I thoroughly enjoyed reading this--it's a subject obviously close to my heart. I especially liked the comment about not overthinking. As one who has done my share of academic writing (and a lot more such reading) I turned to writing reviews because I could say what I wanted and find ways to be creative in communicating my musical experiences, things that I felt very constrained about when attempting to be "properly academic." The result is that I take my writing cues from the unique aspects of each event.
A friend is going to the Amsterdam Mahler Festival next month and hopes to write it up, but he has little experience and was pumping me for advice. All I could tell him was to pay close attention and simply write about what he experienced. (We've been doing background prepping on the symphonies since January.) I think review writing should implicitly acknowledge how subjective this process is. There are objective things that can be described, but their meaning depends on the context of the whole review, which ultimately depends on the reviewer's subjectivity, which can emerge from the language itself. (One problem with some academic writing is that it attempts to conceal this.) I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject--I hope you continue to explore it!
I'm so glad you liked it Larry! I hoped you might, as I always so enjoy reading your reviews. There's something so nice about the "contained-ness" of a review, both it being a reaction to one performance, and it being a kind of form or "container." Contained without feeling constrained. And you are so right about subjectivity -- concert reviews really are a strange form of music journalism, if they really are journalism, as one so often thinks of journalism as striving for objectivity. (Academic writing sometimes, too) But there's no pretending to do that here. Thank you for your thoughts <3
Hi Max
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this--it's a subject obviously close to my heart. I especially liked the comment about not overthinking. As one who has done my share of academic writing (and a lot more such reading) I turned to writing reviews because I could say what I wanted and find ways to be creative in communicating my musical experiences, things that I felt very constrained about when attempting to be "properly academic." The result is that I take my writing cues from the unique aspects of each event.
(The latest example is here:
https://theberkshireedge.com/concert-review-pan-slavic-fun-with-strings-attached/ ).
A friend is going to the Amsterdam Mahler Festival next month and hopes to write it up, but he has little experience and was pumping me for advice. All I could tell him was to pay close attention and simply write about what he experienced. (We've been doing background prepping on the symphonies since January.) I think review writing should implicitly acknowledge how subjective this process is. There are objective things that can be described, but their meaning depends on the context of the whole review, which ultimately depends on the reviewer's subjectivity, which can emerge from the language itself. (One problem with some academic writing is that it attempts to conceal this.) I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this subject--I hope you continue to explore it!
Best
Larry Wallach
I'm so glad you liked it Larry! I hoped you might, as I always so enjoy reading your reviews. There's something so nice about the "contained-ness" of a review, both it being a reaction to one performance, and it being a kind of form or "container." Contained without feeling constrained. And you are so right about subjectivity -- concert reviews really are a strange form of music journalism, if they really are journalism, as one so often thinks of journalism as striving for objectivity. (Academic writing sometimes, too) But there's no pretending to do that here. Thank you for your thoughts <3