To review a review

When asked to critique Taruskin’s critical writing - to review a review, I think I approached the reading with a question unconsciously already formed in my mind: what is the model and the ideal of a piece of criticism that we judge any specific writing against? Which, of course, has to deal with what a review is in essence, what is its function and purpose. Is a critical review some sort of “auxiliary” tool to access a work of art, therefore at the service both of the work of art and its appreciation by the consumers - or it is a literary creation standing in its own terms, independent to a certain degree from its cultural function and from the object of its criticism?

I remember, in my high school years, reading old critical essays about a 19th century Italian novelist and literally loving them as self-sufficient gems of prose and deep, argumented critical thought… while I absolutely hated the work of the novelist they talked about!

So, should a review be criticized for the social service rendered and the results accomplished as intermediary between a work of art and the people - or also judged as a piece of prose and a work of thought - if not a work of art itself?

Obviously both are in a way true, and obviously what I called the “cultural function” of a review is essential and indispensable. I believe Taruskin’s review fully and brilliantly accomplishes that purpose and function, while sometimes not completely escaping the temptation of becoming an independent critical-philosophical essay - but never abandoning itself to the other temptation, much more futile, of leaning towards a self-referential piece of ornamented prose.

This review - in its essential content - starts off with giving basic but detailed information about the Teldec recording, the peculiar history of a gigantic project, the endeavors and artistic personae of the two principal performers/directors of the performances; then goes on to the core of the critique, focusing on some of the most peculiar - and seldom discussed or even mentioned - aspects of Bach’s cantatas and of their interpretation under the direction of the pair Leonard-Harnoncourt, emphasizing how, in which pieces in particular and through what means those unique characters of the cantatas are displayed and strongly represented in the performances. The article is specific in describing the different approaches of the two directors and their different personalities as musicians; what is most important to me, it has a point, a strong one, which is supported by insightful arguments and carried out with lucidity and consistency. It does the job of a review: it engages the reader from beginning to end and it triggers his/her curiosity to listen to these recordings, to explore them trying to finally face up to “Bach’s dark vision”.

Then, of course, the review is absolutely provocative in its statements; surely it wants to astonish the reader with its main point about the “ugliness” of this music, disarming in the boldly repeated way it is enunciated. But the philosophical and historical arguments are strongly expressed, as well as the illuminating reference to the nowadays lost aesthetic of the sublime. Also, one should really go and listen to the musical examples Taruskin mentions to support his thesis: well, I did, and listening to the Harnoncourt rendition of Cantata no. 101, I could not avoid thinking that Taruskin is absolutely right, and that this piece of music is nothing but astonishing, wonderful, sublime ugliness.

I say in a previous paragraph: “in its essential content”. Because there is an aspect of this article that in my opinion can very well be criticized: that the reader may miss in part that essential content and remain entangled in the philosophical arguments, in the scholarly controversy about the “Enlightened” vision of Bach, and may get caught in the polemic urge of a debate between two schools of thought, in the surface of a prose almost nonchalantly disseminated with pungent, irreverent statements. But on the other hand, the style and the form are a medium to the essence of the writing - and anybody would prefer a very characterized, personal style to something flat and neutral. I guess we expect from a critic of the stature of Taruskin a very strong personality in each one of his expressions and a somewhat opinionated attitude - we almost take that for granted, and will probably be disappointed by the opposite.

The greatness of a writer like Taruskin is to be able to satisfy the basic function of a review and convey all its essential components in a few pages that at the same time are utilized as a channel for expressing his philosophical convictions, his personal and scholarly opinions, with an engaging, provocative style.

I think the postscript is a final touch of pure elegance, in that it gives voice to the readers’ critiques, reporting them as interesting contributions, without the need to further argue. A very obvious, conventional consideration struck me as the very last own words of the author in the article: “Of course, Bach is bigger than any one view of him” (314, Postscript). I don’t believe such a common place would have been thrown in there just by chance by someone subtle like Taruskin. To me it is a very stylish sign of balance after the somehow extreme quality of the opinions previously expressed: it closes the circle.