ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, March 25, 1996 TAG: 9603250104
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BENEDICT GOODFRIEND
ON FEB. 11, there appeared on the Opinion page the latest of a long line of angry responses to criticism by Roanoke Times' reviewers. This letter to the editor (``Guest conductor pleased many'' by Agnes S. Heller) responded to Seth Williamson's review of the Roanoke Symphony's Monday Night Classics III with conductor Leslie Dunner.
It had classic elements in common with its predecessors. To paraphrase: ``How dare you criticize our local performing organizations?'' or ``Could he have heard the same concert that I attended?'' Interestingly, the greatest rumblings of discontent often come from those who proudly quote the same critic's favorable reviews. Herein lies the misunderstanding of the critic's role in the community.
I approach this problem with a perspective gained through performing in many cities, and having been reviewed in numerous newspapers, ranging from The New York Times to small-town newspapers. I've received rave reviews (which I prominently display) and less flattering ones (which line the bottom of my trash cans).
As a performer, I expect to be criticized. For the sake of excellence in the performing arts, such criticism is crucial. Not only is it the right of a critic to give an honest account to the best of his or her ability, but it's an obligation to the community.
I'm aware of communities whose newspapers are asked not to criticize local performers. Such requests can lead to unfortunate results. What occurs is a double standard, where national touring organizations are criticized honestly and local ones automatically exalted. The community isn't given any perspective.
Once residents begin to believe that their local performers are on a level beyond reproach, two serious problems develop. First, local audiences begin to distrust their own opinions. If they don't enjoy a concert, they attribute their often-valid response to their own ignorance or lack of appreciation. After all, the review said it was great! Second, without the community's desire for local performers to continue to improve (indeed, you cannot improve that which is perfect!), local arts organizations begin pouring money into fringe projects for cosmetic purposes instead of increasing professional quality.
If the critic is important for monitoring quality in the arts, should one always trust his or her opinion? Of course not! The arts are, after all, very subjective by nature. I recall that while competing in a national competition, my 15-minute performance elicited two opposite opinions from the judges. One wrote ``brilliant ... ready for a major career,'' and the other simply stating ``studentish.''
Nevertheless, there do exist elements that are objective. In music, such things as bad intonation, entrances that aren't together, missed notes - to mention a few - aren't subject to opinion.
Thus, I find myself in the position of defending Williamson's review of the Roanoke Symphony. Objectively, this concert contained some of the worst playing that I've heard the orchestra do since coming to Roanoke. Perhaps his overall characterization of the ``lack of communication'' between the conductor and orchestra lies in the realm of the subjective, but this clearly reflects my own opinion of the concert. Indeed, he was very astute, as well as kind, in not blaming the orchestra for these lapses, knowing it to be capable of much better.
Regardless of our opinions of any given review, we must respect the right of critics to report as honestly as they can to our community. Only then can we deem our arts community healthy.
Benedict Goodfriend of Roanoke is a violinist with the Kandinsky Trio.
LENGTH: Medium: 69 linesby CNB