Since the society does not dare to express its opinion and there is no trust in the institution of criticism, the artist can never know for sure what pleases the society and what does not. Who should the artist believe if society hesitates or cheats, if the critics attempt to interpret it in a guided or uninformed way?
When you pick up any music publication, you not only read absurd and absurd claims, but also come across many contradictory statements that are sometimes used to praise and sometimes criticize the content. This is quite natural.
Hegel says: “Accurate criticism is difficult; The critic's ability to be easily influenced is crippled by thousands of contradictory principles that exist within himself.
The distress pointed out by this right thought consists of prejudices, ignorance, and the fact that today's critics are amateur enthusiasts. The best example to support this judgment is the polemic after the criticism of Fazıl Say's album “Chopin Noktürleri” written by Andante Magazine's recording critic and amateur pianist Feyzi Erçin.
In his critique, Erçin wrote that Fazıl Say made "additions" to the Op.9 No.2 nocturn in the album, and in Say's own style, he shared a social media post stating that the notes belonged to Chopin and the critic was not even aware of it. Erçin replied:Yeah I didn't know, I wrote the review while on vacation” he replied. It's just black humor isn't it?
In general, all music criticism is made by art-lovers who are enthusiastically art-related and whose words cannot be explained almost concretely. Art-speakers, on the other hand, represent honest souls. Although they do not have knowledge of a discipline, they experience the process by repeating "fashionable" phrases. Art-hipocrats, on the other hand, are an underdeveloped type of art-lovers. This group is terrified of appearing ignorant and prophesies with their fiery fantasies. The most dangerous species are art-liars. They form small groups of themselves. Criticisms of true art-connoisseurs are very rare. You can interpret this situation as a voice lost in the noise of the majority.
When you examine the music publications, you may witness that one critic criticizes “few melodies” and another criticizes “too many melodies” for the same symphony. When you break the hard and synthetic shell created by fancy words, you often reach an abstract and hollow core. For the young artist, these excesses (maxim) are wearisome.
It seems that between the object we want to describe and us, there are many theses on art – on the Ideal and the Real – and the artist is no longer alone with his nature.Anne Louise Germaine de Stael
Eckermann comments on this unfortunate situation in his conversation with Goethe:There are too many false teachers. The young artist did not know which saint to present himself to.”. Goethe replies: “We have seen generations corrupted and destroyed by these faulty excesses."
One of the demonic forces of written criticism is the arrogance of young artists against pre-established or created models.
The works of master composers who lived in the past are interpreted as "outdated", while novices try to create a "new era" at every opportunity.