A Music Critic’s Modest Proposal: Listen to Music, not Walls & Ceilings

New York Times music critic Bernard Holland reflects on the aftermath of the recent opening of Philadelphia's new Kimmel Center, which included being asked "How did it sound?" over and over. The "it" people were interested in was the hall itself, while Holland sheepishly admits that he was listening to the music within. He suggests only somewhat facetiously that music critics be banned from reviewing acoustics. "It's none of their business."

In his April 6, 2003 column, Holland elaborates: Thinking about acoustics takes critics' minds off the music, and "only rarely do they behave badly enough" to get in the way.

He recounts how after Carnegie Hall's mid-80s renovation, the media "sent reviewers to every corner of the hall to report on the sound of the cello section from Row P as opposed to the second balcony left. No one seemed to ask whether the sound of the cellos might depend on who was playing that night, and what they were playing. More important, everyone forgot to listen to the music."

To Holland, the ideal concert experience is "a transaction between two imaginations: one that emanates from the stage, the other going to meet it from the seats." If this "powerful machine" of imagination can reconstruct a symphony orchestra from the sound coming from a pair of stereo speakers, he argues, surely it can adjust for most idiosyncrasies arising from the reflections of sound within a concert hall.

Like a good haircut, he continues, good acoustics go unnoticed. Apart from the most extreme failures - and even Carnegie Hall was readjusted extensively after the its reopening - acoustics should be "to music what bookbinding and typesetting are to Faulkner... If our minds are doing their work, Faulkner's voice will sound the same in the roughest, smallest and most unwelcoming old paperback as it does in the most luxurious special edition."


Holland's entire article is available at the New York Times web site [fee required].