Music Criticism & Journalism

Writing about music has been as important to my professional life as researching it. For more than three decades I have written reviews, interviews, essays and reports on an extraordinarily wide range of musical subjects, from medieval chant to the newest contemporary compositions. Journalism has never been a diversion from my academic work; it has been another way of exploring music through close listening, careful observation and critical reflection.

Good musical journalism begins with curiosity. Whether reviewing a première, interviewing a composer, or reflecting on a major concert, I have always tried to ask the same questions that shape my scholarly research. What is this music trying to achieve? How does it communicate? How does it relate to the traditions from which it has grown, and what new perspectives does it offer? These questions matter just as much in a newspaper review or magazine article as they do in a journal essay.

Over the years I have contributed several hundred reviews, feature articles and reports to a wide variety of publications. Much of this work has appeared in Tempo, where I have written extensively on contemporary music, festivals, conferences and recordings. I have also contributed to Musical Opinion, Music & Vision, Classical Music Daily, Jewish Renaissance, The Jewish Chronicle, Arietta, The Wagner Journal, and major reference works including Grove Music Online and MGG. Although each publication serves a different readership, I have always tried to write with the same combination of intellectual seriousness and accessibility, believing that scholarship and clear communication should reinforce rather than oppose one another.

Contemporary music has formed a particularly important part of this work. Following new compositions over many years has allowed me to observe changing musical languages, aesthetic debates and the emergence of new generations of composers. My reviews have explored the work of figures as diverse as Luciano Berio, Elliott Carter, Iannis Xenakis, Harrison Birtwistle, Peter Maxwell Davies, Steve Reich, Michael Nyman, John Adams and John Tavener, while also introducing readers to many less familiar composers whose music deserves wider attention. One of the privileges of journalism is precisely this opportunity to champion work that has not yet entered the established repertoire.

Interviews have provided another particularly rewarding dimension of my writing. Speaking directly with composers offers insights that no score or programme note can provide. Conversations with musicians such as Simon Bainbridge and Shulamit Ran have reinforced my belief that criticism is most valuable when it begins by listening sympathetically to the composer's own artistic intentions before offering evaluation. A successful interview is not simply a sequence of questions and answers, but a conversation that enables readers to hear a creative voice thinking aloud about its own work.

My interests as a reviewer have always extended beyond contemporary music. Throughout my career I have written on opera, chamber music, orchestral performance, festivals, recordings, books and musical scholarship itself. I have been fortunate to review performances by many outstanding musicians while also reporting on conferences and study days that have helped shape current musicological debate. These different forms of writing continually inform one another. Scholarship deepens criticism; criticism, in turn, continually raises new questions for research.

Increasingly I have come to regard criticism as a creative discipline in its own right. A worthwhile review should do more than pronounce judgement. It should help readers understand what makes a performance or composition distinctive, illuminate musical ideas that might otherwise pass unnoticed, and encourage deeper listening. In this sense, criticism becomes a form of interpretation, standing alongside performance and scholarship as another means of engaging with music.

This belief has also influenced my editorial work. As Editor of Arietta, the journal of the Beethoven Piano Society of Europe, I have sought to create a publication that combines scholarly insight with accessibility, encouraging dialogue between performers, researchers and informed listeners. Editing has reinforced my conviction that music flourishes through conversation: between composers and performers, scholars and audiences, critics and readers.

Digital media have naturally transformed the ways in which musical journalism reaches its audience. Online publications now allow criticism to appear quickly and to reach readers across the world, while also creating opportunities for new forms of engagement through interviews, blogs and, increasingly, podcasts and recorded conversations. Although the medium continues to evolve, the underlying purpose remains unchanged: to communicate thoughtfully about music and to encourage attentive, informed listening.

Looking back over many years of writing, I am struck less by the variety of subjects than by the continuity of the questions that have guided them. Whether writing about Beethoven, Wagner, Jewish music, contemporary composition or a newly discovered score, I remain interested in the ways music creates meaning and how that meaning can best be communicated to others. Journalism has provided an invaluable opportunity to share that curiosity with a wide readership while continually learning from the remarkable musicians, composers and scholars whose work I have had the privilege to encounter.

For me, writing about music is itself a form of musical practice. It begins with listening, grows through reflection, and finds its purpose in communication. If a review, essay or interview encourages a reader to return to a piece of music with fresh ears, then it has already achieved something worthwhile.