Tafelmusik is trying to put me out of business
(Pablo Helguera cartoon)
I woke up this morning realising that Toronto’s Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra is trying to put me out of business.
A professional modern art-music critic is not supposed to criticise, but act as a sort of docent, gently explaining the history and cultural context of music and how it — if it’s new music — or specific interpretations — if it’s old music — fit into that scheme.
Much of this work starts well before the concert, in interviews with artists or programmers to find out how a particular concert programme or opera production has come about, what inspired it, what it’s challenges and insights are, for example.
So much of what constitutes success or failure in the actual performance is about the integrity of this preparation.
What Tafelmusik has done is to take all of this background information — the history, the contextualizing and the getting inside an artist’s head — and made it accessible to anyone who visits its website, or, in the case of the printed programme, anyone who has attended the concert.
We find out about the composers, there are interviews with artists participating in the programme, there is news about the organization itself.
In the cast of this week’s Baroque London programme, there are background notes by R.H. Thomson as well as an interview with him in the booklet. This is exactly the sort of material I would have covered had I asked for an interview with the actor for an advance story on the concert.
Tafelmusik has provided so many layers of access and points of entry that no one need approach the concert — nor leave it — feeling that there is something inaccessible or hard to understand about it. On the other hand, none of this extra information intrudes on the enjoyment of those concertgoers who want the programme unmediated by docents.
This whole approach is, I think, more brilliant than the concert I heard last night — and I mean that as as compliment.
Where does that leave the critic?
For me not to go out of business, I need to make sure I’m not just writing an overview of cultural context; I need to present a critical assessment. But finding the right balance between context and opinion is quite the challenge, especially with a mixed programme like this week’s Tafelmusik bill.
One can go on describing individual pieces of music in great detail, but I’ve never been convinced that this is really what a review reader is looking for.
Your insights are welcome.
John Terauds
This is good news. If you don’t need to review Tafelmusik or the TSO or Mendelssohn Choir, that frees you up to visit the smaller, struggling groups vying for press attention in Toronto. They need the excellent exposure you can give on your blog, since they don’t have the professional staff to produce those amazing educational products.
First, what Stephanie says.
Second, what you said: criticism lives! Mwa ha ha. Some sick people even LIKE it, as long as it’s interesting. And its not an either-or problem. What about the kind of information Tafel or others-being-so-clever probably aren’t including–the bawdy tales, weird bits, inconsistencies, and rumours they think might not suit a printed program or pre-concert talk?
There is definitely a role for criticism especially of well-established groups like Tafelmusik and the TSO who can be spectacular, but sometimes settle for less. Sometimes it’s just an off night (maybe even the reviewer was tired and cranky), but the major organizations need to be “encouraged” to be the best they can. Dare I say that not all conductors were created equal? This is a point we rarely hear. Even the historical context is useful because there are multiple ways to interpret a work, and each may be “valid” or at least “interesting” in its own right. One year I attended 3 Messiahs just to compare the very different styles and approaches.
So, yes, there is a role for a critic to put the performances in a larger context.
As for the smaller companies, so often they only give one performance that advance press to build interest (with critical references to past performances for context) is almost more important than an after-the-fact review. The real problem is that the arts pages (if I can even speak in the plural here) get the leftover space in print, and as for mainstream electronic media, there’s almost nothing at all.
“A professional modern art-music critic is not supposed to criticise…” Thus a professional modern musician is not supposed to make music either
That may also explain why reviews are often a carefully crafted “after-care” service for the exclusive benefit of the artists’ agents and the presenters alike.
In that regard, I feel YouTube videos are truly helping to put these kinds of critics out of business. Reading reviews, I want to get an honest assessment with factual arguments, a la Gingras. One can get context in specialized sites, Grove etc… In fact, abundance of context in a review is a tell tale sign of sugarcoating and avoiding real hard questions or opinions, thus making the review and its author’s views dispensable imo.