Luminita Arvunescu: Nurturing the Art of Music Criticism
The origin of music criticism is found in ancient Greece where philosophers like Plato and Aristotle wrote about the influence and significance of music in society. In early literature, like Plato’s Laws, and later writings of medieval music theorists, critical commentaries on music often mocked styles and performers. In the 17th and 18th centuries, criticism of music and review writing developed through several writer-musicians like Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France, Johann Mattheson in Germany, and Charles Avison and Charles Burney in England. The work of these pioneer music critics corresponded to the rise of newspapers and periodicals in Europe, hence in 1722, Johann Mattheson founded Critica Musica, the first journal dedicated fully to music criticism. Over the centuries, music criticism expanded and evolved as music itself underwent various transformations. In the 19th and 20th centuries, music criticism became more formalized with the advent of magazines focused on reviewing and analyzing music. The critic turned into an intimidating, influential force, a star in his or her own right.
Today, while music criticism is still important in directing public opinion and artistic trends, many consider it no longer as relevant in our digital culture where anyone can post a review or an artist’s “fan armies” are willing to instantly and publicly take to task the writer of an unfavorable review. Ongoing debates about the relevance of music criticism and the preservation of the educated and bold music critic continue to populate cyberspace. Over thirty years ago, one organization decided to do something about this perceived decline of review writing. The Union of Music Critics, Editors and Producers in Romania is keenly nurturing and supporting young musicologists interested in music criticism. In 1991, they established the National Competition for Composition, Music Criticism, and Interpretation. One of the competition’s objectives is to discover and cultivate talented, educated reviewers and launch their careers. The Union’s President, Luminita Arvunescu—who is also an acclaimed producer and radio host I had the pleasure of interviewing for Woman Around Town in 2021—tells us about the mission to preserve the art of the music criticism.
Music criticism is an art. What do you think a review—about an opera performance, for example—should offer its readers?
For over thirty years, I’ve been advocating for a type of constructive music criticism that would not only give verdicts but also educate musically, and that would indicate what was good and less so, what was inspired and less inspired, with arguments and comparisons, clear and focused. A well-written opera review, for instance, highlights the shortcomings of an opera performance, analyzing vocal interpretation, the conductor’s vision, and aspects that pertain to directing and set design. I mention the vocal aspect before directing, although in the last fifty years, all the opera reviews begin with an account and analysis of the director’s concept. In my opinion, opera means, first of all, singing and music, and only after that, plot and directorial vision. So, the educational dimension cannot be missing from a music review. I think the critic is an educator of musical tastes and values, someone who investigates as honestly and lucidly as possible the quality of a certain musical event.
Sadly, the art of reviewing has gone downhill. How do you find modern music reviews as opposed to ones of past eras? What do you think shifted in the process of writing a music review and how did music critics change in their roles as writers with extensive cultural knowledge? And what about the readers of reviews, are they different?
It’s indeed correct to consider reviewing as an art! And it must be said: an art that not all reviewers master. When do I think that reviewing becomes an art? When the critic displays not only neutrality but also cultural knowledge and a solid music education as well as vast experience, and when his or her opinions are transmitted in an elevated language. A reviewer’s mission is not to dismantle someone’s artistry or to entertain the reader by mocking an artist or a cultural event. It is rather to report constructively about it. It’s not to hunt for mistakes but also not to necessarily praise artists that are in vogue in that moment. The reviewer’s mission is to analyze the artistic acts through the prism of certain concepts and models so that he or she can offer those who read or listen to the review an opinion as knowledgeable about music and musicians as possible. Of course, every review has a certain amount of subjectivity dictated by personal taste, cultural knowledge, vision, and the style with which the writer expresses himself or herself, but objectivity should prevail. Honestly, many of the current reviews seem unprofessional to me in contrast to those written in professional magazines fifty or sixty years ago. Today’s reviews are increasingly shorter when it comes to interpretation, yet they pay more attention to scandals or revealing how much a certain director or conductor earned for a certain performance. In this case, we are no longer dealing with the review but with a debate in a performing hall lobby.
I’ve also noticed variations in the length of current reviews depending on the space or time given to them by the publication or radio station or podcast. Generally, current music reviews have been reduced in length which favors a superficial treatment of the musical event, and I don’t agree with that. And when they are longer, I have to say it, in several cases the author is self-serving under the hypocritical guise of educating yet showing himself or herself as erudite without referring directly to the value of the artistic act commented in the review. As for the contemporary audience who reads music reviews, I believe that, as different as it is from the audience of the 1853 premiere of La traviata for example, it still has the same expectations more or less. Basically, the readers expect from the reviewer a professional evaluation of the performance—or album—as well as some guidance and a verdict. The truth is that the applause in the audience is not always in tandem with the value of the artistic act. But, through a review, the public has the opportunity to verify the opinions in the concert hall or opera house against the qualified opinions of a specialist.
Luminita Arvunescu with the Romanian Minister of Culture Raluca Turcan and Romanian Television journalist Marius Constantinescu at the Musicrit Gala presenting awards to the winners of the National Competition for Composition, Music Criticism, and Interpretation – January 14, 2024 – Photo courtesy of Luminita Arvunescu
In Romania there is a competition with prizes for the best reviewers. Please tell us about this wonderful initiative to encourage young reviewers. What have you noticed about these young contestants?
I would begin by saying first of all that, in Romania, music criticism is a branch of journalism with an old tradition, and that, over three decades ago, a guild was founded: The Union of Music Critics, Editors and Producers, which I serve as President. Its activities are very important and respected. The most essential objective of this union was and is that of supporting young artists as well as young musicologists interested in music criticism. In 1991, the National Competition for Composition, Music Criticism, and Interpretation was established to identify the best students in these fields, follow their activities, and nurture them. Our competition is named after an important composer, conductor, music critic, and founder of institutions, Mihail Jora—he was the one who founded the Romanian Radio and Television Orchestra in 1928. Until the pandemic, the competition was taking place annually, and now it’s every two years.
Last year, we focused on discovering the most promising reviewers, especially because we realized that young conservatory graduates are no longer drawn to music criticism, and that we are moving towards a lack of specialists in this field. So, we intensified our efforts, and the result was extremely satisfying as we discovered six very intelligent students with already pertinent opinions, which we are going to help become prominent. What will we do concretely for these young critics? We will open the doors to publications, radio, and television for them, and to institutions where we are active as well as other music institutions so they can have access to music events as quickly and as easily as possible.
Why do you think it’s important for the arts as well as for artists and audiences that quality music reviewing continues to exist?
Because, when it’s honest and well written, the music review can represent the mirror of the times in music and can support the history of a career or even that of an institution. Any biographical material, any written history of a musical institution begins with that concrete testimony that comes from the reviews of the time.
In the past, reviews seemed to be more acknowledged as having historical value…
Exactly! Even today they do! It’s just that, currently, intoxicated by the mirage of success often self-proclaimed on social media, the artists don’t seem to value what is written about them. And neither do the institutions. But “likes” will never have the historical value that a review signed by a respected knowledgeable critic can have.
In our digital world, there is always space for detailed articles about performances, much more than the limited real estate you get in print, but not all online reviews are quality reviews. What do you think is missing sometimes?
Some are missing neutrality. Others are simply missing knowledge. You realize that even the author didn’t understand anything from what happened on the stage, which is the case with many opera reviews. As we discussed in the beginning, from a review you don’t just garner the qualities of an artistic act but also the education, experience, vision, and talent with which its author expresses himself or herself. So, yes, the press—printed and online—is filled with irrelevant reviews! But as imperfect as a certain music review might be when it comes to its content, it still remains anchored in time, an important reference and testimonial to a career, a festival, a season, a cultural epoch. So, we really need to educate and cultivate specialists in this field.
What would you like to see happen as a result of supporting young reviewers devote themselves to music criticism?
I’d like to see the revitalization of the field of music criticism thanks to their young, fresh approach. And, as a consequence, a qualitative improvement in our artistic life.
Top photo: Luminita Arvunescu – Photo: Andra AronT
