And express that clearly. All opinions really are welcome as far as I’m concerned as long as they are motivated. That way the reader can also decide what value to attach to them.
Yeah, but that requires a critic to realise that all they are doing is presenting a point of view, not a definitive artistic critique.
I mean, I think zartzonz are, almost without exception, unmitigated kack, but I don’t expect musical history to change to accommodate my viewpoint.
Well, what is disturbing here is a world class pianist gets dissed without ANY concrete points (critic clearly does not know the music, is not any sort of musician or pianist)
And then :GERMROZE: can forget half da prog, get lost in the CUNT HUNT
and New York Times calls him a great virtuoso and last romantic
All irrelevant scum
I think there are good critics and bad critics, well-meaning critics and malevolent ones.
Some are also blatantly paid for.
I mean seriously. forgets half the prog n pedals thru da rest with some of the ugliest sound to ever come from a piano
And gets a glowing review from the NYT cuck Alan Kozin.
Artists should play whatever da FUCK dey want IF they stand behind deir ideals
And those that believe they have a final a say in what is wrong and right just need to know that even all PUSSIES look unique.
Well, it happens.
Some newzpapah mofo once gave me a glowing review cumplimenting ma virtuosity (sic) aftah a rectal in which I played sum rapily, fucked up a ezquizze and finished by having a cumpletely random memory lapse in da burglah arpz orgy and improing into da coda
Da only gets glowing reviews and if there is ANY occasional criticism, he is accused of playing too “virtuosically”
Ha! My ass!
And their whore daughters!
It is like the visual arts, hang a banana on the wall and make ART
I think a lot of critics start with an opinion and work backwards to construct their supporting prose, whereas obviously they should use their ears (if they work) to construct an opinion.
Honestly, to criticize certain rep - one needs to have a certain level of familiarity with it.
At any rate - critics ARE irrelevant.
And Vondracock should keep playing da Schubert Bb however da FUCK he wants.
Rosenthal used to call out critics on their bullshit too. Juz… massive Rezpek
Da TM main source of fury is knowing just what shitty and unqualified PRO TEACHER mofos are out there.
Certain people like Kapslutsky jus deserve to be implicated in a random staged crackdown on corruption, lined up against the wall and shot
They might even accept their own mediocrity in the 20 second it takes the firing squad to get into position.
No, that is not too harsh.
Music, the noblest of all arts has decended into a cesspool of nonsensical corruption and the blind leading the seeing.
It’s ok. I’ll have the pleasure of reading some very nice obituaries one day unless I croak before these demon scum is offspring
Yes, I totally agree. And the sheer level of BASIC failures of musical criticism which I’ve seen leads me to conclude that a lot of reviews are conducted without the fucker even having looked at the score.
Exactly. The fact that many performances are available does not make one an expert. Lol
This is as bad as those fat pedo fucks (who can’t climb up a flight of stairs without reaching for their inhaler) that coach pro sports teams
Da ziff recs were TRASHED in the papers shortly before his 1958 NY debut, and his career in the US just did not take off
He simply could not ask for the same high fees he got in Europe, and wisely decided to play more in France - where he was a celebrity
I’ve always wondered about the motivation for this. A commie threat to da ?
Da Ho was retired until 1965
Critics had a great deal of power back then.
Cziffra just was too ballsy for the New York Times cuck that gave his records a shit review
The whole point was hyping up the delayed debut (he cancelled in 1957 due to a hand injury) with LP recordings - and those were trashed in the paper.
Harold Schoenberg was pretty sniffy about da Ziff too iirc.
I think he’s mostly saying go ahead and critique my playing, but ad hominem comments about my character or person are over the line. Seriously, what the hell gives a critic the right to discuss an artist’s maturity, outside of a musical context? That was just weird and I’d probably be a bit pissed too.
Agree with @iamcanadian here
In Norway we have this quasi intellectual magazine, and all they do is criticize the conductor Vasily Petrenko for being arrogant. Fuck you! Petrenko is a great conductor, and those critics are full of crap. They even critized him for his «dancing»/movements during a performance of Ravel’s La valse
I suppose he probably rejected da militant lesbo looking chick when she hit on him after da rectal
Well he said this:
And went on to say this: