 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2006-02-16 01:10
I have been asked, at the last minute, to review a performance of a chamber orchestra for a local publication. This is my first time in such a role, and I was told that I was asked because I was knowledgeable, listened well, and was self-confident about my opinions. I think that was a compliment. I'm flattered to have been asked.
That said, I'm looking for suggestions about what you folks feel you want to read in a review. I have searched previous threads and read reviews of performances. I am to be hearing the Ibert Concertino da Camera for Alto Saxophone, performed by Gary Louie. I will have an opportunity to attend a reception prior to the performance event, and am not sure what is appropriate or intelligent to ask. I know that Mr. Louie's performance of this piece is considered to be excellent.
I'd like to approach this with some intelligence. Your help is much appreciated!
Sue Tansey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-02-16 01:40
Be nice to Gary! He's a local boy from the DC area, grew up around the same time I did -- I think he used to concertize together with another local hero, clarinetist Charles Stier.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2006-02-16 06:51
Cool, actually being able to write a review based on what people want to read. Way too many undergrad concert reports under my belt.
So cool, in fact, that I find it hard to give advice. I know what sort of stuff I would write, but I have a bit of a skewed view on the concertgoing experience and am unapologetic ("his incessant stomping could have stopped Rimsky-Korsakov's grave from spinning" is a personal favorite).
Some things you *might* consider...
If the music is well-played, do the musicians play well because of, or despite, the conducting?
Was any one particular instrumentalist particularly good? Did anyone "save" the performance and the evening?
How was the hall? Comfortable or stifling? Did the acoustics add to or distract from the performance? Standard sardine-facing-forward seating, tables, balconies?
How is the music? Familiar standards (music-snob for "boring music"), or unexpected surprises (music-snob for "holy crap, it was written after 1930 and this isn't a new music concert!")?
What other music, intentional or unintentional, pre- or post-dating it, did this music have parallels to?
Was the audience into it? Did they want to be there for the music, or were they more of the "we're here because classical music = culture" crowd?
How was the range of instrumentation? Do you ever wish the composer would have put more high or low notes in for certain instruments? Did the orchestration make things unduly difficult for the performers?
If it's a piece you know, were things performed in ways unfamiliar to you?
Note that, in some circles, the word "interesting" can mean "I didn't care for the concert, but I like the people and don't want to bash the event."
Above all, try to avoid the following:
On <date>, the <ensemble> performed a <good> concert at <venue>. The repertoire consisted of a variety of music in contrasting styles from multiple genres. The evening began with <piece 1>, a majestic fanfare. It was followed by <piece 2>, whose slow, flowing adagio lines complemented the fanfare <nicely>. The ensemble continued with a brisk, energetic performance of <composer>'s <fast piece>, ensuring that <venue's nickname>'s younger patrons remained amused.... etc.
You can practically write one review once, fill in the blanks, and apply it to thousands of performances every year. Note that the second sentence has no variables, and neither would a couple dozen more if this was full-length. These are awful to read.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2006-02-16 06:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-02-16 07:21
About what EEBaum said of using the word interesting - some teachers in my universoty who studied in the Berklee college (in Boston) said if someone there says your music is interesting, it means you can start looking for the nearest trash can.... but in my university interesting is pretty much the biggest compliment and means your music is unpredictable.
An overall suggestion about reviews. Try to have your own unique style. What you write is important but how you write it in even more important in reviews in my opinion. For example write with humor, sinicism, etc. I think reviewers should try to be original and interesting (in the good meaning of the word) and not use the same old jokes and same boring ideas again....
If you really hated the concert, I suggest not to be brutal and write a horrible review. Try to keep the originality and humor and make the review interesting, while leaving the reader with the impression the concert wasn't really good.
Just mho.
Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-02-16 09:58
'Interesting': in the performance of James MacMillan's 'The Exorcism of Rio Sumpul' which I attended, the man banging an iron fence railing with a club hammer. = Quite remarkable, thought-provoking and memorable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2006-02-16 15:45
Some of Ibert's stuff is "interesting" / remarkable.
Since I don't know this piece, I'd be listening to several recorded performances.
I just started doing that with the clarinet literature that seems most accessible to my "advancing" competence. Its amazing how differently artists "interpret"/mess with the standard literature.
Piercing tone quality, s-l-o-w tempi, I can play this faster than anybody else, and I will, so there (because I can), holding up the accompaniment for a little exercise in rubato, suweeet sounds, ...
Some times, I think, "Hey, that's cool;" and the next time I play it, it just seems childish, or it sucks!
It should help to really know the context.
Then, if you dig the performance, say so.
Please share your work with the BB.
Thanks
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2006-02-16 15:52
I've never reviewed a concert and probably will never be asked to do so, but I think a review should be an expression of opinion and it should be clear that it is opinion (i.e., someone else may think differently). To express such, I believe one should use "I' and "me" frequently, as in "I felt that", "I enjoyed", "I found", "I would have liked it if", "bored me to the point", etc. Absolute statements (like this one) should be avoided, because you are not the absolute authority. What you thought was trite, the person in the next seat might have found exciting and refreshing. An additional effect of doing what I suggest is that the performers, if you say something negative, are more likely to consider what you say than to dismiss you as being a know-it-all [insert bad word here].
(Another good code word: eclectic, meaning some people might enjoy it, but it's too weird for most.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 3dogmom
Date: 2006-02-17 02:29
EEBaum, what a great response. You should be writing this review, not I. I will gratefully accept all the wonderful ideas all of you have offered, and share my results. Thank you.
Sue Tansey
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2006-02-17 06:41
Glad to help, for what it's worth
Don, when I hear "eclectic" I immediately think of vibraphones playing sparse minimalism. Don't know why, but I do. Perhaps because every time I hear someone use that word, a vibraphone was present. To me, it means "this was considered far out and edgy in the 70s." :P
Regarding "interesting," there is one and only one person I know from whom I consider it a huge compliment. If he doesn't like it, he'll call it "uninteresting crap."
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2006-02-17 07:06
I think what I meant with 'interesting' was that there are many better words. Say what you mean. It can be very difficult - which is one reason why professional writers are few and far between. Dull writing is characterised by a liberal scattering of simple adjectives. It can be very hard to break the mould - especially if you're trying to second-guess what your audience expects. Personally I wouldn't listen to recordings. I'd make sure I had some idea of the general style of the piece and judge the performance on its own merits. *On that day*, what did the piece say? Great work is different every time you hear it - that's why you can listen to it over and over again.
And if you have to criticize, criticize the performance, not the performer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
