't always read the reviews, but when I do rarely is a work by a dead, established composer challenged (Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Bach, etc.). Now maybe if it's a dead, non established composer (usually one from the 20th Century whose library output isn't universally accepted), then perhaps the composition will be challenged in addition to the performance.  Even works by 20th Century composers like Bernstein, Gershwin, Copland do get challenged.  Since the review is specific to the performance it is usually how the orchestra performed that is discussed.  But in general it seems composers from the 20th Century onward, and especially living composers, tend to receive more criticism or praise, along with how the orchestra performed the piece. 

The Cleveland Orchestra is actually an interesting case, because (as I'm sure you know) about ten years ago, a couple years after Franz Welser-Möst succeeded Christoph von Dohnányi as music director, the chief classical music critic for the only major daily newspaper here, Donald Rosenberg, was demoted (well, reassigned), apparently for being too critical of the orchestra's performances. in review after review, he argued that Welser-Möst was failing to live up to the high standards set by Dohnányi and his predecessors, Georze Szell and Lorin Maazel. Rosenberg sued his employer, unsuccessfully, alleging that they had bowed to pressure from the Orchestra--I'm not sure but I think the claim was that the Orchestra had threatened to stop buying ads in the paper, or maybe that well-heeled board members of the Orchestra had put other financial pressure on the paper's owners.

I remember that the west coast critic whose comments I used to launch this discussion once wrote on his blog about the Rosenberg case that, were he in the position of having to regularly review a group whose work he didn't like, he hoped he'd have the financial ability to quit rather than having to repeat the same points again and again.

Certainly we have all heard claims that certain DCI judges show strong favoritism for or against certain corps. If it's true, though, one question might be: if they're right, ought they to keep on saying so or step aside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...