More about dilemma – the pros and cons
The pros that you happen to be luckily sent to write about someone who plays a set of program familiar to you is that, you don’t have to risk sitting there wondering if there are intentionally wrong notes, you may enjoy the comfort of real beautiful music and satisfying performance. The taboo is getting personal.
Interpretation is sometimes equal to snobbishness.
“Oh, wrong note…oh, no! It shouldn't be a forte but a sforzando..., etc.., etc...” “Gee...what a stupid crescendo!...I don't believe that Beethoven wanted it.” Do they sound familiar? As I sometimes help interpreting masterclasses, similar comments are heard no less than frequently from the Masters, the audience, and in my head.
You can never be too objective when judging others.
Knowledge is power, but knowing more about Liszt's B minor Sonata doesn't grant you the right to be snobbish, not even when you know more and play better than anyone else. Theoretically, the performers make better critics than theorists because they actually do the “practice” – they practice, they play, and they perform. Concertizing has become something very complicated while still extremely delicate. You can’t possibly know what would happen in the next moment, the string might break, the conductor might go blank-out as you finish your cadenza (or it is YOU who goes blank-out), and all in all, the audience might unintentionally spice your performance with a twist of coughing.
A performer can either become a good critic or not a critic at all.
I always believe that talents, education and trainings are given to us as the precious pass to further enjoyment in music world; you enjoy much more en route perfecting your performance and knowledge if you happen to be a concert musician. As we know from research and experience that performances are best be bettered if the performers are encouraged, by both praising and criticizing, namely, by being noticed.
---to be continued
文章定位：
