Klarinet Archive - Posting 000458.txt from 1995/01

From: "Dan Leeson: LEESON@-----.EDU>
Subj: On criticism and the matter of the Three Queens
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 09:52:30 -0500

OK. Now that everyone has calmed down with respect to the large
number of postings on British Clarinettists, I think it is worthwhile to
explore the emotions that were engendered as a consequence of many
of the things that were said, as well as how they were said.

It all began with a posting that identified a number of British
Clarinettists and then did a dump all over them. This was followed
by corroborative postings from other people and then by an onslaught
of "you are full of ca-ca" postings from those holding other views. The
players that were being dumped on originally included the three best
known women clarinettists in the UK, but eventually it branched out
to other English clarinet players. The bottom line was that the
posters who did not like them said something like, "All these players
stink! Bad tone. Don't know anything. Can't play. My chicken plays
better clarinet. Why all the fuss?"

Let me say up front, that I am in favor of posting opinions on this list,
because when properly done (Is there a proper way to say that one
hates someone else's playing?), it should have the ancillary benefit of
forcing one into being very precise with respect to the specifics of the
criticism; i.e., if you can't be precise about someone else's playing, you
can't be a realistic critic of your own, and if you can't criticize
yourself, it's hard to improve.

The comment that "player A stinks" is unhelpful though it does tell in
no uncertain terms how that poster feels about player A. And the
reason why it is unhelpful is because one is unable to discern the
reasons behind those feelings. One might even agree that player A
stinks if one knew what was being said other than the expression of an
emotion. As a result of the unhelpfulness of the statement, it sort of
falls into the category of someone saying "Spinach stinks." But that
means simply that the speaker doesn't like spinach. One could
counterbalance that with 500 Greeks (who love spinach - it is almost
the national dish and you have to like it to stay Greek) who would say
"Spinach is marvelous." And so what has been accomplished?
Nothing. The person who said "Spinach stinks" is standing there
naked, all alone, feeling stupid, and still has to eat spinach, all with
500 angry Greeks ready to do terrible things to the spinach hater's
body! It is called "Eating one's words."

The next level up is when someone says "Player A stinks because they
have an ugly tone, make bad attacks, play out of tune, and don't
understand the pieces they play." But that isn't very helpful either.
In fact it is less helpful because it muddies the water instead of
clarifying it. It is unhelpful because it sound technical but isn't, and
it is especially unhelpful because it does not improve the speaker's
ability to criticize his/her own playing. It is unspecific, vague, unclear,
very personal, and, most important, possibly technically incorrect. Did
the speaker take a tuning meter and test each note to find out if it
were out of tune? (Please don't tell me how great your ear is and that
you can hear the sound of far-off forest murmurs.) In what way were
the attacks bad? What is an ugly tone? And, as for understanding
the pieces that are being played, that is simply Swahili for "S/he is not
playing it as I [like it to be played/play it]."

The bottom line here is that it requires no special training or even any
musical intelligence to hold an opinion. Anyone can hold an opinion.
A person with an IQ of 40 can hold an opinion about the musical
value of anything, and that opinion is just as good as that of the
leading scholar at the Munich Bach Academy. It may not be as
accurate, but it is still just as good. It's an opinion and, as such,
cannot be challenged because an opinion is a statement about one's
feelings. It is, by definition, unarguable. It is, by definition, the very
antithesis of a statement of fact, though it may be as true. However,
truth and falsity are irrelevant to opinion. An opinion is an
expression of an emotion.

And if that is as far as opinions went, this would be a closed subject.
But the problem with opinions is not that they are true or false, but
that the rest of the world hears them and forms an opinion about the
opinion maker based on its content and style of delivery. And because
I now have formed an opinion on those who said "The Three Queens
Stink!," I will be careful before I believe anything they say in the
future, not because of the opinion, but because of how empty it was of
any substance. And that is what I think happens to most people who
offer unsubstantiated opinions. They get the reputation of being pains
in the ass. Unfairly they are seen as having opinions on all subjects
(even when they don't), that are given when un-asked for (even if
asked for), and "what-the-hell-do-they-know-anyway" (and they may
know a great deal but just don't express it well). But unfair or not,
that is how people begin to see them and react to them. It is the
nature of the world to distance oneself from people who give
unsolicited and uncorroborated opinions at every possible opportunity.
Don't yell at me. I didn't make up the rules and I don't know who
did.

The two rules are these (and they were old at the time of Plato's
grandfather):

Give an opinion with some technical substance and most people
will listen even if they disagree with that opinion. They may
even respect the opinion while rejecting it, or they may come to
hold it, eventually.

Give an opinion with no technical substance and the only ones
who will listen are those who happen to agree with that
opinion. The others will have no respect for it, ignore it, and
may even decide to do a doo-doo dump on the opinion holder.

So when I read all those notes about the three queens, I searched hard
for someone who would say, "Here are some objective reasons why I
don't like Emma Thompson's playing." That would have been very
helpful because it would have enabled me at least to understand why
her playing engendered such negative comments. And I would have
enjoyed it because I like a well-stated opinion that derives from some
well-articulated hypotheses. Frankly, I don't remember anyone doing
that very well or at all. Do you?

So we wound up with a lot of comments tossed into the air, debris fell
everywhere, people
became polarized, players rushed to the defense of the attacked, some
very good players refused to even participate because their noses got
out of joint, a piece of the sky fell on my head, a wild beast ran away
with my shoes, and, except for the fact that I knew how people felt, I
DIDN'T LEARN A DAMN THING!!! And I harbor a grudge for
anyone who causes time to be taken away without repaying me with
some knowledge.

Even an argument with no possible conclusion should leave the
participants smarter when they get done than before they started. I
don't feel any smarter and the reputations of at least three colleagues
have been smudged, possibly wrongfully.

It takes a smart, articulate person to be a good critic. Musicians are
not perfect, and the purpose of criticism is to let them know that they
need to improve and in what specific ways they need to improve.
"Player A stinks" is not a useful statement and, when I hear it, I
assume that the person who said it doesn't know anything, can't do
anything, and certainly cannot be a clarinet player. They may play the
clarinet, but it takes a lot of character to be a clarinet player, and that
appears to be missing in the statement "Player A stinks."

Oh yes. There is a practical issue involved. If one gets the reputation
of being from the school of holders of the "Player A stinks" opinion,
colleagues will begin to distance themselves from one. Work will begin
to dry up. Hyenas will appear around supper time. And eventually,
the only gigs you can get are bar mitzvahs in Anchorage or else
Mahler symphonies at the South Pole. This does not apply if you play
like Stanley Drucker, however.
====================================
Dan Leeson, Los Altos, California
(leeson@-----.edu)
====================================