I often hear it said that musicians should only take the views of critics seriously if the critics themselves are active as musicians. Do you agree, and if so why? I’m sceptical about the idea myself, but then I’ve a vested interest, being a music writer who no longer plays or composes anything.

What do you think?

Not necessarily.... An understanding of music and how it's constructed (back to the old Does Musicology Matter? argument here!) and the context in which it is composed is pretty crucial though if one is to be a good critic. Wide listening experience is also pretty helpful, I'd say.

A musician who writes or a writer who plays... it's a tall order to be an active musician as well as an entertaining writer coping with deadlines - it's hard enough to blog occasionally. But I hope that critics would have experienced what it is like to prepare, go on stage/into a studio and deliver, as well as possessing the knowledge which Frances mentions.
As for taking notice of what is written, expectations of review-readers differ - performers need/want a career-enhancing quote, those who book musicians are looking for consistent evidence of talent and expertise - or who to avoid, casual readers want... a good read? As a writer, it seems there are a number of angles to cover. Some performers prefer to rely on their own self-evaluation, and feedback from honest and trusted colleagues.

Critics no longer have exclusive rights to the last word; online reviews often attract comment. And in print - Villazon defended his participation in Popstar to Operastar after Rupert Christiansen criticized him for taking part. Slatkin recently has spoken out after the Met Traviata episode.
Wagner got at Hanslick by creating the character of Beckmesser. And as for Reger - hmm...was it coincidence that led you to post this topic about critics after writing a blogpost about Reger, Gavin? :)

Yes, poor old Reger, he got a hard time from them didn't he. It is interesting to look back on the aesthetic battles of the past to see how much the critics were to blame for the polarisation of opinion. With regard to Wagner/Brahms, it amazes me to read GBS on Brahms, it is as if he feels obliged to belittle Brahms purely because he is known to be a Wagnerian.
Similarly with Adorno's role in the Stravinsky/Schoenberg debates of the interwar years. The whole thing was basically cooked up by him, I suspect to the detriment of both composers.
Sadly, such polarities still exist today, and I'll confess to writing some pretty harsh reviews of Philip Glass performances based on an ideological opposition to his aesthetic. But what else can you do?

Has anyone seen this? Paul Morley wants to "start a sentence in prose....and end in music". Having said that, he has managed up to this point without knowing anything about the way music is constructed. If the nature of art is to be interpreted by an audience, then presumably anyone can discuss what music does for them, even if they don't know how. I can appreciate technology without knowing how it works.

As a composer I find the most useful comments frequently come from my family and friends, who don't necessarily know anything about music. You only have to look at someone's face to see what they think about what they hear. In that sense, I suppose we could argue that a music critic is often assessing audience response and atmosphere rather than analysing the music itself. Perhaps music critics analyse the effect that music has on themselves and the audience, rather than the black dots??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOBKIRjpLks

The reception of works by composers who are better known as critics is an interesting case. Bayan Northcott usually gets a good press from his colleagues - pack mentality perhaps? Or maybe it's just sheer talent.

Stockhausen once said that his music is best appreciated by young children. Is this an implicit instruction to his followers not to worry about the views of professional critics? Probably not, I can't imagine Karlheinz worrying too much about what the papers say.

An immediate gut reaction from children, mothers and the like is of fundatmental importance in the initial assessment of anything, but an educated critic can place the work in historical and personal context and suggest technical reasons why the music has the effect it does and who is as objective as possible.

I imagine Stockhausen wanted adults to approach his music with the same open mind of a child. It would be fascinating, although somewhat impossible, to know what people who had never heard music would think of Stockhausen. This opens the debate of intrinsic understanding as opposed to learned understanding, which is where the critics come in. I have never played children Stockhausen, but perhaps I will this summer, and see what they think! I can't help but think uneducated listeners will understand a perfect cadence better than absolute serialism upon first hearing.... but as Gavin points out, Karlheinz didn't worry about what the critics said! Perhaps this unlocks another question: Do music critics accurately reflect public opinion? If a composer isn't writing exclusively for himself should he listen to the critics? Or, can a composer be wiser than the people and the critics, and shape the nature of future perception as Beethoven did?

I'd love to think that all creative people (artists, musicians, writers) were working along Beethoven's lines, and exclusively for themselves, but sadly there are too many out there who are in it for profit and publicity (Damien Hirst immediately springs to my mind; ditto Lang Lang. Apologies to any fans out there, but I'm not keen on the "look at me" breed of artists or musicians.). And of course one needs to earn a living too which sometimes precludes true creativity.....sadly.

I'm not certain that music critics accurately reflect public opinion, especially in these days of blogging, tweeting and twittering, where anyone can voice an opinion or review a concert, play or art show - a thoroughly good thing, I think, even if, as a friend of mine pointed out last night when we were discussing this issue over supper, a lot of what people write may be "rubbish". (Probably quite a few readers think what Brian Sewell writes is opinionated, subjective rubbish too!).

I should think children would love Stockhausen: it's wonderful to see how they approach music, without preconceptions or other 'baggage'. They can be so receptive and open-minded. And I love doing chord progressions and cadences with the kids I teach, getting them to tell me when the music is "home".

I am working with 8-14 year olds on a 'creative music' course this summer, so I can report back after playing them, what adults might consider to be, more 'difficult music'. I'm really looking forward to it!

As very much a developing composer, it is a constant challenge to be both myself, and to be aware of audience, and in that sense critics too. I love interaction with other artistic mediums, such as theatre and film, which tend to dictate compromise or co-operation, depending on how one chooses to see each situation. I have been in the commercial position, of being told what to write, but then I have a fairly broad taste, so, without intending to sound stylistically passive, I feel I can find something artistic in many genres of music. It can also be really exciting to share an artistic vision with others.

This is such a difficult question, and I note how people in other walks of life seem much more open to not being themselves, actors almost by definition; by 'fitting the mould' for the sake of interaction with an audience. This comes to the: 'does literature shape society, or is it the other way round?' debate. Either way, the author and her readers share an inextricable relationship. I would like to think music; our art, is shaped by everything around us, but that we also have the power to influence too. Perhaps it is a credit to music as an art form, that we can hold it so close to our hearts; that there is even a notion of what is personal as opposed to public?

I try and retain a fundamental belief that as musicians we have something to express. We are working within a more abstract medium, but I feel we shouldn't loose sight of who we are communicating to. I like Frances's idea that we have a broader range of recourses to guide us; the internet/blogging...
My greatest fear as a composer is becoming too detached from an audience, so I feel I should be grateful to anyone who offers an opinion on what I do, and try and to take what they say on board. Is it selfish not to listen to people who bother to listen us?!