Criticism

by Hans Keller

166 pages, Hardcover

Published January 1, 1987

Reviews

[Renee · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this prime example of Keller’s writing and argument, he attacks music criticism, along with the other “phoney professions” of the broadcaster, musicologist, politician, conductor, teacher, and editor. One of the strengths of Keller’s arguments is that he himself practiced most of these professions during his life. Keller’s writing is brilliant, humorous at times, and always challenging. If you read only one book by Keller, this is the one.

[Dominic H · Rating 3 out of 5]

This odd, short, book was apparently mostly written by Keller on a holiday and then languished in proof stage in his attic until after his death. In the Preface the book's editor, Julian Hogg, explains that it was difficult to focus on something once written and that his instinct was always to look ahead. Fair enough of course but I also wonder if that objectivity which comes when one reads something one has written even a little time before made Keller think about the peculiarity of what he had produced.

Given his reputation one could quite imagine Keller penning a lapidary work on the art of criticism, with particular emphasis on music, which would be provocative and certainly difficult to ignore. What this book is really though is a setting out of fairly random things which clearly got under Keller's skin. One can understand it was therapeutic to write it. Less so to read it, particularly at a distance of 50 years. The first half of the book is really a list of pet peeves and some of them are nonsensical, particularly in 2024 but almost as much I suspect in 1977.

Particularly high on my list of oddities are what he writes about viola players (simply ignoring technical realities, the desire to improve the standards of instrumental playing and making an issue where nearly all string players would not see one) and and then, even worse on opera producers. Keller's thesis here seems to be that conductors no best and bringing in directors with knowledge of the theatre is outrageous. Ignoring the debate (if there still is one) about regietheater this seems to the expression of a reactionary view just for the sake of it. Particularly when for Keller the high water mark seems to have been the productions for which Mahler took on the producer's role when he was Chief Conductor of the Vienna State Opera. Keller didn't see them. To take a second hand view as the lynchpin of your argument seems dangerous and goes against the rigour we would normally expect from this author. As for conductors taking charge of opera productions, there is the whole disastrous, deeply conservative history of Karajan taking charge of everything to do with an opera which surely once and for all refutes Keller's argument .

The rest of the book is a bit formless, buttressed by reviews Keller wrote elsewhere - a justified criticism of Saul Bellow's book on his visit to Jerusalem (including a detailed dissection of Bellow's hilariously ignorant remarks about the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto) and a long piece the then newly published diaries of Cosima Wagner. Keller puts forward the latter as a corrective to much ignorant and prejudiced biographical writing about Wagner but really, as he must have been only too well aware, the idea of Cosima as the objective narrator of the creative development of the saintly genius that was her husband is to say the least far fetched.

Despite all this, I did not for a second regret reading Criticism. It's the epitome of thought provoking despite its shapelessness and authorial quirks.

[Douglas Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keller comes across as incredibly caustic, the type to dissolve anything they come in contact with. But the whole endeavour seems so incredibly out of time (1976), for the critic, such as they prominently exist in Keller's mind, is long gone from the cultural scene.

[Jonatan Almfjord · Rating 2 out of 5]

A phony book in which a cynic critic criticizes criticism. I learned nothing.