He seemed to find the first half pleasant enough. But not so the second half:
Thereafter, though, things soon bogged down. Kenneth Frazelle's Piano Trio, commissioned for the occasion, turned out to be a long and rather shapeless recycling of ideas from Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Ravel. Frazelle's work at least bore the marks of modesty and honesty.And then,
For truly overweening emptiness, there was Tan Dun's "Elegy: Snow in June," a pointless 25-minute jumble of sounds for cello and four percussionists.Each of the percussionists . . . had what seemed like several dozen instruments at his disposal - none of which was played for more than five seconds at a time - and cellist Andrés Díaz sat in the middle offering driblets of melody and squeaky interjections. The goal seemed to be to use the sheer profusion of incident to distract listeners from the lack of musical ideas.
I won't critique the writing, since someone elsewhere seems to have taken that up as their niche.
I've read enough reviews by Kosman to know that for the most part, he is a fair reviewer. He knows his stuff. He seems open-minded. Sometimes I feel like he gets carried away with his over-utilization of metaphors, but that's a minor quibble.
Still, I wonder about reviews like this. It's not that I expect reviewers to always like what they listen to. Nor do I think that it is the reviewer's job to help or support artists or performing groups (though I'm sure rave reviews don't hurt). And I certainly don't expect reviewers to gloss over something that is truly bad.
But can music be this bad? Here is a recording of it. (The link doesn't seem to work too well on my computer.)
According to info I found online, Tan Dun's piece is supposed to be an elegy for victims of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Kosman may not have liked it, but such an undertaking sounds very personal and significant to me. It certainly doesn't sound "empty" or "pointless".
I'm not trying to undermine a reviewer's expertise or his job, but part of me wonders whether a review that is this acerbic serves any meaningful purpose. If I go to a performance of this work, even though usually I try not to take reviews at face-value, I or anyone who has read this review will now go into the performance with a bias.
Could he have just said something to the effect of, "this wasn't my cup of tea" or "the concept was nice, but it failed in the execution" instead of calling it overweening? What about the piece was so vacuous and pompous? Were the themes not developed enough? Was it just so "out there" it didn't work? Too gimmicky? Too "Eastern" sounding?
I wish that given how critical he is, there was more room for elaboration. While I grant that reviewers have the right to write scathing criticisms and have a right to their opinions, negative or otherwise, I do feel that a) because experiencing music is somewhat subjective (True, no good musician would dispute the greatness of Beethoven, Bartok, etc., but most music runs the gamut in terms of quality); b) new music already has enough "barriers to entry" for many of his potentially concertgoing readers to "get" than say, Bach or Brahms; and c) unlike a well-known piece by any of these aforementioned "B" composers, my guess is that many readers may not be familiar with Tan Dun's piece; that when one writes a review about pieces that he feels this strongly about, more details are in order.
Such an explanation would be much more useful to readers (and not to mention, to Tan Dun, if he reads this review) than say, "This work is feces and serves no purpose."
Not that Kosman's job is to champion new music, but his review also doesn't help quell the fears of new music-phobes who might be further dissuaded from attending future concerts or taking risks with this genre.
I admit to being this new music-phobe at times. I've definitely become more interested in contemporary music over the last few years, particularly since joining an ensemble whose mission is to promote such works. But this "interest" extends mostly to "brand name" composers who are hardly "new" anymore. I am also open to new things if the price is right, but I confess that when I did see this last program for the Music @ Menlo series, at the price point they were offering this new music concert, I wasn't willing to "risk" it, given that the only name I recognized was Tan Dun's.
I know that is closed-minded of me, but after reading Kosman's review, I'm not left with much incentive to open it up much.
12 comments:
I've heard "Snow in June" in concert, and I have the CD, and it's a great piece. It's certainly far from pointless. Also, it should be point out that it's one of his earliest works since studying in America, if that changes the way you look at things.
I'll offer this caveat: like a lot of Tan's other works, it doesn't necessarily record that well, so if you are able to get your hands on the CD, keep that in mind. It's too bad you missed the concert.
You know, I thought about giving this the royal treatment over our way, perhaps poking fun at Joshua's biological...ahem. It is pretty uncharacteristic for him to be so scathing. But, I'll defend him a bit.
Since we're both familiar with his work, I don't think we can question his enthusiasm and support for new music. He's just calling it as he sees it, which I think is quite fair. Heck, 50% of established repertoire pieces are clunkers, which means that 90% of new music is headed for history's trash heap.
But, as pertaining to whether or not he has more of a responsibility to foster more interest in new music...I don't know. Could he have said the same without sounding so pissy? Sure. Does that turn people off? Sure.
Should we have blind faith in a critic's assessment? No. It seems to me that since classical music is such a personal experience--as opposed to say 50 Cent, who might not be as intellectually demanding all the time and whose music is designed for a larger crowd--that it makes sense to try it out for yourself, without the writing on the wall (i.e., a critic's opinion or even performance notes).
But, could he help foster interest? Absolutely. I'm just not sure he can ethically temper his opinions to placate those who are lukewarm to new music.
That's all I got.
Cheers!
That's cool that you got to see it!
The tickets were $70ish, I think, which is even high to go see all of Bartok's string quartets, but at least w/ Bartok, I'm guaranteed to like the music. I hope to see it live sometime (though not for $70).
E-I kindof wished you guys did comment on this, though I don't think there was anything wrong with his writing per se. I'm not disputing his opinions. I agree that most of new music/contemporary music, etc. isn't really on the same scale as Bartok, etc., so maybe this piece was as Mr. Kosman described it. And I haven't listened to it, so I can't rebut it either way. I'm not asking him to temper his opinions to pander to new music-phobes so much as wishing I had more context so I know exactly what he is criticizing.
I think that 90 percent of a critic's job is to write well and write about a concert that they saw, so if it is negative occasionally, that's fine/expected.
Still, these are human beings and personal works we are criticizing. . .does anyone (reader, composer, potential concertgoers) gain from a review that simply says a work is self-indulgent, vacuous, etc. Did he need to be this vituperative? I don't know, but I still wish papers would maybe allow for expanded length for context in cases like this.
The one thing his review did do is pique my curiosity about this piece.
Have you seen/heard it, btw?
Anzu — Thanks for this very thoughtful and measured critique of my review (and thanks, as ever, Empiricus, for the welcome show of support). Lemme try to say a few words in my own defense.
What's happened in this review is the confluence of a handful of different constructive principles. One is that in ordering a review of a program involving several different pieces (happens all the time on my beat, almost never to the theater, film and book critics), I generally try to lead with a) the pieces that are most newsworthy (premieres, big names, etc.) and b) the pieces I have the most interesting things to say about. Ties, believe it or not, are always resolved in favor of more positive reactions. But I don't feel the need to allot space evenly. So when you get to the end of almost any one of my reviews, you're going to find the dregs — the stuff that was least successful, least interesting, least conducive to discussion — and moreover you're going to find it covered in a fraction of the space that I devoted to the good or interesting stuff at the top of the review.
That's one thing. Another is that there is some music about which there simply isn't much to say. Sometimes you can say, "Well, that was crap" — and sometimes you can't even say that much! Once in a while I've been known to wind up a review with literally nothing more than an acknowledgment that a particular piece was on the program ("Joe Blotnick's String Quartet No. 2 rounded out the evening.").
Finally, the third and perhaps most relevant point. Most mediocre or bad art is merely depressing, because it grows out of lack of talent, or the adoption of wrong-headed ideas, or a good idea not followed through on, or whatever. But some bad art is actively enraging, because it derives from laziness or bad faith or false consciousness. And that kind of stuff pisses me right off. (A personal aside: Despite my inexplicable reputation as a ball-buster, I actually place comparatively little of what I hear into that category. You should see the real dragons like Martin Bernheimer or Alan Rich or the late Harold Schonberg taking down a performance or piece that didn't please them; it's a whole other story.)
Anyway: My personal opinion — and it's one that is neither universally shared nor unique to me, if you catch my drift — is that Tan Dun is not merely a bad composer, but a fraudulent one. He's figured out how to sustain a starry career by recycling a very limited bag of party tricks — rip the paper! drip the water! transcribe a few notes of erhu music for the cello! — into a series of glib, flashy pieces that generally don't go much beyond that surface gimmickry. For all I know he could be a good composer if he cared to be; but I don't see any evidence that he's even making the attempt. Consequently, I cut him very little slack.
So put that all together — a piece that is not merely unimpressive but actively vacuous, on a program with some better music and some perhaps equally bad music (Frazelle) that is nonetheless sincere — and this is what you wind up with: an end-of-the-column dismissal that is more vehement than most. I'd do it again the same way tomorrow.
But look: I don't even think my criticism was as unsubstantial as you make it out to be. It's not as though I simply tossed out a few words of opprobrium and signed off. My main objection to that piece was that it called for 4,000 different percussion instruments and didn't use any of them in any sustained way; it's the classic Tan Dun "dazzle 'em with bullshit" strategy. I think that's a legitimate and substantive critique; and even though I didn't make the point at length, I made it.
Doncha think?
OK, I'll stop now. When I started writing I was going to add a few remarks as well on the concept of "supporting new music" but I think I've gone on long enough. Maybe we can take that up another time.
P.S. On a side note, I'm confused by your reference to my "over-utilization of metaphors." The link leads to a Brahms review which as far as I can tell includes nothing more metaphorical than a single reference to "money in the bank" which is perhaps less a metaphor than a cliché. Am I missing something, or did you have a different review in mind?
Hi. Nice to (sort of) meet you. Thank you for stopping by and providing further context, which I appreciate (though yikes. I value the opportunity to hear your perspective, but do you do this for every blogger/troller that "ghettoizes" you? I guess the journalist's job isn't quite done with writing the article--he/she then must defend himself against ghettoizing bloggers? But that's off-topic. . .).
First, I want to say that although I have my own opinions (and being able to express them freely is the point of a blog, right?), it's ultimately your column, you've been doing this for years, etc., so my intent is not to undermine your expertise. So I hope you take my comments as nothing more than my opinions and not as my telling you how to do your job.
It was informative to read about the way you structure your reviews, b/c I have wondered about that sometimes, particularly when you write negative reviews, which isn't too often. But when I read negative reviews in particular, I often wish reviewers provided more context, more explanation. A one-sentence dismissal of someone's playing/conducting at the very end sounds almost like an afterthought ("oh btw, ________") than something deliberated. Also, as a performer, of course we prefer positive reviews, but when we get negative reviews, "the ensemble had pitch problems when singing a capella" is much more constructive than, say, "the ensemble sounded lousy", for ex.
After reading your explanations about Tan Dun, I understand where you are coming from. And sorry-- I didn't mean to imply that it was unsubstantiated; I was more shocked by the strong tone, but if you stand by it, that's that. As I was telling Empiricus, I don't dispute that your opinions are valid (even if they sound a bit harsh, but degustibus non est disputandum).
I think this might be more of a problem with word limits and medium and my own biases as a reader and a "wish list" for reviewers, which pertains to new music.
If you write a critical review of a Beethoven symphony, a Janacek quartet, etc., I know enough about either that I know how much of a filter you're providing. (And actually, truth be told, I almost never read reviews to learn about the music; I read it for its good writing.) But for a Tan Dun, Xenakis, etc., I don't know as much about the piece, so the filter is denser if that makes any sense. I mean, ideally, I have the opportunity to go listen to it myself, but with new music (particularly pieces I haven't heard or didn't get to see), I'm sort of at the reviewer's mercy to mediate the experience. As such, I want as much context as possible. (Again, I'm not trying to tell you how to do your job; maybe it's not the job of a critic to provide context!) And then if it is a negative review of a new piece, I want even more context, b/c the review has already made me wary of going to experience it.
Unfortunately, with word limits, I realize this isn't always possible. Not everyone gets a word allowance like Alex Ross. But if people at the editorial level thought that a paper's job was to inform people, (I realize it might be panglossian of me to expect this) then what would be more helpful for readers, particularly wrt. new music, is that when critics do write such harsh strictures, there should be more space for fleshing out of ideas and more explanation.
Like when a critic says Nielson is north of good and considerably south of great, I want concrete examples, damnit. Maybe Nielson is south of great, but I'm not going to buy this, w/o further elaboration.
Anyway, thanks again for further elaboration--all of the stuff you mentioned about Tan Dun's piece in the comments--is the kind of detail/context I guess I was seeking.
As for the comment about over-utilizing metaphors--Heh. Maybe "metaphors" is the wrong word. I think way back when, I either commented about this on Detritus or they made a comment about the tendency of some reviewers to have ornate, flowery, language. I was going to blog about this (and maybe use your Brahms piece as an example?), but then got sidetracked. It's a general comment about classical music reviews in general. Mr. Janos Gereben, for example, has a very limpid inornate writing style, whereas your reviews tend to be the more "flowery" (descriptive). There is nothing wrong with either, but I think this particular review, there were so many (what I called metaphors, but maybe they're just descriptives), that my mind was on sensory overload by the time I got to the middle where I was trying to imagine a crisp photograph, big bones, and imagine how such playing/reading sounded.
It seems that classical music critics are the only reviewing sorts that like to do this; movie critics rarely write about how a scene in a movie was like a hangover or elephants lumbering along, etc., and if a restaurant critic did this with food (the burst of flavor was like a water balloon popping; the abalone rolled down my throat like Kurtag playing a smooth piano glissando, etc. Ok, I'm not good at this, but you get my drift) the way classical music critics describe music. . .my mind would implode from sensory overload.
Oops. I think I meant Nielsen, not Nielson.
Ah. Good stuff here, people.
I agree with anzu that once your explanation of your understanding of Tan Dun's music in general is gleaned (sorry, passive voice) your review makes much more sense. Word limits, and all that, like anzu and E. said.
This all speaks to the reason that we do what we do over there, and why we generally like Mr Kosman, even if we do disagree occasionally. Which is great.
Whee! Dialogue!
That's an interesting description of Janos Gereben's writing - I find him very breezy and relaxed, not sure I'd use "limpid," but I do wish I wrote as well as he does.
Joshua, thanks for the comments on how you structure your reviews.
I have not heard this particular Tan Dun piece, only The First Emperor. I thought it was tripe, and said so here, at great length.
Incidentally, Janos Gereben's opinion of Tan Dun's is identical to Joshua's; see, especially, his review of Water Passion.
Janos Gereben is one of my favorite reviewers. Thanks for the links to his and your reviews.
I wasn't trying to dispute Mr. Kosman's opinions of Tan Dun, (it sounds like most of you agree with his assessment of Tan's works) but see, I just read Mr. Gereben's review and yours, and granted, his is 2-3 times the length of Mr. Kosman's review, (whereas you have no word limit, since it is your blog), and I know there are different time constraints, but these reviews you linked to offer far more detail. I get the same message as I did in Mr. Kosman's review--that the work was flashy and big on ideas, but musically vacuous; that he didn't like it; that Dun takes the easy way out--with more context and language that is far less harsh. Well, ok, he does compare him to Andrew Lloyd Weber, (as do you) but even here, he says "it might be a stretch. . .."
And your review also talks about the weakness in the libretto; both of you mention some positive things (Tan being excellent conductor, singers being talented, etc.), and then elaborate about your feelings about Tan, compare it to other works (Cage 4:33! Messiaen).
I realize I'm comparing apples and pears here, but this is less about me disputing Mr. Kosman's opinions (which he has sufficiently validated in his follow-up comments) and more my wanting papers to give him more leeway with his word count (hence my title of this post, which is "new way of reviewing new music").
Either way, thank you to Mr. Kosman for stopping by and offering your perspective. I have no idea how you took my criticism (I wasn't trying to be harsh or disrespectful, so I hope I didn't come across that way), but it is humbling to see that as well-established as you are and as good as you are at this, you are still open to (constructive?) criticism, even from some random blogger.
Thanks, anzu.
Space constraints can have quite an effect on reviews. I have never taken a word count for Chronicle reviews - Joshua, what are you usually allowed? Our editor as SFCV suggests 600 to 800 words, largely because of editing costs. (My reviews there typically run longer than that, however. My latest was 1700 words.) As you note, nobody gets Alex Ross's word count.
I'm not sure if you've seen the discussion at Greg Sandow's blog about classical music reviews, but along the way, Times reviewer Steve Smith pointed out in some frustration that they generally get 350 words, and there are limits to what a reviewer can do in that amount of space. (Suffice it to say, as an aside, that I think Greg's arguments are flawed.)
my guess: 300-400 words, which is nothing. That's about as much as movie reviews seem to get, but for 3 or 4 works, in the case of classical music reviews.
Post a Comment