Reflective Response: Bad Reviews

In the musical review that was published in the Musical Times of London, on August 1, 1913, it would seem that the author is trying to say a great deal of things about Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring while saying very little at all. The author uses 4 sentences to make multiple blanket statements meant to place the Rite of Spring into one single category of musical performance: the worst one. In fact, the author of this particular review professes and claims that the Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky can hardly even be called or categorized as actual music.

I am of the opinion that in no way is this review fair or accurate, by any stretch of the imagination. The author makes overly general, blanket statements of quality, yet in doing so completely misses the point of what a critical music review is all about: providing a review of exactly what kind of music is presented in the composition, and providing analysis of it in a way that allows the reader (potentially, an audience member to the very thing that they are reading a review about) to make an informed decision as to whether or not the reader would like to a performance of the very thing that they are reading about. It is up to the reader, not the author of the review, to consider the music in a subjective fashion so as to then decide whether or not they (the reader) feel that the music being reviewed by the author is the kind of music that they would enjoy or perhaps pay or go out of their way to hear.

I also am of the opinion that the author is speaking from a point of view that paints themselves in a very hypocritical light; the author states that the music baffles all verbal description, yet immediately attempts (even briefly) to verbalize what they feel about the music in their review. The author then goes on to say that this piece has no relation at all to music as we understand the concept, when in reality that is not something for the author to decide, but rather the reader to decide once they have...