Critics and Performers

New Zealand Listener, Volume 19, Issue 470, 25 June 1948, Page 9

Critics and Performers

‘THE Dunedin Brains Trust in its first session got away to a fine start and there was almost a stroke of genius in the selection of Professor George Knight as question-master. What could be better, to introduce the Dunedin Brains Trust, than a scholar of distinctly dry wit with one of the most pleasant Scottish voices imaginable? Arising ‘from a publicly-expressed criticism of a local music critic, one question afforded the speakers room for various views on the subject of whether a music critic should himself be a performer of great ability. It was to be expected that the panel would be in agreeinent on the question, all of them maintaining, of course, that in order to be a good critic one need not be a virtuoso. But there was a pleasing diversity of ideas on the reasons for this, and it was qualified by the assumption that a modest proportion of technical ability is a help rather than a hindrance to the critic. It was forcibly argued | that the really brilliant performer is not the best critic, as a certain amount of natural superiority is bound to bias his judgment of lesser performers; also that the jealousy and heartburning which any musician knows to be inborn in 50 per cent. of his fellow-performers will likewise make itself felt in 50 per cent. of criticisms offered to one musician by another. -However, a critic who knows absolutely nothing about his subject from a technical point of view is severely handicapped when it comes to necessary discussion of points of technique in connection with a performance, and it will generally be found that outstanding musical critics (to mention the obvious, Shaw arid Newman), although not practising virtuosi, had a more penetrating and widely-based musical knowledge than the majority. of the concert-stars they were called upon to criticise,