When criticism is healthy

Joe,

Even though I wasn't even in the act of offering or promoting
criticism, you seemed to read it that way, and you went out of your
way to then mention everyone you could that you like and offer
congratulations on their work. You are welcome to do that.

However, your contention that criticism is completely unwarranted
rings hollow (to me), as if you were afraid to have alternate
opinions. I wouldn't ever offer up an opinion on someone's music
specifically unless they asked for it, and in most give-and-take
forums it is taken for *granted* that work in progress gets batted
about, because the discussions pro and con about what worked and what
didn't is healthy. But that is up to individual people when they post
their music, and I'd never pick on a particular piece unless someone
asked. Seems like many of the composer/performers around here aren't
so sensitive as you make out.

I don't know if she is outside of your 'interest radar' but I saw a
bit in a story on songwriter/singer Lucinda Williams that follows
along these lines:

-------

Her love of words and the arrangement of them so as to convey
powerful emotions appear to be something of a family tradition.
Williams' father is poet Miller Williams, who read a poem at
President Bill Clinton's second inauguration. Miller Williams is not
only a poet but an editor and a professor at the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville. A music fan as well as a literary scholar,
he said he likes to surround himself with the worlds of jazz, country
and literature when he writes in his study.

"Over the years, I would just show him my songs," she said. "And he
would critique them and make suggestions. And that's how I learned."

-------

I very much respect the personal nature of creation, and it seems
that music is at least as personal as any of the art forms, maybe
more? So how it strikes a person should be admitted with tact and
care, not with a poison pen. OTOH, if the only thing you do is
cheerlead and say everything is swell, you opinion becomes,
essentially, worthless, because it doesn't distinguish between weak
and strong work.

Even if it is only one opinion, that can be helpful to a creator in
their work. Simply stating that you don't scroll down a long page
gives me pause to consider re-organizing a page, since even one set
of eyeballs not getting all the info is not good. If you had only
told me "those are great web pages" the critical element is lost and
I might not think to change things. And, of course, I thanked you for
the comment.

I value the community of the tuning list enough that I welcome and
consider the critiques of my work and writings. You may prefer it
otherwise, but you shouldn't assume that everyone is so sensitive to
probing questions about their work.

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#305

Hi Jon...

It would be hard to disagree with your comments that criticism in
many cases is warranted, and put to good use.

HOWEVER, in the field of "modern music" I believe you will find, in
such august publications as the New York Times and others, a penchant
for "having to be critical" whether a piece or composer deserves it
or not...

So, the solution is always to praise the "established" composer...
the Elliott Carter or Milton Babbitt and dump on the "newbie." You
may think that the criticism is warranted, but after seeing this
happen time and time again, and after hearing many concerts, I have
come to the opinion that this practice is unfair.

I know from my stint as a music critic on a college paper (a big
college paper) that editors *expect* reviewers to be critical in
practically every review, so they *have* to fit it in someplace.

So who gets it?? The "newbie" since no one could question the
opinion of the reviewer in that case -- it's more "dangerous" to
criticize the established and also the "alternately tuned..."

At least, this is the way it *used* to be. Perhaps xenharmonic music
is *now* getting a more favorable rating in the press.

Because of many of these rather "questionable" practices, I have
decided I no longer enjoy reviewing works of contemporaries...

I am *much* more comfortable writing general articles about music or
the music scene.

So, I guess my opinions on "evaluating" are somewhat colored by these
decisions I have made...

_______ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

--- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> It would be hard to disagree with your comments that criticism in
> many cases is warranted, and put to good use.

It would have been nice to know that, or have you say it, before you
trashed me. Wrongly, I might add.

> HOWEVER, in the field of "modern music" I believe you will find, in
> such august publications as the New York Times and others, a
> penchant for "having to be critical" whether a piece or composer
> deserves it or not...

But, dear friend, we weren't talking about *press crit*, or any other
forum than here, between colleagues and friends and enemies!!! I
don't give a flying cantus firmus about the NYT in this instance,
because I am talking about a dialogue within the community. If you
still feel uncomfortable commenting on other works, that is
completely within your rights. But you seem to want everyone to be
powder puffs, and I think that implies the product is fragile, which
I don't agree to.

> You
> may think that the criticism is warranted, but after seeing this
> happen time and time again, and after hearing many concerts, I have
> come to the opinion that this practice is unfair.

Fine. But if not everyone feels that way, you don't have the right to
impose a restriction on criticism just because you don't like it. All
you can do is ask that your work isn't included, and I don't know
anyone, especially myself, that wouldn't happily abide by your
request.

I'm not talking about roundly thrashing entire bodies of work, I only
think that circumspection about work in progress is not a bad thing.

> At least, this is the way it *used* to be. Perhaps xenharmonic
> music is *now* getting a more favorable rating in the press.

Who cares what the press thinks? I mean, I know you do, to an extent,
but I doubt many of the people on the list fall into that category.
And I've certainly seen a lot of composers in the last 30 years make
their marks in spite of not being 'darlings' of the cognoscenti.

To each his own.

> So, I guess my opinions on "evaluating" are somewhat colored by
> these decisions I have made...

Understood.

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#307
>
> Fine. But if not everyone feels that way, you don't have the right
to impose a restriction on criticism just because you don't like it.
All you can do is ask that your work isn't included, and I don't know
> anyone, especially myself, that wouldn't happily abide by your
> request.
>

You've rather jumped to a conclusion here, Jon. Please show me where
I said that I was uninterested in having my *own* work criticized?

I generally *welcome* criticism of my work. Anybody who knows me,
knows this to be the case.

I was just saying that, as a fellow composer, I wasn't interested in
criticizing *other people's* work... at least not in print and,
especially, if I'm not asked to by that person...

_______ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

Shit, now I'm going to be leaving the house, but otherwise I'd say we
could give a whirl to the chat room feature of Yahoo! That would be a
new one!! OK, another time...

--- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_305.html#307
> >
> > Fine. But if not everyone feels that way, you don't have the
> > right to impose a restriction on criticism just because you
> > don't like it. All you can do is ask that your work isn't
> > included, and I don't know
> > anyone, especially myself, that wouldn't happily abide by your
> > request.
> >
>
> You've rather jumped to a conclusion here, Jon. Please show me
> where I said that I was uninterested in having my *own* work
> criticized?

No, I didn't conclude that at all. I only stipulated that you as an
individual had the right to exclude your own work from criticism, and
conversely could certainly as *for* it. What I said was what an
individual *couldn't* do was speak for everyone else, and ask that
*no* criticism take place.

> I generally *welcome* criticism of my work. Anybody who knows me,
> knows this to be the case. I was just saying that, as a fellow
> composer, I wasn't interested in criticizing *other people's*
> work... at least not in print and,
> especially, if I'm not asked to by that person...

That makes very good sense, and I would certainly respect that. Here
is a semi-rhetorical question: what if one person says "Hey everyone,
you've got to go listen to Sonata X47 by composer Q92, it really is
the best piece of music I have heard in years!!!"

If that statement pops up in a public forum, and it sounds to some
ears as the most banal, idiotic piece of clap-trap to pass through
the air in eons, should everyone just be quiet about it? I'm just
guessing you'd say "yes", but this is one of the conundrums of always
acting in "booster" (or "bolster"!) mode, because it means that the
only thing that can be said are positives, which at some point just
devalues any judgements whatsoever.

I dunno...what do you think?

Regards,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#309

>
> If that statement pops up in a public forum, and it sounds to some
> ears as the most banal, idiotic piece of clap-trap to pass through
> the air in eons, should everyone just be quiet about it? I'm just
> guessing you'd say "yes", but this is one of the conundrums of
always
> acting in "booster" (or "bolster"!) mode, because it means that the
> only thing that can be said are positives, which at some point just
> devalues any judgements whatsoever.
>
> I dunno...what do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Jon

I'd say that "private" e-mail would be the place for that! Besides,
the word always gets out... it doesn't have to be "broadcast" in a
public forum (unless one has to be a reviewer in order to EAT and is
getting PAID for it!)

_________ ______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

Joe,

> I'd say that "private" e-mail would be the place for that!

In a one-to-one situation, I basically agree.

> Besides, the word always gets out...

Gossip? Innuendo? Gee, I'd rather hear it from the source, but that's
just me.

> it doesn't have to be "broadcast" in a public forum (unless one has
> to be a reviewer in order to EAT and is getting PAID for it!)

I agree in a limited sense, except that hearing a generalized
commentary from your peer group seems to be a very different plate of
nachos then getting slammed by a reviewer who needs to draw eyeballs
to the column.

Oh well, on to other matters at this point, I think.

Regards,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

> I wouldn't ever offer up an opinion on someone's music
> specifically unless they asked for it,

Okay, I'll specifically ask for opinions on my Elements Suite,
<http://x31eq.com/elements.html>. I posted the link to
Practical Microtonality, and accidentally to TBL, but haven't got any
feedback at all.

Moving on meta-topic, what do people think about this kind of half-
baked music being made available? Is it nice to hear that theorists
are still capable of making music, or should we wait until we write
something really good?

Graham

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#312

> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't ever offer up an opinion on someone's music
> > specifically unless they asked for it,
>
> Okay, I'll specifically ask for opinions on my Elements Suite,
> <http://x31eq.com/elements.html>. I posted the link to
> Practical Microtonality, and accidentally to TBL, but haven't got
any
> feedback at all.
>
> Moving on meta-topic, what do people think about this kind of half-
> baked music being made available? Is it nice to hear that
theorists
> are still capable of making music, or should we wait until we write
> something really good?
>
>
> Graham

Graham...

These are cool... but, essentially they are monophonic... would you
consider adding a couple of other simultaneous lines to them??

Or how about a mean rappa'??

In any case, in my view your greatest compositional triumph has been
your blackjack progression. As somebody who has been trying to put
together several of those from the lattice, I appreciate the subtlety
of yours!

________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson

Graham,

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't ever offer up an opinion on someone's music
> > specifically unless they asked for it,

I am realizing that I may have made a bit of a goof. Just last night
I wrote comments about a file uploaded. When I wrote the above
comment, I think I was thinking about music that is available in
general, and not necessarily spouting off about it. I guess I
considered that if someone, on these lists, uploads a file or points
to a file of music they are intending on people listening/commenting
unless they want otherwise.

Maybe I'm just all screwed up!

> Okay, I'll specifically ask for opinions on my Elements Suite,
> <http://x31eq.com/elements.html>.

I'll take a look/listen, if you like.

> Moving on meta-topic, what do people think about this kind of half-
> baked music being made available? Is it nice to hear that
> theorists are still capable of making music, or should we wait
> until we write something really good?

Not having visited yet, if something is a dry-run, experiment, mock-
up, or any other form of trying out some ideas, I don't have *any*
problem with that at all. I don't usually pass around sketches of my
works-in-progress, but if it is in this vein I find it interesting.
As long as the comments that come back are just added into your
consideration, and don't dissuade/persuade you too far from your
intentions.

Cheers,
Jon

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> These are cool... but, essentially they are monophonic... would you
> consider adding a couple of other simultaneous lines to them??

That's a lot of trouble. It means you have to keep track of the
harmony, by writing it down or otherwise. So it goes from being a
quick improvisation to a fairly involved composition, and usually
doesn't get finished. In this case, I didn't even do a MIDI
recording, but I've got the patch if I ever need to use the same
sounds again. I'll probably use it sometime as a standard bass line
without all the distortion.

I am working on a multitimbral piece now, a cover of a moderately
obvious Fleetwood Mac song. I've got a bass line and riff worked out
for the verses. Hopefully they'll sound right together and I can
sing over them.

> Or how about a mean rappa'??

That's not something I'd be comfortable doing myself. What would I
say? *You* could always overdub some vocals if you like :)

> In any case, in my view your greatest compositional triumph has
been
> your blackjack progression. As somebody who has been trying to put
> together several of those from the lattice, I appreciate the
subtlety
> of yours!

Oh, that. It's an interesting party trick but hardly stands alone as
a composition. But see what you can make of it. The way it doesn't
seem to be going anywhere is considered a design feature, right? It
shouldn't be so difficult to find variations that use the same unison
vector. As it stands, I moved up in 7:4 steps, and back by a 5-limit
progression. You could try mixing up the 7- and 5-limit steps.

Graham

--- In metatuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#315

Hi Graham...

I thought I'd take you up on the rap rap. Here is my suggestion,
my "Yuppie Wrap" which was performed to great acclaim (well, some
acclaim) here in the States:

YUPPIE WRAP

This is just a "wrap" about the middle class
Though we're effete we'd like to be bad-ass
We walk down the street saying "if you please"
While a gunman makes us stand on our knees

We have a nice pad on Park Avenue
Please come up -- we'll show you the view
Down under our feet, right before our eyes
Lies a homeless man who strikes before he dies

"Brother, my man, can you spare a dime?"
"No, you thug, you'll just commit a crime
Your biggest crime is to be in this place
So go and get the hell out of my face"

"I'm a busy man, an important guy
So just go off someplace pleasantly to die
I don't have time for the likes of you
If I give you money you'll just buy brew"

"So, `put em up', shouts the homeless man
I'll rip you off any way I can
I've got a gun, the only thing I own
We'll add some red to your nice skin tone"

"You can't do this," yells the CEO
"I've got a family, a first-class show
Besides I have to be `in the peach'
Or I won't make next weekend at the beach"

"Get on your knees, you son of a bitch
You have a chance for only one last wish
If you move around, I'll break every bone
And you'll have no chance to use your cell phone"

"Aw, come on," says our Yuppie friend
"No cell phone -- this really is the end
Just one last call, I'll keep short the talk
I have to sell this declining stock"

"You can fuck your stock," says our homeless thug
"And hurry up, the're other ones to mug
I don't have all day, so make your call short"
"Don't tell me what to do," is the man's retort

So he makes his call, and before he's done
The thug doesn't know he's called 911
Since he hasn't eaten for several days
He's drifting in and out of a haze

Suddenly like just from the blue
Come the boys in blue, they know what to do
The thug turns, his gun ready for the shot
But suddenly the YUPPIE feels something hot

In the seconds then, something went quite wrong
The bullet curved as it went along
The per-pe-tra-tee not the per-pe-tra-tor
Suddenly found himself falling to the floor

The blood runs thick, the blood runs red
And it won't be long before our man is dead
It makes a stream along Park Avenue

"A sorry mess" was the current view

"A sorry mess" was the current view

"A sorry mess" was the current view

JOSEPH PEHRSON

[Graham wrote:]
>>Jon Szanto wrote:

>>> I wouldn't ever offer up an opinion on someone's music
>>> specifically unless they asked for it,

[Jon wrote:]
>I am realizing that I may have made a bit of a goof. Just last night
>I wrote comments about a file uploaded. When I wrote the above
>comment, I think I was thinking about music that is available in
>general, and not necessarily spouting off about it. I guess I
>considered that if someone, on these lists, uploads a file or points
>to a file of music they are intending on people listening/commenting
>unless they want otherwise.

>Maybe I'm just all screwed up!

I think this point should be further discussed. When any of us posts
something to any of the lists, what might we properly expect in the way
of response?

IMHO, the world should be open. Of course, any criticism made with a
negative spirit is unfortunate, and should be condemned, but a response
of the form, "I listened to your music, and I have to say I don't
understand it in the least" is fair. With many variations, of course:
"I liked x but was bothered by y." If an artist does not want to be
critiqued, why is he/she posting works for public consumption?

The only reasonable exception I can think of would be for someone who
is particularly sensitive, and wants to post something for reaction on
a limited range of subjects, and who makes this desire clearly known:
"Hi. I've posted a file. Please offer feedback only on the following
aspect of my work, and no other..."

Part of being a big boy 'n' girl is being comfortable with the fact that
none of us can please everybody all the time. We are free to pick out
the bits of criticism we value, and let the rest roll off our backs.

JdL

Greetings,

This is interesting to me because I am little interested in criticism. I
rarely provide it and do not receive it well, because I don't want it. Now
before anyone goes off the deep end I'd like to explain and please note this
is with tongue firmly in cheek but with more than a grain of truth:))):

Some criticism is motivated by malice. I'm not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by envy. I'm not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by ignorance. I'm not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by the inability of the person to BE ABLE TO SAY
anything other than a negative (You should meet my mother-in-law). I'm not
interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by a desire to raise oneself by reducing someone
else. I'm not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by a need to teach others. This is often
pathological. I am not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by a need to appear wise and all-knowing. I'm
not interested in that.

Some criticism is motivated by a mental tick that only allows someone to
only see mistakes. Call it editorial fervour. Since all human products are
imperfect, I'm not interested in that.

Before criticizing anyone else we should ask why we are doing it and what we
expect from it. Do we expect the person to recompose the piece to satisfy
our detection of an error? If so I'm not interested in that.

Any criticism that does not fall into these categories, I AM interested in.

See why I'm not much interested in criticisms?

All best wishes,
Gordon Rumson
Pianist and Composer

Western Culture would be greatly improved if we came to treat human beings
as well as we currently treat our pets. -- Gordon Rumson

Web page: http://www.cadvision.com/Home_Pages/accounts/liszt/rumson.html

The only reasonable exception I can think of would be for someone who
is particularly sensitive, and wants to post something for reaction on
a limited range of subjects, and who makes this desire clearly known:
"Hi. I've posted a file. Please offer feedback only on the following
aspect of my work, and no other..."

Part of being a big boy 'n' girl is being comfortable with the fact that
none of us can please everybody all the time. We are free to pick out
the bits of criticism we value, and let the rest roll off our backs.

JdL

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gordon Rumson wrote:]
>Greetings,
>
>This is interesting to me because I am little interested in criticism. I
>rarely provide it and do not receive it well, because I don't want it. Now
>before anyone goes off the deep end I'd like to explain and please note this
>is with tongue firmly in cheek but with more than a grain of truth:))):
>
>Some criticism is motivated by malice. I'm not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by envy. I'm not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by ignorance. I'm not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by the inability of the person to BE ABLE TO SAY
>anything other than a negative (You should meet my mother-in-law). I'm not
>interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by a desire to raise oneself by reducing someone
>else. I'm not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by a need to teach others. This is often
>pathological. I am not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by a need to appear wise and all-knowing. I'm
>not interested in that.
>
>Some criticism is motivated by a mental tick that only allows someone to
>only see mistakes. Call it editorial fervour. Since all human products are
>imperfect, I'm not interested in that.
>
>Before criticizing anyone else we should ask why we are doing it and what we
>expect from it. Do we expect the person to recompose the piece to satisfy
>our detection of an error? If so I'm not interested in that.
>
>Any criticism that does not fall into these categories, I AM interested in.
>
>See why I'm not much interested in criticisms?

Hi, Gordon! I'm so happy to see you've not dropped off all the lists!
I find your observations both well thought-out and very on-target.

At the same time, when any of us puts forth a work, do we not want to
know whether people are pleased by it? What I speak of in the way of
legitimate reaction is no more or less than how we feel when we hear the
music, and our best guess of why that is. All the ego games must be
absent for the criticism to be worthwhile, and all of us are responsible
for weeding out the crap that may happen to be directed our way.

I have benefitted greatly from reactions to my own tuning work, from
people whose ears are more sensitive than mine. They become my "eyes"
where I am blind, and I can try to refine my course, if I choose to, on
the basis of what they "see". I believe I have benefitted greatly from
such advice (and, oddly, I seem to have become more sensitive in
parallel).

Do we not share the wish of wanting to move people (all the while being
true to our own internal dream)? Genuine feedback is invaluable to
realizing this goal, is it not?

JdL

Greetings,

Its a tricky thing. Some people need support more than they need
correction.

I worked briefly with William Albright, who was an astounding musician. He
had it all, great ear, great hands, huge knowledge and a sharp mind. He
could have made mincemeat out of me, but he never did. He encouraged me,
made suggestions, saw/heard into what I was trying to do, gave suggestions
for how it could be done and this was the FIRST time I ever encountered this
manner of teaching. All of the teachers I had had before had been of the
fault finding/denigrating variety.

My experiences as a student (almost uniformly bad) made me very wary of
criticizing others.

But the absence of criticism does not mean the absence of comment. I like
to consider what the work suggests, what its antecedents were, what the
'target' for the composer seemed to be, what his/her background/school might
be etc. This gives me more than enough to talk about. (BTW I review for
the International Piano Quarterly).

So that's where I come from...

All best wishes,
Gordon Rumson
Pianist and Composer

Western Culture would be greatly improved if we came to treat human beings
as well as we currently treat our pets. -- Gordon Rumson

Web page: http://www.cadvision.com/Home_Pages/accounts/liszt/rumson.html

Hi, Gordon! I'm so happy to see you've not dropped off all the lists!
I find your observations both well thought-out and very on-target.

At the same time, when any of us puts forth a work, do we not want to
know whether people are pleased by it? What I speak of in the way of
legitimate reaction is no more or less than how we feel when we hear the
music, and our best guess of why that is. All the ego games must be
absent for the criticism to be worthwhile, and all of us are responsible
for weeding out the crap that may happen to be directed our way.

I have benefitted greatly from reactions to my own tuning work, from
people whose ears are more sensitive than mine. They become my "eyes"
where I am blind, and I can try to refine my course, if I choose to, on
the basis of what they "see". I believe I have benefitted greatly from
such advice (and, oddly, I seem to have become more sensitive in
parallel).

Do we not share the wish of wanting to move people (all the while being
true to our own internal dream)? Genuine feedback is invaluable to
realizing this goal, is it not?

JdL

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello, Gordon!

Since I'm the guy that started this particular ball rolling, I
thought I would offer a few comments in regard to your feelings on
the subject. But! I preface these remarks that I honestly respect
those who would prefer to not have their materials/creations/etc
reviewed, most especially when they have asked for that consideration.

--- In metatuning@y..., Gordon Rumson <RUMSONG@C...> wrote:
> ... and this was the FIRST time I ever encountered this
> manner of teaching. All of the teachers I had had before had
> been of the fault finding/denigrating variety.

As someone who has taught private students for 30 years, I feel
saddened and ashamed that this was your experience. To those teachers
that worked in this manner: you are consigned to the nether regions
for eternity!

What more precious object is there than the student seeking guidance?

In that light, I have had different experiences. While I have had my
share of teachers that were abusive, intolerant, and (worst) ignorant
of my quests, I have had life-affirming and incredibly inspirational
teachers. I wouldn't have spent so much time, and loved teaching as
much as I do, if it weren't for these 'guiding lights'. The first one
was when I was in 5th grade, my first private music teacher, and
while I am sure he never had a clue how much he did to shape my life,
it happened.

He was *not* uncritical, but he was also nurturing and positive.

> My experiences as a student (almost uniformly bad) made me very
> wary of criticizing others.

In light of your experiences, understandable, but not universal.

> But the absence of criticism does not mean the absence of comment.

Yes, I suppose. Comment, as a term, is possibly more benign. However,
I still believe that "constructive criticism" is *not* an oxymoron!

Hands-down, the very best mail list I've ever been on is one that
pertains to a minor sidelight of my interests (web design). This
particular list broke off from a large, noisy one and from virtually
day one to now, five years later, is a paragon of high signal/noise
ratio, is populated by immensely talented people, many of them
important in an industry but eager to "give back" to the community,
and is very much involved in doing critiques of colleague's work.

Every so often someone new comes on the list, a site is put up for
critique, and the newbie goes on some bashing run. Without
hesitation, the mature voices remind them that there are important
and necessary parameters to said criticism, that it must be work-
centric and not personal, and should stay within the boundaries of
the critique asked for.

I have witnessed immense growth in many of the individuals over time,
due in large part to the caring, but sometimes near-merciless, fine-
tooth-combing of a new project. Those that don't want critiques don't
submit sites - it's as simple as that. I have learned far, far more
than I could have in any other manner of education, because it's
the "best of the best" looking at each other objectively and raising
the bar a notch.

Music, admittedly, is a very different beast; on the web list, there
are items that are strictly technical in nature that can be pointed
out. OTOH, there are also elements of very personal style and taste,
not unlike a composer's choices. If handled with respect, I think
these can be looked at as well, but as someone else said, very easy
to simply ask "what do you think about the tuning?" or
instrumentation, or voice leading, or anything else, AND also
state "but I like my melody so don't go there!".

To come full circle, my original point was that if a group of
colleagues and friends becomes merely a circle of humans patting each
other on the back, the progress will be far less than if some of the
patting is interrupted with an occasional dose of "whazzup with that?"

Or some other suitably erudite commentary... :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Because of many of these rather "questionable" practices, I have
> decided I no longer enjoy reviewing works of contemporaries...

When I asked for some recommendations I looked for reviews on
Gramophone, and didn't find any. Maybe a bad review is better than
being ignored completely.

--- In metatuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_305.html#366

> --- In metatuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Because of many of these rather "questionable" practices, I have
> > decided I no longer enjoy reviewing works of contemporaries...
>
> When I asked for some recommendations I looked for reviews on
> Gramophone, and didn't find any. Maybe a bad review is better than
> being ignored completely.

This is a *big* and, actually, often discussed topic. Many feel as
*you* do.

On the other hand, there are a "handful" of composers who
go "ballistic" when they get a bad review. Their reasoning?? Well,
that there are so *few* reviews of contemporary music that a poor one
really has a disproportionate effect on their career...

That's also an opinion I've heard... so the jury is out, and is
probably not coming back soon!...

_________ _______ ______
Joseph Pehrson