The Guardian is having a debate about this, which makes sobering reading for those of us who sometimes try.
You'll have noticed a heading in my sidebar called 'Musician Friends'. Heck, some of my best friends are musicians. I've never pretended otherwise. Do I review them? Sometimes: a) if my editors know darn well that we're friends, but still send me their CDs; b) if I've enough faith in their abilities to know that the review can be genuinely positive; c) if I know they have enough faith in me not to take it badly if the review is negative. Honest reviewing has sometimes strengthened friendships, because it can result in genuine mutual respect.
I treat friendly overtures from some musicians with suspicion; one can usually sense the 'caution needed' occasions pretty fast. A few experiences have left me cynical - some people don't bother to disguise their ulterior motives, but even individuals you've trusted for years sometimes cool off when they realise you're spending more time writing novels and less editing magazines, or, worse, that your 'art' (yes, "general fiction" is an art) is suddenly as much in the limelight as theirs.
True friends, though, are the dearest and most valued people on earth, and if they happen to be terrific musicians, so much the better. And the interesting thing is that these friends don't regard me as a critic at all.
5 comments:
You're a critic? Oh yeah, I guess you are a critic!
In the case of certain critics, it is hard to imagine them becoming friends with a musician since they know so much more about music. The highest-trained player would be reduced to silence by the flood of wisdom. The same sort of critic is a very sensitive animal too. Try attacking one: he will at once cry "libel!".
"The Composer Must Be Immune To Criticism." - Gioseffo Zarlino, 1558
It's a time-honored tradition. As long as the artist realizes that the critic exists for the non-artist, and vice versa, no problems. It's when the critic presumes that the artist ought to give a... er... whit ;^) about what the critic thinks (Or, alternately, that the artist falls into the trap of giving a rip about what a critic thinks) that problems arise. It makes no matter whether the critic is an artist on the side: A critic is just a critic.
Let the readers of the Arts and Entertainment Sections care about critics: No self-respecting artist cares about them at all.
Nice ones! Thanks, guys.
With my 'artist's hat' on, I have to say it's b++++y difficult not to be upset by a nasty review, especially when it's evident that the critic hasn't read your book since she hasn't noticed who the main character is. And there's nothing, but nothing, you can do about it.
With my 'critic's' hat on, or at least journalist's, I could add that if journalists/critics didn't occasionally establish friendly relationships with musicians, a lot of creative things might not happen. Such as Korngold festivals and short stories about Mozart...
I think critics sometimes fall into the trap of criticising without having much of an idea of how difficult it is just to play the notes in the correct sequence. Shouldn't a performance be perfect? Well, I'd rather hear something with a few off notes, which told the story of the piece in an interesting way, than a performance in which playing it safe was the overriding consideration. But you can guess that some critics will just zero in on the off notes, at the expense of the musical aspects of the performance.
Post a Comment