Check out this review of the New York Philharmonic with Alan Gilbert from last week. Here's the paragraphs in question:

quote:

He opened his program with Haydn’s Symphony No. 48, a work with two prominent, high French horn lines that are almost always in the spotlight. At the New York Philharmonic that almost always means trouble, and surely Mr. Gilbert knew that: the orchestra is fond of pointing out that he “grew up around the Philharmonic,” in which both his parents were violinists. So the risk he took must have been calculated.

Within the first few bars Mr. Gilbert had ample reason to regret the choice. Through all four movements the horns slid into notes, hovered around them or cracked squeakily while making the effort. Even for a listener who has long lamented the state of the Philharmonic’s horn section, this was uncommonly ruinous playing. The finely chiseled, bright-hued string playing in the outer movements wasn’t enough to offset the deficiencies of the horn work, which just kept on coming.

Obviously, Kozinn has an axe to grind with the NYPhil's horn section. The question is - is it justified? Even if it's true? Does this benefit anybody, or does it just sell newspapers?

Discuss...

Having heard the horn section on tour in FL a few years ago, they sounded quite mediocre. The big piece on the program was Beethoven's 5th, and the entire work was full of clams.

As a horn player I know that no concert can be absolutely perfect, but I thought the reviewer obviously had some itch to scratch concerning the horns. Granted, Phil Myers (if he was playing principal) has had some history of being inconsistent, but lately reports have been rather favorable. He has been principal horn of the symphony for as long as I have been alive, he must be doing something right.

Reading such reviews, I always think of a quote from a former teacher about critics, "Critics are the guys who walk through a battlefield and shoot the wounded."

I was at this concert on Wednesday and I must say that I agree with the review. Mr. Meyers is one of the higher paid members of the orchestra and he has an understood professional standard that he is certainly not living up to.

Ditto the review.

I live in NJ and hear the NYPhil live more often than any orchestra since I left Boston. The horn section is weak and Meyers often gacks huge solos. I've heard NYPhil do Dvorak Cello Concerto several times over the past 5 years and Meyers is sure to give me a good laugh in the 1st movement.

Between him and Drucker perpetually playing 20 cents sharp a good time is always had rehashing NYPhil concerts with friends.

I think it is always unfortunate when there is a bad review which points out a particular player or section. But what we do is up for public review and it is completely within the critic's right to say what he thinks. So often we complain when a review simply talks about the history of the piece rather than actually reviews the performance. The knife cuts both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by gloriarex:
...what we do is up for public review and it is completely within the critic's right to say what he thinks. So often we complain when a review simply talks about the history of the piece rather than actually reviews the performance. The knife cuts both ways.

Not to get all self-promotional over here, but I was just writing about this on the Inside the Classics blog over at my orchestra's site. The issue of what a critic's job is and ought to be always fascinates me, just because there are such divergent opinions on it among musicians.

Anyway, my post is here, if anyone wants to read it. (Shameless fishing for clickthrough hits ends now.)

A good read, Sam.

Over the years, I have come across 2 critics in particular that should be studied by NASA. They have solidly convinced me that a parallel universe does in fact exist, one where Spock really has a beard. They truly lived in the Bizarro world, where bad was good, soft was loud, and fast was slow. They (supposedly) were in the same room as me, but clearly they were in a different dimension and didnt hear the same concert I played, as if some cosmic force switched the audio before it hit them, and made awful players fabulous and great soloists awful. And yet they had jobs...

quote:

Originally posted by Liangjie:
Ditto the review.

I live in NJ and hear the NYPhil live more often than any orchestra since I left Boston. The horn section is weak and Meyers often gacks huge solos. I've heard NYPhil do Dvorak Cello Concerto several times over the past 5 years and Meyers is sure to give me a good laugh in the 1st movement.

Between him and Drucker perpetually playing 20 cents sharp a good time is always had rehashing NYPhil concerts with friends.

Absolutely agree with you, sometimes tenure is not a good thing In regard to the horns I think actually Ashby was a stronger player than Myers...What a sad loss that Ashby is no longer with us

In response to the original post about reviewers, the question that I think begs to be answered is what really is the job of a reviewer. I played in an orchestra for years and was pretty much offended by what our local "music expert" had to say about the concerts. Not only was every little mistake, cack, frack, slip etc. reported as if giving a play by play, the general feeling of the reviews were always relatively negative.

My feeling is that this serves no purpose but to the reviewer themselves-- to prove what great ears they have and how smart they really are. Pointing out ongoing issues with a particular section may be warranted, but my thought is that a review should talk about the feeling in the concert hall that night. The reaction by the audience and the relationship between conductor and orchestra or a particular moment or two that was unique or catching. Rambling on and on week after week about missed notes and silly mistakes isn´t interesting to read and has nothing to do with music.

Since I know exactly the reviewer RDC is referring to, I can only laugh.

I will say, that newspapers for better or worse pay these guys to be critical, and not to be nice. People like scandal. Reviewers often sound like they should know what they are talking about, but have very little artistic qualifications to back up their claims.

I remember when I was growing up and in a YOUTH orchestra, a reviewer came to a concert and stated in his review that we sounded "jaded", again, a YOUTH orchestra. I still laugh about that one.

Part of a critic's job is to report what happened. Another part (since true objectivity is not likely) is for the critic to make clear to the reader what his/her likes, dislikes, standards, biases and prejudices are so that the reader can then take into account the source of what s/he is reading. So the critic's job is partly factual and partly subjective.

Kozinn reported that there were numerous horn clams. (Apparently this is not surprising news to a lot of readers.) I check out the orchestra reviews in the Times pretty regularly, and have not seen mention of this as a problem in the past, so I can't comment on whether he has an axe to grind here. He does, however, start out by saying "Even for a listener who has long lamented the state of the Philharmonic’s horn section..." so you know where he's coming from when he starts complaining.

If cracked brass notes bother you, then you may agree with his view that a whole bunch of them can spoil a performance. If they don't bother you, then you may not agree. Either way, it seems to me that it's possible to judge from this review whether YOU would have enjoyed this performance, and that, in my opinion, is a critic's job.

I've read reviews (of concerts I've attended, or played in) where the critic has: complimented players on particular solos when those players were absent; attended the dress rehearsal and reviewed it as if it was the concert (ensemble problems, etc. that actually went well at the performance); failed to mention parts of the program altogether, so you'd have had to attend the concert to know that such-and-such a piece was even played; and in one case named the wrong Mahler symphony in the review. (Resurrection, Tragic... what's the difference, really?)

Getting facts wrong seems worse than expressing an opinion about the facts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBodden,

quote:

Originally posted by BBodden:
I've read reviews (of concerts I've attended, or played in) where the critic has: complimented players on particular solos when those players were absent; attended the dress rehearsal and reviewed it as if it was the concert (ensemble problems, etc. that actually went well at the performance); failed to mention parts of the program altogether,

My favorite critic would only review the first half of the concert. Seriously. He would write an essay on the first piece, so you would have 3 paragraphs on the Candide Overture. Then the last sentence would be "The intermission was followed by the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra".

quote:

Part of a critic's job is to report what happened. Another part

The main part of anyone's job is to KEEP their job. With smaller orchestras, fulltime (and part time) critics are dropping like flies. Critics should do what they can to encourage people to fill the seats. In no way does that mean they have to go soft on the band, it just means they should drop any vendettas and personal attacks that are unfounded, and find the good points as well. Its literally their own job they are protecting.

They should also (in smaller markets) do what they can to feature any arts organizations in town. Lets face it, the Yo-Yo Ma recital is going to sell seats on its own. Quite often, the critics focus on the one orchestra in town and the touring recitals, and give little PR to the local opera and ballet, the weirdo modern music group, the faculty recital, the startup chamber orchestra. Its the orchestral "trickle-down" theory. It works too, it all goes together.

A critics job it a delicate one that is often not handled delicately. I do think that if the NYP horn section consistently made errors, cacks, cracks or what not, it is okay for the cricit to mention it....but....I would hope that the reviewer would also note the positive aspects of the concert and not just harp on one aspect (as disappointing as it may have been).

I do have a problem with a critic that is "out to get someone or some section". I have witnessed it happen and happen unjustly....the critic was manipulated by one or more musicians/administrators (uncertain) to help urge the person out of the orchestra. It is this type of behavior by some critics that make us all sour on them.

If only they could have an "oath" so to speak - where they report on the overal effect of the concert - give praise to some and note if something or someone was off.

Until then - it is best to be your own critic and mostlikely you will be more harsh on yourself than any critic is....and when you stop being your own critic it is time to pack up the instrument for good while your still on top.

Good God, Don't we all know that reviewer are just musicians that couldn't make it in the real world? If the Haydn 48th symphony was a test to all orchestral horn player, then many would fail that test. Haydn wrote for horns much smaller and brighter in quality than those of today's orhcestras. I can only equate it to an entire piece for the fiddles at the top of the register and written ppp throughout with many octave jumps.

Anyone who knows anything realizes that there are classical works out there where the horns can sound bad if having a bad day. I remember a certain performance of the Mozart 29th where my second horn player missed a few high B at the end and the reviewer mentioned it. I though this really quite unfair as the second horn plays in this register less than 1% of the time.

Maybe this review hasn't gotten to the section in the groves dictionary on the history of the french horn. If Phil sounds bad on Dvorak that that is one thing, but taking shots at a horn player playing above high c most of the time is just freakin laim.

DHP

I realize that the horn is one of the hardest instruments (aren't all our instruments hard in their own way) but I don't any other instrumentalist that gets to use the excuses the horns do. If the concertmaster plays out of tune, it is the fault of the violinist, not that Heldenleben solo was incredibly awkwardly written for the violin.

I have to agree with 7of9. All instruments have their pit falls. It seem that the very definition of a virtuoso is one that has figured out how to deal with the pit falls consistently. That's not to say the issues are easy to deal with, but I would expect that the players in the top orchestras are well equipped and experienced enough to make the hard stuff sound easy.

Dealing specifically with NY Phil, I heard them play the "Eroica" in Nov. 2006. In general it was a good performance. The only disappointment was - you guessed it - the horns.

Actually, if you read the rest of the review, he praises the string playing, the soloist and the conducting quite a bit.

Lots of pieces are hard. We do the best we can. Is the critic not supposed to notice how it sounds? Is he supposed to say "well, it's a hard piece, so it's not so-and-so's fault that he couldn't play it"? Or how about "The NYPO shouldn't play music with hard horn parts." He does kind of imply that the conductor should have known what he was getting into when he programmed the piece; maybe he should have panned the conductor instead.

First, while it's fun on occasion to take issue with people who like to call music critics failed musicians, et. al., it's a ridiculous argument. Music criticism and music performance are two different things. You shouldn't have to be a horn player to be entitled to criticize the performance of a horn section any more than you should have to be a 3rd basemen to say that Alex Rodriguez played badly in a Yankees game.

As for the NYPO horns, Allan Kozin has taken his shots at them from time to time. Here's his review of their Schumann Konzertstucke from 1995: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE1D8...horn+schumann&st=nyt

As for what critics should write, I would propose that if it's a clam that would get you bounced from an audition, it's fair game for critics to single it out for, um, criticism. Not to mention that while it's unreasonable to expect constant perfection, the Philharmonic is a top-class orchestra and when it (or parts thereof) doesn't play like one, it's not unreasonable to say so.

Any hack with a set of encyclopedias and spell
check can become a music reviewer. Last time
I checked there wasn't a degree in musical review, or an audition tape for principal music reviewer.

Do you honestly think there is a musician in the Philharmonic who gives a **** what some failed Julliard hack thinks?

I doubt it!

If you aren't putting it on the line every night then keep your trap shut. Isn't there an entire book of "reviews"...such as...This piece is horrible (Beethoven 2nd), this composer is obviously in love with himself (Ravel) and Where does he get off thinking that anyone will ever want to listen to this clanging around (Mahler 6).

How many tries does Mr Gilbert get sitting at his computer alone in his own living room? I'm guessing its more than one! The hardest thing he has to do all night is not get hit by a car on the way to the concert hall!!

DHP

OK.
Well I guess we all know where we all stand.