"Less Than Helpful" and Other Critiques
Los Angeles Times music reviewer Albert Goldberg heard applause at an evening concert in December 1975, but in that instance, it wasn't for the performance.
At the head of the stage stood Temianka, surrounded by the California Chamber Symphony. "We artists should be treated with the dignity we deserve for our dedication," the performer said, in reference to Goldberg's recent negative review of his performance. "The community should rise up against such things."
Goldberg was one of several critics at the LA Times who dismissed aspects of Temianka's lectures, with some writers calling them unnecessary or inconsequential. By 1975, Temianka, who frequently wrote to publications that covered his work, had become infamous among the LA Times and its music writers for contesting their conclusions about his performances, especially when discussing his onstage commentaries.
But not all reviews by Goldberg and the LA Times were unfavorable, and Temianka received acclaim for his work from newspapers like the New York Times, Los Angeles Sentinel and New Journal and Guide. Still, a notable portion of reviews from the LA Times made the artist's lectures a focus of their discontent.
Why, especially considering the praise Temianka received elsewhere, and his numerous lecture-recitalist contemporaries, were Temianka's lectures so heavily scrutinized in this way?
Meaningful Discussion, or Small Talk?
In 1967, LA Times chief music critic Martin Bernheimer reviewed Temianka's "Let's Talk Music" performance with an article titled "Small Talk Obscures Music at Henri Temianka Concert."The writer explains in the article that he has "no enduring affection for verbal concert annotation," arguing that such methods are for those "too lazy" to read program notes. Later, Bernheimer asserts that Temianka's commentary, described as "primarily … anecdotal trivia," did little to accomplish any explanation of the music performed that night.
When debating the value of Temianka's lectures, much of the conversation between Temianka and his critics — both publicly and privately — revolved around the questions Bernheimer voiced in his review.
Do these commentaries provide a genuine benefit to the public? If so, what should a performance lecture focus on? How much should an artist accommodate an audience?
Some voices from the press voiced their disagreement with certain conclusions Temianka made in his lectures about musicological topics. In one 1968 review, Goldberg considered a comparison made by Temianka between two 19th century composers to be "not only unjust, but not quite true."
Other critics argued that Temianka's anecdotal style of commentary was of less informative value than historical or technical analyses of a musical piece — essentially "dumbing down" what could be taken from a performance.
One 1968 review from Bernheimer noted that a post-concert discussion held by Temianka contained mainly "superficial anecdotes," while another from 1970 calls Temianka's verbal annotations "less than helpful." Some reviews expressed contentment or surprise at rare moments when Temianka would not provide an introduction or commentary, with one LA Times article saying that Temianka let "the music (finish) speaking for itself."
In "Facing the Music," Temianka interprets these criticisms as a sign that writers like Bernheimer felt condescended to when hearing anecdotes and live demonstrations of musical techniques. It may have been the very thing that set Temianka apart from many of his lecture-recitalist peers — his attempts to make music more personable with stories and personal anecdotes — that made the performer a target for criticism where his peers were not:
“If the critics already knew what I was telling the audience, it bored them. If they didn’t, it infuriated them. I couldn’t win. And they let me know it.” — Henri Temianka
Can Entertainment and Education Mix?
Many of these criticisms stood opposite Temianka's goals of making the concert hall a direct gateway for music education. Bernheimer's thoughts on verbal annotations being tangential, and the general notion that live commentary prevents music "talking for itself," directly conflict with Temianka's understanding of "performers as educators."A 1961 letter from Goldberg to Temianka further demonstrates how the critic perceived performance lectures less as an articulation of what was being played, and more as a sign of educational discourse encroaching on the world of musical performance.
"When you put a title like ("Let's Talk Music") on a series of concerts, it takes them out of the purely musical category, and I don't think critics should be expected to sit through talking or lecturing by anyone at a concert." — Albert Goldberg
For Bernstein and Goldberg, the performer is a vessel for the music, and the lecturer is a vessel for a lecture. Making a performance lecture the "bridge" between an uninitiated audience and the music, they argue, obstructs either from being effective.For Temianka, this combination of performance and commentary is necessary in order to make music approachable and engaging with the masses. He claims that blurring the lines between art and academia is a uniquely effective way to bring new audiences into the study of music.