Defends Music Critic

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Mr. Hugh Murray's attack on CRIMSON music reviews betrays not only lamentable confusion but also outright inaccuracy. He fails to grasp the real philosophy and functions of music criticism. The music critic has at least five important roles, briefly: (1) as a reporter, giving the relevant facts of a musical event; (2) as a teacher placing musical works in a relation to other works and to the cultural and intellectual climate of the times; (3) as an evaluator, stating his opinions both of the music itself and its performance; (4) as a champion and protector of musical life in his community and of the composer; and (5) as a provocative entertainer, holding the interest of the reader and compelling him to think for himself.

Needless to say, all five roles need not be present in every music review. Yet Mr. Murray would restrict the critic to judging performance only, when the composer and his product is far more vital. There is already a dangerous tendency today to lavish all on performers and to regard new composers as intruders in a well established game. It is significant that, without exception, every one of the greater music critics--such as Rellstab, Hoffman, Heine, Schumann, Hanslick and G. B. Shaw--owes that greatness almost exclusively to what he wrote about the composer and his music, not about the performance. Be this as it may, when the CRIMSON reviewer referred to Beethoven's "middle period" (Oct. 5), he was making an astute comment, and concerning performance at that.

Murray further states that the CRIMSON discussed performance only in the cases of professionals, and then immediately contradicts himself by saying that "only student performers have faults in the CRIMSON." Both statements are wrong. If Murray will re-read just the reviews that have appeared this fall, he will find (1) that every one devotes space to criticizing the performance; (2) that the professional B.S.O. had "too loud" brass, "lax interpretation," "a shaky start," etc; (3) that the student Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra was "top-notch ... of professional calibre" and gave an "electrifying performance"; and (4) that, in one case, a professional performance was judged far inferior to student performance of the same work.

Finally, Murray would "shun the sweeping positive judgements" which Olin Downes of the Times "would tremble to make." One need look back no further than last Sunday to find a column by Downes that must have given him chorea, if not epilepay. But remember, Murray, that he who is only a timid fence sitter will get splinters in uncomfortable places. Caldwell Titcomb 5G