This has got to be one of the dumbest articles I have read in a long time. How this person is writing for this paper is beyond me!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008012102394.html

I hate Brahms too. Can I have a job at the Washington Post?
unbelievable...."odious"???can't believe that word is in the same article as Brahms.

Can't we all just get along??? And doesn't Alan Rich (Daily Variety and L.A. Weekly) feel similarly about Brahms? I think its good that music critics reveal their biases. Puts their reviews in better perspective.

I actually know how the writer feels. I don't hate Brahms (Violin Concerto probably being my favorite of his compositions) but I won't go out of my way to see a Brahms work being performed. In some cases, I might actually avoid the concert if there's too much Brahms. Even more ambivalent about Bruckner and Strauss. All in all, I'd much rather sit through anything by Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, or Stravinsky (just to name a few) than anything by those three. Apologies to anyone who thinks that such feelings are blasphemous.

I really like Mahler and Mendelssohn, though, so I don't think I can chalk it up to hating all mid-to-late-Romantic Austro-Germanic music.

Can't imagine this is that rare of a sentiment. And in general, I would guess that a lot of people have a popular composer of whom they aren't fans. A violinist friend of mine hates -- HATES -- playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Loves Mozart, but hates that serenade. The rest of the person's opinions are relatively mainstream, so it's not like they're a complete freak . . . we still allow ourselves to talk to her now and then (tongue firmly planted in cheek).

Just to show that Anne Midgette of the Washington Post and I aren't the only ones not part of the Brahms fan club, here's an article written by Alan Rich from last year reviewing Christoph von Dohnanyi conducting the Los Angeles Philharmonic in the four Brahms symphonies.

http://www.laweekly.com/stage/a-lot-of-night-music/brahms-rush/15740/

Just one of the fun (and for some of you, potentially controversial) quotes from that article:

"(Dohnanyi) begins by leveling the playing field — literally, by bringing his podium and all the players down to almost the same level and thereby suggesting a kind of chamber-music-writ-large approach. This seems to clarify and make somewhat gentle what I often find unbearable in Brahmsian orchestration. I find Dohnányi’s Brahms actually almost likable . . . "

I've never been an admirer of criticism that focuses on the critic rather than the subject.

I agree with David. This is a shame for a critic to behave like this. Job is to critique performances, not be opinionated on dead composers merits.

J.J., I have to say that I agree with you completely! After reading Anne Midgette's review, I was shocked that a paper as large as the Washington Post would employ such a bad critic. (Well, ok, not that shocked.)
My favorite part of this masterful review (other than the reference to Brahms' F major Cello Concerto) is the statement that Brahms' "own instrument, the piano, is seldom allowed to stand alone in his works; it is often veiled by other instruments, however essential its role." What is this, opposite day or something? Perhaps she's thinking of the veiled, really very minor role the piano has in his 2 massive piano concertos? Or in the Piano Trios, Piano Quartets, or Piano Quintets? Perhaps the 2 piano arrangement of the F minor Piano Quintet?
Of course the main job of critics is to review performances (this review does a lack-luster job of that to be sure), but it's also their job to have some idea what the heck they're talking about. Or at least to have enough shame not to display their ignorance in public in such an obvious way.

Just as an FYI - Midgette is the wife of Greg Sandow, the Chicken Little of clasical music (well, at least up there with Norman "Hard Facts" Lebrecht.)

Well while I don't agree with everything Sandow writes, he is ten times the writer of the wife. Something sounds very Clintonesque about this, I just can't put my finger on it.

Methinks you all doth protest too much.

I love Brahms, but I'm impressed that in this day and age the Post would devote so much column space to such an issue. And I don't see any problem with a critic discussing the merits of a dead composer.

Also, this may be "about the critic" in terms of it being an "I don't like Brahms..." piece, but it's really more of an essay than a review, and it's hardly out of bounds for an essay or opinion piece to include the writer's, um, opinions.

I certainly see far inferior work by music critics on a regular basis: previews or reviews that seem like repackaged press releases from orchestras or management agencies, repeating old (and often incorrect) legends about certain works, or taking a "X can do no wrong" approach to certain favored performers.

I've usually liked Anne Midgette's work in the Times, but I also like Norman Lebrecht, who makes astonishing errors from time to time, but at least has the audacity to attack sacred cows.

It is nice that there is space in the paper for such an essay, however, this is a huge responsibility to have at the Post as critic. It is not a platform to view personal tastes for Brahms. To me, the NSO will have much less respect for anything this woman publishes especially if it is Brahms she is reviewing. Now if she says she liked the particular Brahms on the program, people will say she's just trying to placate. If she says she didn't like a particular Brahms performance, others will question her fairness since she has publicly proclaimed she doesn't like it. I think it was a bad career move and she certainly lost my respect. (not that I have a lot for critics anyway, but you know what I mean!)

I think there are two issues here:
1) Should a critic share his/her biases about the music he/she reviews?
2) Is Midgette a good writer?

Here's my take
1) As I said previously, I appreciate it when a writer shares up front whether or not they genuinely like a certain composer/conductor/whatever. It gives you context with which to better read the review. Think of the opposite . . . Imagine if you didn't know that Alan Rich hates Sibelius, and then you read his LA Phil reviews from this past fall and find that the only performance he liked was the 4th Symphony? If you don't know any better, you might think those performances weren't any good. Since you know his bias, you get a different view -- the concerts were probably all very good and the 4th was awesome. (Katinfiddle, I can't imagine ANY critic trying to placate anyone, except maybe his/her publisher).

For better or worse, the difference between a good performance and a great performance for most writers/critics/attendees is whether or not they were "moved" or "touched" by the music. Reviews often talk about performances being technically accurate but missing that je ne sais quoi. Could this be because most of the reviewers never reveal their own biases and they'll never be moved by a composer/conductor/performer because of them? When writers share their biases, at least it allows the reader to be more critical of the critic. (As if we aren't already).

2) I'm not as familiar with Midgette's writing as some of you, but FWIW I've read better and I've read worse (as I think we all have). I'll defer to those of you who read her writings more often.

But for me, I'd rather read a well written review that I sometimes disagree with (Alex Ross in NY, Alan Rich in LA) than a weakly written review that I actually agree with (Bernard Holland in NY, David Mermelstein or Chris Pasles in LA). Lebrecht is in a class by himself: usually interesting, sometimes entertaining, but -- given his pompously high self-regard for his own writing even in the face of blatant errors -- I can't really say writes well.

I miss the late Daniel Cariaga of the Los Angeles Times. He was always respectful of the musicians, even when he didn't like a performance.

quote:

I also like Norman Lebrecht, who makes astonishing errors from time to time, but at least has the audacity to attack sacred cows.

I don't know about that. From what I've read by him, he staunchly supports the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonics, probably the two biggest sacred cows in the business. He seems to derive great pleasure from putting down less revered ensembles and comparing them unfavorably to these two orchestras. Lebrecht also claims to be on the side of justice yet he uses inaccurate facts to support his own biases. He's been known to review concerts without attending them. This doesn't sound like justice to me. Lebrecht appears to me to be guided by his own preconceptions.

A good critic reveals their preferences and discusses the performance while keeping them in mind. I agree with David, a sign of a bad critic is one that focuses too much on them selves and not enough on the music.

On the other hand, he is just a critic and we should all be able to say whatever we want!

Getting back to the main topic, I don't really see anything wrong with writing an essay discussing what one likes and dislikes about a given composer, except, like kattinfiddle commented, it may be more appropriate on an internet blog than in the Post. I do find it frustrating when a critic reviews a performance of a composer they don't appreciate. This may mean they have a different perspective to present but it also means they probably don't understand what others like about that composer. The editor of American Record Guide presented the "definitive" guide to Beethoven symphony recordings a while back and prefaced it with the comment that he didn’t really care for Beethoven and couldn’t see what all the fuss was about. Perhaps he should have given the assignment to someone who did understand.

Mmmmm... a really wonderful discussion. It woke me up for the day.

Lebrecht makes the mistake of embracing his hypothesis before investigating, then makes his "facts" fit what he wants to believe is happening. Unfortunately, his colorful writing style gets a lot of attention, and must sell a lot of papers and/or online ad imprints, because his stuff keeps getting published.

Fresh criticism of past masters is a good thing, just as is fresh intepretation. The thing about Anne's article is that it offers little new thought and is a criticism of Brahms based on what she doesn't like, rather than an objective criticism of Brahms' qualities. For the reader that shares Anne's views, or has a personal sympathy to her opinions, this sort of article might be interesting. But to me what makes good criticism is writing that is valuable regardless of agreement or sympathy with the writer.

Last season, in my orchestra, we played a Mahler symphony one week followed by a Brahms symphony the next. After my ears had acclimated to the world of Gustav, I was dumbstruck by how vanilla Brahms felt to me. It was like having a meal in the complete wrong order. A light went on in my head: I understood the justification for criticism of Brahm's conservative writing back in his day. So I turned to my stand partner and said, "Brahms is so vanilla after playing Mahler." Speechless, he stared at me loose-jawed. So I went and expressed all of this to a different colleague during a break. She said, "Didn't we have this exact same conversation last season?" I replied, "Really?" and went home and looked up our previous season's calendar. Sure enough, the week after another Mahler symphony we played a Brahms concerto. Would anyone like some capers on their ice cream?

Sounds like Anne Midgette's biggest gripe is Brahms complexity. This is exactly what I love him for! But then, I love Boulez and Carter, so what do I know? Everyone looks for something different in music. Some want their ears to be gently massaged, and some of us want them to be Rolfed.