On record reviews

Record reviews always seem to be a cause of disagreement and irritation. This is particularly the case in a specialised magazine where players are writing about players. We associate interpretation with criteria such as “impression”, “approach”, “taste”, “feeling” etc. Does the irritation not arise from the very nature of the criteria? Does criticism on the basis of such criteria make any sense at all? There can be no “wrong impression”, no “wrong taste”, no “wrong feeling”. Do reviewers’ findings then depend entirely on a coincidence or otherwise of taste?

As long as criteria like these are so important, as is now so often the case, then reviews — and even publications and recordings — have little point.

I do not wish in any way to deny the important part played in music by feeling etc. It is often the listener’s only means of understanding the music. This does not mean, however, that performers shape their music — or that reviewers judge it — predominantly through feeling. On the contrary, this situation is a challenge to the performer. He must prepare his piece in such a way that the listener really hears what is on the music stand. A piece of music is not simply a vehicle for the development of the soloist’s individuality; it is (usually) the work of someone else and it is the soloist’s job to actualise it. He must not only play it but also make clear and understandable.

Obviously there is no completely “right” interpretation of music — if there were, we would not be artists but reproducers. But a musical interpretation must be (scientifically) justifiable and thus discussable. Publishing means laying oneself open to discussion. Reviews constitute the second step in this discussion, and they should not be the last. But discussion is not possible on the basis of the criteria mentioned above (taste etc.). Discussion is possible only when the parties hold provable and disprovable positions.