A Pet Peeve Of Mine

I shouldn't have even used the word critique. I would just like to say where the music happening and who is putting it on.

Once the music happens, I want to talk to the composer, ask him/her if it worked out the way they thought, and also ask him/her if they have any upcoming concerts.

If I want feedback on my music, I'll go to fellow composers or audience members, NOT critics. What do critics do, anyway? They don't really help anyone, composer or public. The public doesn't need a critic to tell them what to listen to or what concerts to attend; those too lazy to know what sort of music they like shouldn't even be attending. I'd rather have one enthusiastic audience member than five thousand who'd just as soon be at a rock concert or home watching TV.

Critics are about the same thing as entertainment-news anchors.

The last paragraph MENTIONED the two newer works but didn't give any word on the performance or even a general idea on what the pieces were about. I mean, I know that these works are new, and that tracking down the composer to talk to him about them is often unrealistic but we're talking about journalistic duty....

....The worst part was that the critic didn't even mention the fuckup with the Adams piece. I coudn't believe it. Surely something so dramatic deserves a passing mention. I mean, that's what critics do isn't it?

...discuss.

Just with regards to your story as opposed to the topic in general:

That would have horrified me! I mean, I hate that. I wish YOU could have written the danged review.

I can't believe there wasn't more discussion of the newer works. That should of been one of the key points. Newer composers need as much mention as possible, especially when they are creative and the majority of the program!

I guess it's to be expected, but it's still sad. Most people probably didn't notice. However, the ones who really care did, that's the unfortunate part.

If I want feedback on my music, I'll go to fellow composers or audience members, NOT critics. What do critics do, anyway? They don't really help anyone, composer or public. The public doesn't need a critic to tell them what to listen to or what concerts to attend; those too lazy to know what sort of music they like shouldn't even be attending. I'd rather have one enthusiastic audience member than five thousand who'd just as soon be at a rock concert or home watching TV.

Critics are about the same thing as entertainment-news anchors.

I agree. However, some kind of media outlet would be a great benefit to the promotion of our music. I think

that a "review" should more or less be an interview with the composer and maybe performer(s). In my example, I would have loved to talk to Mark Fewer(the soloist) to find out what the hell happened.

Think about it, if something went horrible with the premier performance of a new work, you'd be able to save a little face by making up all kinds of excuses as to why

it didn't work!