Blog Post 9: November 12

The introduction on analysis in Oxford Music Online presented a very interesting thought by stating that analysis is a form of criticism, or the construction of interpretations in order to make the work appreciated more. This is striking to me because I have never really considered analysis in this way before. Typically when I think of analysis it involved harmonic analysis and notating the chords that the composer used throughout the piece. While I do realize that this is a tool used to help better understand the music, I had never really thought of it as criticism before. I realize that criticism is one extreme of what analysis is, but I still find it to be an interesting thought.

I find it interesting that we do not know the exact origin of musical criticisms. Today I just expect to be able to read a criticism of almost anything new that comes out. Personally I always enjoy criticisms, even though they can be controversial at times. I think part of the reason I enjoy them is I like to compare what my own opinions to what they have to say. Honestly, if something gets a bad review it doesn't always entirely deter me from seeing or listening to that work myself. I think it is very healthy for many different opinions to exist on various subjects, and when these opinions are present it makes for great discourse. I also wonder, before The Times of London first appointed a professional musician as critic, who served as critic? It seems to me that the best possible option for a music critic would be a professionally trained musician.

I absolutely loved the article "Music Criticism has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting." It perfectly summed up my frustrations with pop music and our culture in the recent years. There is very little new music released each year that I would consider to be quality music and I think it is impart due to this issue. By reporting on artist's lifestyles rather than actually critiquing the musical output, we are making consumers and listeners only care about an artist's way of life. We have created a culture where artists who flaunt money and live recklessly are popular, rather than artist who actually create something new and meaningful. I would love to see this issue fixed and go back to actual quality criticisms of new music.

The article "Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking" made me laugh a little. In the beginning of the article he pointed to Gioia's article about music criticism stating that he probably went a little too far, but it seemed to me that Seitz went just as far when complaining about filmmaking criticism. This article seemed to further my thoughts that criticisms need to be more in depth. Seitz's main argument was that critics need to know more about the filmmaking process, which I would totally agree with and say that music is the same way. To me this seems like an obvious truth, if you're going to write about something,  you should probably know how it works. But, somehow we've strayed from this in our culture. Both authors presented great points and I would love to see their suggestions implemented in criticisms.

The Taruskin Challenge is an excellent project. I have often wondered what it would take to read through a work like the Oxford History of Western Music but these guys actually did it! I am very impressed at their dedication, and it seems like their project ended up being much larger than they expected. The plan they set forth did not seem too strenuous, 10 pages per day seems very reasonable. Perhaps it is worth a shot!