How to Critique Music: Guide to Criticizing a Performance

Guide to Critiquing a Performance:

For Improving Your own Playing or Giving Commentary to Others

Note: This is an aesthetic idealization of music criticism. In reality, one must always temper criticism with tact, positive reinforcement, and selective criticism (choosing one or two main concerns rather than a deluge of perjorative comments).

Objective Criteria

These are based on the material in the score

  • Correct pitches
  • Correct rhythms (and clarity of meter)
  • Correct articulation
  • Correct dynamics
  • Correct voicing (bringing out the most important voices)
  • Proper harmonic pedaling, and following pedal marks (for piano performances)

Matters of Taste/Interpretation

These should be used to enhance the substance of the material in the score

  • Appropriate tempo and effective timing (however, often the composer gives an exact metronome marking)
  • Range of dynamics (depending on style of music)
  • Tone (dark/bright, timbral shifts, etc.)
  • Amount of pedal and use of soft pedal (for piano)
  • Prominence of melody and shading (the objective and subjective aspects of voicing)
  • General articulation issues and very particular articulation differences (articulation, too, is not always objective)
  • General style (less subjective is whether the style is appropriate for the period)

Technique for Providing Constructive Criticism

When I’m asked to critique a colleague’s (or student’s) performance or when I’m critiquing a recording of my own playing, my technique is to sit with the colleague’s (or my) score and listen. I mark mistakes and suggestions in the score:

  • Circle wrong notes and rhythms (and mark rests by circling them or drawing a vertical line where the cutoff should be)
  • Mark all memory mistakes (with a big “M”)
  • Write in tenuto marks and accents when the rhythmic clarity is lacking
  • Circle dynamics that aren’t followed and write in dynamic suggestions (which are a matter of taste, of course)
  • Add slurs or other articulation marks in the score when the style or touch needs rethinking.
  • Circle the most important voices when they aren’t brought out
  • Draw lines under the music to indicate proper pedaling (when not followed)
  • Mark spots where the timing is awkward (and/or make suggestions). Mark tempo fluctuations with:
    •  ——> (means accel. or “You are DRAGGING!”)
    • <——  (means “You are RUSHING!”)
    • ~~~~~ (a squiggly horizontal line indicates a (usually slight) ritardando)
  • Circle dynamic markings in the score that are too subtle in the performance (or “X” them out when they are too jarring).
  • Cross out notes that are too loud or need to be in the background (with “X”s).
  • Make suggestions about style, articulation, timing, etc. in the margins

After the Performance

I do this for each performance that I hear of the piece. In order to help my colleague (or student) determine which performance certain marks I made came from, I either write in a different color each time, or I pick a distinctive symbol (X, O, *, +, etc.) to put in the margin next to the system where a mark has been made. For this reason, some students like to make a photocopy of the score for scribbling on so that their expensive original score doesn’t become a multicolored mess.

I may say some things to the performer after he/she is done about the one or two most important issues that I think need addressing. If the performer then has questions about the specific stuff I marked in the score, they can ask me.