Stuff I'm Thinking About

Pauline Oliveros, a composer, turns the composer's lack of interest in critical reception into a responsibility for the critic to approach the composer.  In "And Don't Call Them Lady Composers," published in Software for People (1984) Oliveros says:

"Many composers of today are not interested in the criteria applied by critics to their work and it is up to the critic to discern new criteria by going to the composer.  With more performances of new works at which the composers are present, and with the greater mobility of our society, critics have a unique opportunity--a duty--to converse directly with the composer.  Then (since performers are often irresponsible with new works because of disrespect for or lack of established models), works with which the critics have familiarized themselves would escape some scathing misjudgments due to poor performances.  The ideal critic could not only interpret technically and encourage an atmosphere which is sympathetic to the phenomenon of new music, but present the composer as a real and reasonable person to audiences."

I hope that the situation as regards both critics' and performers' approaches to new music has improved since 1970, when the article was originally written.  However, there will always be resistance to new things, and even if critics are familiar with the work audiences may still balk at being expected to study before a concert.

Despite his being a pretty big deal (music critic for the New York Times) it's hard to find information on him.  All that's readily available is his past articles, of which there are a LOT.  And these articles have me wondering who this guy is and how he got to a position of such power.  Witness his post on Ethyl Smyth's opera The Wreckers:
An Opera Shivers Its Timbers
Holland essentially calls Smyth a militant bitch, or at least that's what I get from this.  "Smyth’s militancy carried over into her life. (Or was it the other way around?) She campaigned with women’s suffragists and shared jail time with the eminent feminist Emmeline Pankhurst."  Alright then.  I'm not quite sure that campaigning for women's suffrage is an unattractive attribute, but then that seems to be where my opinion diverges from that of Mr. Holland.  Admittedly I didn't see the performance, nor am I familiar with the opera, but it seems that passing negative judgment on any piece based on the composer's progressive politics is not the most responsible criticism.

Then again, responsibility to the composer or the music isn't on Holland's agenda.  Witness this more recent piece:
The Audience as Arbiter
Am I reading the musical equivalent of Nick Hornby?  While music (and yes, books) should be enjoyable, sometimes that enjoyment is sweeter for being hard-won--which can entail some research and multiple hearings. 

I've been out of school for a year now, which is still totally bizarre to me.  Since I'm going back next year for a master's program (CUNY--Queens College, musicology) I figured I should make some sort of commitment to writing regularly, so that I don't trip all over myself when I have to write anything more in-depth than an email.  I'm also thinking that maybe if I do it in a (semi-)public forum I'll have a reason to put in a decent amount of effort, so that my two friends won't think I'm completely illiterate.  So break a bottle of champagne on the hull and here we go...