GUIDE A TO WRITING CONCERT REVIEWS The concert review can be a strange and challenging genre, but it also allows for creative thinking and can be enormously rewarding. In what follows I provide some rough guidelines for preparing for and writing reviews. What is a concert review? A good concert review should allow a reader who was not at the event to have some sense of what happened; you should provide basic information such as where and when the concert happened, and what was on the program. But a concert review should not be a blow-by-blow description of the pieces featured on the program, nor should it be a simple description of what happened from the minute you walked in the concert hall. You may well want to write up a narration of that sort of your own purposes, but your review should have a larger point, an argument that shows thoughtful reflection on the concert as a whole. Perhaps you noticed a common theme that joined all the pieces together or perhaps there were tensions and contrasts between the works that seemed important. Your paper should have a thesis, but-- and heres the most enjoyable part of these papers-- your thesis can be quite creative. Be careful not to conflate/confuse the works on the program with their performance. I realize that previous sentence has deep philosophical implications (what is the difference between a musical work and an individual performance? Where do works exist? Does a work exist if no one is playing it?), and I dont intend for you to grapple with such ontological difficulties. However, be sure to keep your discussion focused, as much as possible, on the particular performance of the work that you heard. Do I need to prepare anything before going to a concert? I recommend doing a few hours of preparation before a concert. Most often, programs are available on line, so, at a very minimum, you can look over the program and the read up on the composers and history and significance of the works featured on the program. (Use Grove Music) Better yet, when possible, I recommend listening to a few other performances of the works. Being familiar with the music will help you appreciate the particular choices made by the musicians in the concert you attend. How much detail should I include? Do I need to discuss every piece on the concert in my review? Obviously this will depend on the concert; I would rather read a thoughtful review that made a clear point about two important pieces on the program than a superficial review that superficially described all four pieces. Ideally, you will find a way to link all (or most) of the works, but if two of the pieces raised
fascinating questions for you, dont feel you need to cram the entire program in your reviewjust be sure to let the reader know what the entire program was. How critical can/should I be of the pieces? Resist making statements like The piece was boring/confusing/etc; while there are some pieces that are boring (Stravinsky famously complained Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end), it is better to err on the side of caution: consider first that it might be your lack of familiarity with the piece (another good reason to do some listening ahead of time), and second that it might be the fault of the programming and performance (was it a lackluster performance? Was there not enough variety on the program?). Only after youve considered those possibilities should you think that the work itself might have some major flaw. Again, not every piece of music is perfect, but the pieces of music that you will hear performed will most likely have withstood the test of time: generations have heard something marvelous and moving, so you should do your best to try to find out why. Listen sympathetically. But the most essential thing to keep in mind is this: whether you critique the performance or the work, you must be specific as possible. And this holds equally true if you loved the program and music! Be as technical: here is a great moment to bring in the musical vocabulary well build over the course of the semester. In your criticism and praise, point to as precisely as possible to particular elements. The Case of Opera Often, opera is easier to review than orchestral or chamber music concerts, simply because there is so much to write about: in addition to the musical performances, you can write about the staging, scenery, and direction. Again, be sure to separate the opera itself from the particular staging. To prepare for writing a review of an opera, read up on the history of the opera, the composer, and the plot; again, use Grove Music for this. We have many operas in the Music Library on DVDyou might even consider watching a different production (or least part of it) before going to see how others have interpreted the work. How much of the whole experience should I write about? One of the joys of going to concertsas opposed to listening to recordingsis the whole sensory experience of the event. The Kimmel Center is a beautiful venue for hearing live music and listening to someone sing happy birthday would probably feel quite special. You might find that your experience of the music is heightenedor possibility diminishedby the venue, audience, and general atmosphere, and you can certainly incorporate those elements into your
review. Do not, however, include every detail about the whole experience: you might have found the anticipation-filled taxi ride exciting, but you dont need to include a description of that in your review. Starting questions: (Not of all these will be relevant for all concerts) Do you have a sense that there is the purpose of the program? Does this program feature famous works that everyone knows, or is it presenting lesser-known pieces? How do the works on the program speak to each other? A piece by Bach paired with other early 18th-century works might feel quite different from that same piece paired with 20th-century works. For an opera, what did the staging say about the opera as a whole? Did it try to conjure up a particular, specific location or did it emphasize the timelessness of the story? What kind of engagement did the production invite (Pure pleasure? Serious contemplation? Postmodern confusion?) Here, as in all of your writing, be sure to use correct musical terminology! Things to keep in mind: 1. Song is not a generic word for any piece of music, regardless of what iTunes might lead you to believe. Only use song when you are talking about actual songs (e.g., Troubadour songs and Schubert Lieder). Either use the actual genre (symphony or overture) or else a generic designation such as piece or work. This may seem picky at first, but think of how strange it would sound if you were talking to someone who used the word poem to describe any genre of writing (I just read this poem Moby Dick.). Genres help us communicate! 2. There are various conventions for how you refer to works in writing. Genres: not capitalized, no quotes or italics:
. I pre fer symphonies to string quartets, but I lo ve o pera the most.
Generic titles of specific works: capitalized, no quotes or italics:
Beetho ven s String Quartet in Eb Major, Op. 74 was o n the progra m
Specific titles of larger works (operas, ballets, whole song cycles, instrumental works with non-generic titles): Capitalized, Italics
While tra veling, I heard Verdis Aida in Ro me
S chubert s Winterreise makes me cry. Ive alwa ys wante d to hear a live perfo rma nce of M ussorgskys Pi ctures at an Exhibition. (In Fre nch and Italian titles, o ften only the first wo rd is ca pitalize d: I heard Ra vels Valses nobles et sentime ntales o n a pro gram with Be rliozs Symph onie fantastique)
For short vocal works, either songs, or numbers from operas, and for titled movements of instrumental works, use quotation marks:
. Some da y I hope to sing Schuberts Erlk nig My fa vorite duet from Don Giovanni is L ci darem la ma no betwee n Zerlina and Don Gio vanni. Rave ls orche stratio n of M ussorgskys T he Great at Kie v from his Pi ctures at an Exhibition give s me goosebumps.
For movements within an instrumental work that are identified only by tempo, use italics:
Ive alwa ys lo ve d the Vif mo veme nt fro m Ra vels Valses nobles et sentimentales (this is beca use usually tho se tempo indicatio ns are in a langua ge other than English)
Breakdown of the grading process: Your papers will be given marks out of 100, and you will be assessed along the following lines: 1. Argument/Analysis A paper will only receive a grade of A or higher if it makes a larger argument that shows thoughtful reflection about the musical performance. 2. Specificity and Musical Detail It is equally important to tie your discussion to actual event, and that means engaging with the performance in detail. A deep, philosophical paper about the nature of music, even one that makes a profound argument, is not good unless it is tied in meaningful ways to the concert itself. Your reader should have no doubt that you were there and that your thoughts about the music reflect that particular performance.
3. Clarity of Prose/ correct use of musical terminology Good ideas are inseparable from their expression. Your paper will be graded for your prose and style as well. Read your paper out loud to check for flow; while written prose can be more complicated and artful than speech, you should watch out for any sentences that you would never say in normal conversation. There are also a few prose pitfalls that are particular to concert reviews: Exercise restraint with the adverbs and exclamation marks. This is true in all writing, but the temptation is often stronger when writing about music. It is easy to use adverbs in the place of a more thoughtful, specific observation. While a concert review often necessitates the use of the first person, keep first-person constructions to a minimum. This will help to prevent the paper from becoming a chronicle of your experience at the concert.
4. Careful proofreading Sloppy mistakesmisspellings, typos, bad formatting, etc.all detract from the readability of your paper. Your paper should be as error-free as possible. Please make sure composers names, titles, and musical terms are spelled correctly (that includes diacritical marks such as accents, umlauts, etc.). Grade breakdown:
A: Pa per has a clearly e xpre sse d, tho ughtful, a nd creative thesis; the musical discussio n is insightful and detaile d and emplo ys the musical vo cabulary we ve bee n learning correctly. The pa per is well writte n a nd virtua lly mista ke-free. B: Pa per is stro ng, but lacks e ither a thoughtful thesis or else doe s not e nga ge close ly with the music. Prose is clear and the pa per virtua lly mistake-free. C: Paper lacks a co here nt thesis a nd e nga ges with the music superficially; the pro se is not always clear; te xt is slo ppy. D: Paper ha s no thesis; the e nga geme nt w ith the music is proble matic. T he prose is highly problematic; text is sloppy. F: Complete failure to meet any o f the re quireme nts of the assignme nt.