What does a music critic create? Musical critic. Criticism in Russia

IN last decade famous people, representatives various arts, often touch on the topic of "modern criticism", meaning not a specific field - not music, not opera, not theater or literature - but criticism intended to observe developments in these fields, that is, "criticism in general" as a genre. They all unanimously state that today criticism is in deep decline - no one has the slightest doubt about this! Many theses have been put forward regarding critics, starting with the assertion that critics are losers who have not found application in their chosen field as creators, and ending with the assertion that without critics it is impossible to understand what and how creators did. It is clear that between these extremes there is a huge number of variations, expressing the subtleties of understanding the specifics of the critical genre both by the general public, both by the critics themselves, and by the criticized creators.

It’s interesting to hear from living creators that they themselves are also interested in competent, impartial, but justified criticism addressed to them. It is argued that the creator is curious to read something original about himself, even if it is negative, perceiving criticism as an “outside view.” The creators state that criticism is the same creative field as any other “subject” field: prose, poetry, music, opera, drama theater, architecture and so on, in connection with which the names of V. Belinsky, N. Dobrolyubov can be mentioned , V. Stasov, B. Shaw, R. Rolland and many others, that is, critics who entered the history of art along with its creators.

The crisis of modern criticism is not caused by the fact that supposedly “losers” joined it, but by the fact that today just anyone joins it in an effort to take their place in the sun and make money. The reason will be discussed below.

A separate sphere of criticism can be highlighted, within which the author’s and director’s muddy heaps, ambiguities, banal imperfections and half-thought-out solutions are declared “philosophical depths” inaccessible to mere mortals. The more confusing and convoluted a work is, and the less transparent and understandable its intention, the more “intellectual” and even “philosophical” it can be declared by such criticism. And really, how to check this?

Is criticism creativity?

I agree with the opinion that criticism is also creativity and that its quality depends on who is engaged in this specific type of creativity. Not every professional musician personifies any noticeable, and even more so, bright direction in art - if we talk about music, not every composer, performer, musical organizer - is capable of being a critic, not only because, due to his commitment and immersion in specifics, he is not universal, like any narrow specialist, but also because he may not own a critical pen, may not have deep knowledge and time to replenish it and engage in criticism. And only a person who maintains a distance in relation to musical subject, but prepared, in the required respect and sufficiently educated, with a broad outlook, oriented in the world of art and in the world in general as such, unbiased, incorruptible, honest before his own intellectual conscience - only such a person can be a real critic, capable of his creative takeoffs to rise above the level of individual creators in order to survey the entire panorama of the art he is considering “from the height of flight.”

Criticism should help the public understand the creator (or indicate his lack of depth), see in his achievements something that even the creator himself may not seem obvious (or even undesirable in his eyes), find the true place of the creator and his work among other creators and the rest of the body of creativity of the past and present, find the roots and try to make a forecast regarding their prospects, determining their coordinates in the system of national and world intellectual values. This is a worthy goal!

What does a music critic create?

Recently, in a polemical frenzy, one of the artists went overboard and literally said the following: “A critic DOES NOT CREATE ANYTHING, unlike a musician.”

Let me immediately disagree about “nothing.” At the musician and critic different tasks, and the critic, like the musician, undoubtedly creates something, but this “something” is not music or its performance: the critic creates UNDERSTANDING, he examines this specific work (if we are talking about composer’s work) or its performance ( when it comes to interpretation) in modern and historical context, relying on the knowledge and experience of past eras. It is in this sense that a critic can and should be much more powerful than musicians.

A critic by necessity is a historian, analyst and writer, capable of tracking and possibly wider coverage of current musical life, development of enormous volumes historical information and philosophical generalizations. Of course, we are talking about GOOD criticism. But in the statement I cited, it is not some specific “bad critic” that is affected, but the profession as such, in other words, a generalization was also made, which, in turn, does not stand up to any criticism.

Should a critic be kind or objective?

We often hear that criticism is too angry, peremptory, impudent, that it does not spare people who have sacrificed their lives on the altar of art, and so on. Main question is whether the critic's conclusions are rooted in reality. For example, if a critic, out of his kindness, praises bad singers and does not notice their shortcomings, does this contribute to improvement? big picture our concert and opera life? After all, a bad singer takes someone's place on stage, because of him someone is not allowed to perform, someone is deprived of roles - should a critic waste his kindness in such cases? In my opinion, it shouldn't.

The critic must strive to be objective, and his text must be correct.

To be fair, it should be noted that the Internet and the print press are flooded with panegyric reviews praising average or completely mediocre musicians. Is this really better than harsh criticism? On behalf of good critics, who are we kidding—ourselves?

Can a critic be wrong?

The best critic can make a mistake. Actually, there is never an absolute guarantee: a critic may make a mistake in the title, in the surname, distort some fact, or make a typo. Just as a musician can make a mistake, a critic can also make a mistake. True, critics are often called for a public apology for a printed or spoken word, but do musicians apologize for their stage “art” and for their mistakes - textual, stylistic, for technical failures and simply for false and incorrectly memorized notes? I can’t remember anything like this! But the enlightened public can also present them with a lot of things, and the critic is the spokesman for this generalized public opinion. Would the critic agree with public opinion, will he disagree, will he express something different? own opinion, no - this is a separate question, but a critic should be able to do this too.

How to deal with criticism?

Due to the specifics of the profession, criticism does not suit the excessive ambition, ardor and self-confidence characteristic of artists who carry within themselves a direct creative impulse with which they go out to the public, and therefore - again due to THEIR profession - are prone to some extremism and heightened reactions on the opinion of the public and critics. But I believe that critics should try to forgive them for this: after all, artists go on stage, their nerves are bad, so some of their expansiveness should meet with calm understanding - including from critics.

If critics, perhaps not always accurate and accurate, despite their efforts (as, incidentally, musicians too, I would like to believe in this, trying to do their job well), do not monitor the activities of artists, write about them, discuss about their achievements and failures, then won’t it turn out that the artists will not have information support? In our cynical age, such behavior would be very reckless.

One classical thought was and remains imperishable: no matter what they say about a musician, no matter how much they scold and no matter how much they praise, as long as they don’t forget about him! If only, simply put, they would promote it. And this work, by the way, also falls within the sphere of activity of critics, who, of necessity, also act as journalists. Therefore, you need to take criticism calmly.

What should a music critic know and be able to do?

Everyone seems to agree that critics are needed and that they should be professional. But what does it mean to be a professional critic? Does this mean that the critic, like the artists whose performances he reviews, must be able to conduct, sing, dance and play the same musical instruments no less virtuoso than them? What knowledge and qualities should a critic have?

A music critic must certainly be musically literate: he must be able to read music, understand scores, it would be useful for him to play some kind of musical instrument. The critic must hear deviations from musical text, find an error in the notes and be able to explain it. A critic must understand styles, understand and feel which performing techniques in a particular work will be appropriate and which will not. This is a case where the devil is in the details.

A critic must be aware of modern musical life and its trends; he must attend concerts and performances in order to feel its pulse.

A music critic is certainly a creator; the only question is the scale of creativity of a particular individual. The subject of critical consideration is musical activity past and present, and the result is analysis, generalization, synthesis and the generation of new meanings, which the musician, whose work is being reviewed by a critic, may not be aware of.

Moreover, many musical phenomena of the past exist solely in the reflection of the criticism of that time, and if it were not for the critics who noticed and recorded many interesting details in their texts, then it would be impossible to judge the performance of past eras at all. Oh yes, the composer’s texts remain with us, but is it necessary to say how far the interpretation can be from what was intended by the author and from his style?

The era of recording made significant adjustments to this matter: now you can become familiar with phonological documents and judge the activities of artists of an entire century on the basis of objective information, but even in this case, the work of a critic does not lose its importance, because recording is also not everything and not the same as human senses, records, and most importantly, the phonogram is only a document of the era, and not its critical understanding.

Who can be a critic?

Who can be considered a “professional” in criticism and why not every professional musician can perform the functions of a critic? Depending on the answer to the question for which audience the critic writes, an answer can be formulated as to who that critic might be.

First of all, you need to clearly understand that in general, a critic is not a musician, and he does not have to be a musician. A critic is simply another profession, although a musician is quite capable of being a critic. “To be a critic” is not taught anywhere; only someone who is created for this by nature itself, formed by society, the education system, individual studies and personal intellectual efforts, can become a critic, someone who has realized his ability and can realize it. If a critic writes for professionals, then that’s one thing; if he writes for enlightened amateurs who have received a musical education, this is the second; if he writes for himself wide audience, the quality of which is unpredictable - this is the third.

A critic writing for professionals must be a professional in the narrow field in which he works, and this is unambiguous. But this is no longer quite a critic - he is a writing professional, for example, a theorist. It would be nice for a critic to have his own portfolio of texts on different topics in the chosen area, and availability theoretical works characterizes him very well. Actually, this is not so necessary, but it is advisable to see the intellectual level to which a particular writer can rise.

Personally, the second category of critics is closest to me - those who write for an enlightened public, although I have experience in publishing theoretical works that amateurs are unlikely to understand. However, the enlightened public, having learned at least the basics music education- this is the audience that is most desirable and to which a critic writing about everyday musical life should focus first of all. Professionals will forgive him for this, and the widest and most unenlightened audience will at least partially understand something. The critic does not lecture anyone, he writes about his impressions, offers his own criteria, but, of course, with a claim to objectivity - otherwise would it be worth taking on the matter?

Who are the judges?

Practice is the criterion of truth. Ultimately, the value of criticism is confirmed by life itself. But what does this mean? Recognition by life is when a mass of people - the public, specialists, other critics - recognize what a fellow critic has said and for the most part accept his assessment of the corresponding objective data and begin to copy his way of thinking, literary style and use the categories he invented. That is, recognition is always a kind of social contract based on common views.

But the musicians do not want to spoil their relationship with each other. My personal attempts to involve professional musicians in reviewing concerts and performances have failed because their rule is that it is either good or nothing about their colleagues. How about the dead.

In fact, it turns out that professional musicians give critical activity at the mercy of enlightened amateurs, because even if a professional does not perform on stage himself, he works somewhere in the musical field, therefore, in this small world he finds himself shackled by the conventions of guild solidarity. Even worst enemies They try not to publicly speak about each other, not just negatively, but even in any critical way, so as not to jeopardize their careers, connections, work and friendships. Small world! It turns out that professionals cannot be “judges”: they cannot judge, they are not afraid only to flatter each other.

Of course, criticism “by default” is possible: when all professionals are silent about someone or something, this means a negative assessment of the artist or event. But only a critic prone to observations and generalizations can notice this! It turns out to be a paradox: on the one hand, the world of professional musicians craves recognition and public appreciation, but on the other hand, he himself is silent in public, although he gossips about everything on the sidelines!

So who is our critic? If you take a look at modern metropolitan criticism of the newspaper and Internet format, you can draw a surprising, at first glance, but essentially deeply logical conclusion: as a rule, it is not professional musicians who engage in it, but enlightened amateurs, experts and passionate admirers musical art, whose main profession is not related to music. There is no need to name names, especially since they are all well known.

What is the reason for this state of affairs? I would really like to say that the reason is the musicians themselves, but if you think about it, then the traditions of a certain kind of social structure are to blame. But if musicians have delegated the powers of critics to other people, then they are unlikely to have the moral right to be too strict about criticism into which they do not want to put their two cents.

Of course, criticism, as I stated at the very beginning, is in deep decline, but at the present stage it is at least fulfilling its current task, and we’ll see what happens next.

That is, analysis, assessment and judgment about the phenomena of any of the areas human activity, usually in the cultural sphere.

Basic courses of the program

Opera and ballet theater in space modern culture ( , )
Musical styles V performing interpretations» ()
Contemporary musicology: key concepts ()
Music of the 20th century: text, technique, author (Alexander Kharkovsky)
Opera from score to stage ()
Contemporary music. Styles and ideas ()
Russian and soviet music in the context of cultural and political history ()
Curatorial project in the performing arts ()

Selected works of teachers

. From Ives to Adams: American music XX century. St. Petersburg: Ivan Limbach Publishing House, 2010. 784 p.
. Experiments in melosophy. About paths not taken music science. St. Petersburg: Publishing house named after N.I. Novikov, 2014. 532 p.
Vadim Gaevsky, . Talking about Russian ballet. M.: New publishing house, 2010. 292 p.

Publications prepared by teachers, undergraduates and graduates

New Russian music criticism: 1993-2003: In 3 volumes. T.1. Opera / Edited by: Olga Manulkina, Pavel Gershenzon. M.: NLO, 2015. 576 p.
New Russian musical criticism: 1993-2003: In 3 volumes. T.2. Ballet / Edited by: Pavel Gershenzon, Bogdan Korolek. M.: NLO, 2015. 664 p.
New Russian musical criticism: 1993-2003: In 3 volumes. T.3. Concerts / Edited by: Bogdan Korolek, Alexander Ryabin. M.: NLO, 2016. 656 p.
The century of the “Rite of Spring” is the century of modernism. M.: Bolshoi Theater, 2013.
Gerard Mortier. Drama of passion. Seasons of Mortier. Interview. Essay. St. Petersburg, 2016. 384 p.
Schola criticorum. A collection of works by master's students in the Music Criticism program. Faculty liberal arts and Sciences of St. Petersburg State University. St. Petersburg, 2016.
Schola criticorum 2. Works of master's students in the Music Criticism program. Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, St. Petersburg State University. St. Petersburg, 2017.

Alumni reviews

Olga Makarova, 2016 graduate, music critic
In my first year, it seemed to me that I could already do, if not everything, then quite a lot: I had work experience, I had some knowledge, I had the ability to watch opera performances carefully and thoughtfully. And the point, perhaps, is not that I was able to learn a lot of new things. The main thing I was able to learn is to ask the right questions, not to take anything for granted, not to rely on other people’s opinions, to always look for clues - that’s what they teach in our program. It seems to me that this is necessary not only for music critics.

Anastasia Zubareva, 2014 graduate, curator of the Resonance Prize
This best school in Russia, where they teach how to write about academic music and make musical projects. Only practice and useful information - an ideal place for those who do not want to waste time and intend to learn a real profession.

Alexander Ryabin, 2014 graduate, music critic
The master's program gave me an incredible amount of information: how to listen to music, how to watch it, how it works, what happened a long time ago and what is now. You could write however you wanted, without limiting yourself at all, and get paid fairly for what you wrote every time. None of the teachers taught me to think like them, but everyone helped me learn to think and perceive what was happening. And so, step by step under sensitive leadership I learned a lot. Ideas about the world were reassembled several times, and new knowledge arrived uninterruptedly. I had to keep up and listen. It was as if I had been transplanted from a cart with a horse harnessed to it, slowly rolling along the off-road, into a spaceship.

Master's theses

Leila Abbasova (2016, director –) “Gergiev and Prokofiev: strategies for promoting the composer at the Mariinsky Theater (1995-2015)”
Alexandra Vorobyova (2017, director – , consultant – ) “Ballet librettos of the 19th century: from narrative to choreographic text”
Natalya Gergieva (2017, director –) “Operas and ballets of Rodion Shchedrin at Mariinsky stage: performance, criticism, reception"
Philip Dvornik (2014, director – ) “The phenomenon of opera in cinema: methods of representation”
Anna Infantieva (2014, director –) “Modern music in modern Russia: society, economy, culture"
Bogdan Korolek (2017, director –
Vsevolod Mititello (2015, director – ) “Motives of resistance to innovations in the musical environment (experience of insider observation)”
Ilya Popov (2017, director –) “Director’s Opera theatre as a territory of cultural transfer"
Alexander Ryabin (2014, director –) “Reduction of Wagner’s myth in modern popular culture»
Alina Ushakova (2017, director -) “Heiner Goebbels’ post-opera: digital narrative in scenography”

Master's students' texts are published in booklets of the Mariinsky, Bolshoi, Perm and Yekaterinburg theaters, on the Kolta portal, in the Kommersant newspaper and other media.

Graduate curatorial projects

Music Critics Award "Resonance"
Children's subscription on New scene Alexandrinsky Theater
Ballet "The King's Divertissement" at the Mariinsky Theater

How to proceed?

To enroll in the program, you must submit documents and a portfolio. detailed information about the admission algorithm, portfolio, rules for submitting documents through

All writing people are divided into two categories. The first includes the creators literary works. To the second - those who devote these works critical articles. There is also a third category, which includes people who do not know how to write, but have great respect for this creative process. But today’s article is not about them. We have to figure out what criticism is. What is it for? What is the job of a literary critic?

Definition

What's happened literary criticism? It is impossible to answer this question in a few words. It is a rich, varied concept. Writers and scientists have repeatedly tried to define literary criticism, but each of them has come up with their own, author’s own definition. Let's consider the origin of the word.

What is "criticism"? This is a word of Latin origin that translates as "judgment". The Romans borrowed it from the Hellenes. In ancient Greek there is a word κρίνω, meaning “to judge”, “to pass judgment”. Giving a general definition of criticism, it is worth saying that it can be not only literary, but also musical. In every field of art there are people who create works and those who analyze and evaluate them.

There are such professions as restaurant critic, theater critic, film critic, art critic, photo critic and so on. Representatives of these specialties are by no means idle observers and idle talkers. Not everyone knows how to analyze and disassemble a work, be it literature, painting or cinema. This requires certain knowledge and skills.

Musical critic

This profession arose not so long ago - just in the 19th century. Of course, even before this there were people who talked about music and devoted their notes to this topic. But only with the advent of periodicals did specialists appear who could already be called music critics. They wrote treatises no longer on general humanitarian issues. philosophical topics, mentioning from time to time the work of one or another composer. They occupied a hitherto empty niche.

What is criticism piece of music? This is an analysis and assessment based on deep knowledge and experience. This is a specialty that is acquired at higher education educational institution. To become a critic in this field, you must first graduate music school, then a specialized school, then enter a university, for example, the Tchaikovsky Conservatory at the Faculty of History and Theory. As you can see, acquiring this profession is not easy.

The emergence of criticism

The foundations of this science originated in Ancient Greece. In antiquity, of course, there were no theorists who zealously controlled literary process. Athenian citizens they did not gather in the square in order to listen to the treatise of a literary critic, smashing to smithereens Aeschylus's Oresteia or Euripides' Medea. But the long, lengthy arguments of Aristotle and Plato are nothing more than an attempt to understand why a person needs art, by what laws it exists and what it should be.

Purposes of criticism

The basis for the emergence and development of this science is the appearance of literary texts. What is criticism? This is something that cannot exist without fiction. The critic pursues the following goals in his work:

Identifying contradictions.
Analysis, discussion.
Identifying errors.
Scientific verification of historical accuracy.

A great many literary works are created every year. The most talented of them find their readers. However, it often happens that a work that is devoid of any literary value arouses considerable interest. Literary critics do not impose their opinions on readers, but they have a huge influence on their perception.

Once upon a time on literary field showed up to no one famous writer from Little Russia. Its small romantic stories were worthy of attention, but one cannot say that they were read deeply. Creation young writer received a resonance in society thanks to the light hand of an eminent critic. His name was Vissarion Belinsky. Aspiring writer - Nikolai Gogol.

Criticism in Russia

The name of Vissarion Belinsky is known to everyone school curriculum. This man had a huge influence on the work of many writers who later became classics.

In Russia, literary criticism was formed in the 18th century. IN XIX century it acquired a magazine character. Critics increasingly began to touch upon philosophical topics in their articles. Analysis of a work of art has become a pretext for thinking about the problems of real life. IN Soviet era, especially in the twenties of the last century, there was a process of destruction of the traditions of aesthetic criticism.

Critic and writer

It is easy to guess that the relationship between them is not going too smoothly. There is an inevitable antagonism between critic and writer. This antagonism is exacerbated when the creation literary texts and their consideration is influenced by ambition, desire for primacy and other factors. A critic is a person with literary education, analyzing piece of art without taking into account political and personal preferences.

Russian history knows many cases when criticism was in the service of power. This is exactly what has been talked about around the world. famous novel Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita". The writer has repeatedly encountered unscrupulous critics. IN real life There was no way I could take revenge on them. The only thing that remained for him was to create unsightly images of Latunsky and Lavrovich - typical critics of the 20s. On the pages of his novel, Bulgakov took revenge on his offenders. But this did not change the situation. Many prose writers and poets still continued to “write” on the table. Not because their works were mediocre, but because they did not correspond to the official ideology.

Literature without criticism

One should not assume that critics do nothing but praise or destroy the work of this or that author. They in some way control the literary process, and without their intervention it would not have developed. A real artist must respond adequately to criticism. Moreover, he needs it. writing man, convinced of the high artistic value of his creations and not listening to the opinions of his colleagues, is rather not a writer, but a graphomaniac.

I will answer as a person who is sometimes mistakenly called a music critic:

Shit. No, really. Any person who calls himself a "critic" suffers from the deepest stage of idiocy. The music critic is the apogee of meaninglessness, the apotheosis of ruthlessness and narcissism. What exactly is professional activity music critic (or any other):
- If this is a well-known critic who has his own column, for example, in some publication, then this is what he does: young authors send him their works; overcoming laziness, he flips through some news in search of works of already accomplished creators (in our case, musicians). And if there is nothing from the second, then he selects the most promising young creative units and presents them as a sensation he has “unearthed.” If in his opinion there are none, then he selects something and carefully coats it with poop. On rare occasions, a music critic chooses an album that everyone liked, wonders “what the hell,” and smears it with poop, adjusting the imperishable halo over his head with a fried chicken leg, hoping that people definitely take his great opinion into account.
- If this is a little-known critic, then he generally tries to smear everything that can be smeared with poop. While already pooped music albums, he carefully washes from the angle from which he looks at the release. Little-known critics are surprised by nothing, are not interested in anything except the underground, because only marginal music lies the future of the Russian Federation.

And only in rare cases, such as critics (if that’s what they call themselves, of course) from the site The-Flow.ru command respect. Although sometimes there are some obvious mistakes, I have not read more constructive criticism and comments anywhere on the Russian Internet. For example, the review of Timati’s “Olympus” was so meticulously executed that, compared to other “Timati’s album is a clot of feces in a dung pit,” this gorgeous article from The Flow looked truly professional and credible. This is generally a very rare skill for journalists: the ability to convince, and not impose their claims on the reader. And, of course, Artemy Troitsky stands and will always stand apart among music critics. At least he has unique ability move in space using legs and transport. Usually, music critics only occasionally go to some kind of get-together with “their people”, and spend the rest of the time thinking about the meaning of life.

But in general, if you see the word "critic", then do not read further. Download albums, buy albums, go to concerts, put these people out of work. No article by any critic can replace your touch with creativity, be it good or bad. The only sensible critic lives in your head.

Don't listen to the critics. Listen to music.

I completely disagree. Music critics are basically musicologists. They have been studying academic music for more than 20 years and know a lot about the art and profession of a musician, and you claim that they “cover other people’s submitted material with poop.”

Answer

Does having an education (and not everyone) a priori make a person honest? Smart? Good? Conscientious? Gives him moderate self-esteem and the desire to be objective and fair? So our deputies all study first at law faculties, then practice for a long time and learn to govern our mighty country. And our police are well-educated - people pass standards, graduate from academies, spend 10 years regulating traffic on the roads and learn to catch criminals. Why aren’t we all still pooping like a rainbow then? Maybe because it is either not true or is not a guarantee of anything adequate?

Answer

Comment

Any critics exist for the sake of one goal/task/mission. They describe works of art. There are always two types of newsmakers: those who actually create the news, and those who comment on it. The latter perform the important task of reflecting on what is happening. The product of their activity will be a description of phenomena cultural life. And, the most interesting thing is that there is no one else to do this except them, if only because you need to be a passionate person in order to engage in such activities, to experience a genuine and insatiable interest in art. In many ways, based on the results of expressing their opinion, a global conclusion will be made about whether a work of art will go down in history or not.

It's one thing for critics who praise/crap without justification, and another thing for music journalists who describe their impressions, referring, among other things, to their feelings and analogies. And then, it also depends on the status of the publication and/or journalist. And if a person calls himself a critic, then, most likely, only what I described at the beginning. The same AK Troitsky does not call himself a critic, although he is considered one, but he denies it. Troitsky should be respected enough for his organizational abilities.

Answer

Comment

I will answer as a person who often has to read critical articles in order to understand music that is new to me or to see some unexpected facets in familiar and already loved music.

Criticism is not only about evaluation. The meaning of this word is broader. For example, in the “Critique of Pure Reason” Kant does not at all raise the question of whether reason is good or bad; his task was to study and describe the cognitive abilities of man. It is similar with other types of criticism - its goal is to interpret, transform into a text and describe as a structure something that itself is not a text in the usual sense of the word. What trends exist in music? How do they relate to current events? What is the connection musical heritage and modernity and what is this legacy? How is the musical sphere connected with other social spheres - with the economy, other areas of art, and so on? Music critics like Theodor Adorno, David Toope and the like should and do ask themselves similar questions. There is a fine line between a music critic and a journalist; in the same way, music criticism is closely related to music history, musicology and cultural studies.

Of course, evaluation as an element of the critic’s work is the most noticeable - the interests of musicians and their fans are touched to the quick; in addition, most of the reviews - especially in the genres popular music- really aims to make a verdict, to orient the listener as to whether he should listen to the release or not, i.e. make a judgment of taste. However, in my opinion, this is not the essence of the critic’s occupation: a critic, I repeat, is a researcher and interpreter who, thanks to his writing skills and musical education/eruditeness, transforms some intricate musical area into a world clearly presented in textual form with its own logical and associative connections, causes and effects, etc. The music of some composers is so complex, individual and unusual that it requires someone's work, including textual work, in order to be understandable, as far as this word is suitable for music, and interesting.

Text for our mind performs approximately the same function as a stick for our hand - it is a tool that gives us additional features. In the case of text, these are shadows of those emotions that we ourselves did not feel, thoughts that did not occur to us, etc.; text and culture are like a powerful exoskeleton for our minds. Accordingly, the critic, as the author of texts, also performs an educational function; he enriches our personal experience his own, gives us conceptual tools, concepts, images so that we can understand new, alien, incomprehensible music for us. Like any technical means, writing and texts are technical means special kind, they can instill laziness in us (we can, relatively speaking, “stop walking on foot even to go to the store next door and drive a car”), or they can become a good help - “one head is good, but two are better.”

What does a music critic create? Musical critic. Criticism in Russia

Is criticism creativity?

What does a music critic create?

Should a critic be kind or objective?

Can a critic be wrong?

How to deal with criticism?

What should a music critic know and be able to do?

Who can be a critic?

Who are the judges?

see also

See what “Music critic” is in other dictionaries:

Books

Basic courses of the program

Selected works of teachers

Publications prepared by teachers, undergraduates and graduates

Alumni reviews

Master's theses

Graduate curatorial projects

How to proceed?

Definition

Musical critic

The emergence of criticism

Purposes of criticism

Criticism in Russia

Critic and writer

Literature without criticism