On the Tyranny of Critics and some Others

It is said that critics in New York can close a show by giving it a bad review and that this power can be wielded by some individuals. I do not think that such a thing would be possible in London. Recent attempts to prevent a show from being put on perhaps for reasons of political correctness or for some other reason that has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the piece have failed. The Imams of Birmingham had more success by creating a threat of violence.

In the UK deliberate damage to a performer writer or producer would be more insidious. Much can be achieved by ignoring such a person or by never printing anything which is not disparaging. I will take a particular case because it is known to me and because it is an extreme example. Take the soprano Lesley Garrett, known to millions as a result of insistent publicity which the Press does not control. By no means so many know how good a singer she really is after 20 years as a performer.

Here we have this lady, a C.B.E. for her services to music, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Music where she was trained, a winner, whilst a student, of the prestigious international singing competition for the Kathleen Ferrier prize, principal soprano for 12 years with English National Opera, and she is treated like some parvenu on the west end stage. For over 20 years the critics have contrived to deny to her the recognition that her talent merits.

Of course there are many things against her. Firstly she comes from the wrong side of the tracks. Secondly she comes from the North of England. Thirdly shve would probably describe herself as Protestant though I do not think that she is addicted to organised religion. For that reason she does not fit neatly into the Catholic dominated world of opera. Fourthly she has declared her intention to popularise opera. Fifthly she is a very slight person, even the wrong shape it has been said.

In spite of all these serious disadvantages, as millions know she sings like an angel, is at least as technically profient as any and can generate more sound than most.

To make my point the question that has to be answered is How good is she? An answer can only be reached by comparison. What I have done is to set up Maria Callas and Lesley Garrett singing the same test pieces back to back. It is the nearest one can get to evidence. I find that without an intimate knowledge of one voice or the other it is difficult to tell them apart. You don't have to take my word for it. It is an experiment which can be replicated by anybody possessed of a pair of functioning ears and a CD player. At the very least they are equivalent. The same test can be applied to any of the currently accepted paragons of vocal excellence.

A further point to be made in connection with this comparison is that Maria Callas confined herself to the relatively minor composers of the opera world which opera singers tend to do whereas Lesley Garrett includes in her repertoire the greatest and most difficult - Handel, Bach and Mozart, and as musicians know she sings them brilliantly and seemingly with ease.

Yet the consensus view amongst critics is that Maria Callas was the greatest opera singer the world has ever known and the other was described recently by a Times critic as `a bizarre amalgam of Dusty Springfield and Gracie Fields'. That was in a report of a sell out concert at the Royal Festival Hall.

This is a direct example of what the critics can do. Some people, perhaps impressed by the Times, would take this as an authoritative judgement. Some might even trot it out as their own considered opinion. So an impression grows.

Why critics would do this is an intriguing question. As to motives one can only speculate. It is the case that almost all of our major newspapers are owned by Roman Catholics, edited by RC's and written very largely by them. Have you ever wondered why opera singers generally are usually from Italy Spain or South America or at least from southern Europe. It is because these are RC areas and others are excluded. Opera is a Roman Catholic preserve.

There have been some brilliant exceptions. Joan Sutherland was one such who eclipsed Maria Callas in her role in Lucia di Lammermoor and was adopted by the Italians as La Stupenda. She however was Australian. Gwyneth Jones and Bryn Terfel are two more but they are Welsh and with due deference to the Welsh they are not seen as a threat. English Protestants are out. It would not do to have a diminutive English lady outperforming them in their own jealously guarded field. I am convinced that here is the main motivation. They will see to it that Lesley Garrett never sings in Milan or Vienna. Covent Garden is suspect.

Another suspect is the murky world of music promotion. Vast sums are involved for promoters and some performers. Record companies spend lavishly on promoting artists they have under contract. Some of that money goes on wining and dining influential critics. Sometimes they are transported, all expenses paid, to exotic locations for musikfesten and their editors would not appreciate it if valuable advertisers were upset.

Where sales are king perhaps quality as an absolute goes out of the window, becoming secondary to a perception that can be generated by hype. The counterpart of that would be deliberate destruction of the reputation of a competitor.

For critics to be involved in such transactions would be a disgrace. They are supposed to be competent to pass judgement and independent in their expression of it.

Critics and more especially reviewers of books have become part of the selling process. For that reason it becomes important to know the political, religious and philosophical orientation not only of the reviewer but also of those who decide what is to be reviewed. The same concern should be felt about those few who buy in books for the few major booksellers. Not all books that are published are actively distributed through those channels and it is a considerable handicap to those that are not. The stock excuse 'in our opinion there will be no demand' can cover suppression for one reason or another To take an extreme example a Vatican bookshop 'would not anticipate much demand' for a book advocating contraception.

It may be that the fate of an individual, be he performer, somebody scribbling in his garden shed, a metric martyr or somebody protecting his life or property, is as the fall of a sparrow. We should however be concerned about the means by which we hear of these things. After centuries during which a continuous thread was discernible in human development of progressive emancipation from tyranny and of personal empowerment, that process has been reversed.

The most powerful weapon in the hands of those who would enslave is control of information. The idea that the Press or Broadcasting are independent is a joke. Control is exercised not so much by overt censorship as by selecting people of the appropriate mindset to be in charge. The true nature of the relationship between the BBC and the Government was revealed during the Doctor Kelly affair. They have at their disposal invention, suppression, emphasis, distortion, distraction, and disinformation. They can create any view of the world they desire.

A prime example is the use being made of a man who commands no army, navy or airforce Osama bin Laden, who it seems, commands a loose network of like minded individuals, is being used in an attempt to terrorise the west, to justify stripping populations of hard won legal safeguards and attacking other countries on the risible pretext of spreading democracy.

A performance, a painting, a piece of music or a book is what it is all the way from brilliant to worthless. What it is not is somebody's opinion. What is important is its effect on those who see, hear or read. Those who arrogantly set themselves up as arbiters of taste seek to impose their own likes and dislikes on the wider community. That is to put it at its most innocent.

To the extent that these people get in the way of artists reaching the public they render no service to art or to the public. To the extent that they seek to distort perceptions for whatever purpose they are pernicious.

I have often wondered how much real talent never sees the light of day because of opinionated individuals in places of power. Many of those who have ‘made it' have tales to tell of persistence in the face of repeated rejection. How many gentler souls do not persist we will never know.

The need for circulation or audience ratings is the Achilles heel of this otherwise unbridled power not only of critics but of the whole media. That such power can be deployed to the detriment of one individual is monstrous.

The power of music to move is one of the wonders of the world