This page is referenced by:

• 1 media/new Temianka letter collage.jpg 2022-03-14T16:25:38+00:00 'Less Than Helpful' and Other Critiques 65 image_header 2022-04-29T17:55:02+00:00 Los Angeles Times music reviewer Albert Goldberg heard applause at an evening concert in December 1975, but 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 to a surge of cheers, in reference to Goldberg's recent negative review of his performance.
  
  Goldberg was one of several critics at the LA Times who dismissed aspects of Temianka's lectures. By 1975, Temianka had become infamous among the LA Times staff for contesting their conclusions about his lectures.
  
  Not all reviews by Goldberg and the LA Times were unfavorable though, and Temianka received acclaim for his work from newspapers like the New York Times, Los Angeles Sentinel and New Journal and Guide. But 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?

  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 anecdotes did little to accomplish any explanation of the music performed that night.
  
  Other critics argued that Temianka's anecdotal style of commentary was essentially "less than helpful" and "dumbing down" what could be taken from a performance. 
  
  It may have been the very thing that set Temianka apart from many of his lecture-recitalist contemporaries — his attempts to make music more personable with detailed stories and personal anecdotes — that made the performer a target for criticism where his peers were not:
  
  In Facing the Music, Temianka interprets these criticisms as a sign that writers like Bernheimer felt condescended to:

  “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?

  Bernheimer's thoughts on verbal annotations being tangential, and the general notion that live commentary prevents music "speaking for itself," directly conflicted with Temianka's understanding of "performers as educators."
  
  A 1961 letter from Goldberg to Temianka further demonstrates how the critic saw performance lectures less as an articulation of what was being played, and more as 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 argued, obstructs either from being effective.
  
  For Temianka, this combination of performance and commentary is necessary in order to make music approachable and engaging for the masses. He claimed that blurring the lines between art and academia is a uniquely effective way to bring new audiences into the study of music.
  
  The discourse continued for over a decade, but Temianka remained consistent in the style of his commentaries, even in light of such criticisms.

  Discussion Questions:

  Why do you think Temianka’s lectures garnered this criticism while many of his contemporaries did not?