Some Critics Don’t Shine in Their Analysis of David Helfgott

The “Shine” phenomenon and pianist David Helfgott have already created a great flow of ink in music columns. One case in point is Times music critic Mark Swed’s “The Reality of ‘Shine’: An Image Distorted” (Calendar, March 22).

Why all the sound and fury about Helfgott from critics? Granted that he is no Sergei Rachmaninoff, Vladimir Horowitz or Andre Watts. Well, there was only one Johann Sebastian Bach, too, but does this invalidate everyone else? To write that Helfgott is not a great pianist does not tell us anything about his conceptions or interpretations of music. It does not tell us anything we expect from music criticism.

Many critics are upset that Helfgott’s recordings and concerts are doing so well. It does not take a music critic to figure out that the film “Shine” is largely at the root of this. But should we weep that Mozart’s music became popular in the wake of the film “Amadeus,” or should we be grateful that this happened and hopeful for more honest and respectful portrayals of composers and musicians in future films? Could it be that one reason “Shine” is so popular is because, unlike “Amadeus” or “Immortal Beloved” (about Beethoven), it portrays a classical musician in a sympathetic way?

Many critics seem to be simply resentful of Helfgott’s popularity and the role of a film in creating it. If critics believe that Helfgott is not a great or even a good pianist, there is no better way to make that point than to discuss his performances on their merits in the manner of informed music criticism. But instead of this, we are treated to endless reports about Helfgott’s eccentric stage mannerisms. We are told that Helfgott runs onto the stage, hugs those around him and mutters to himself. Is there not something more that music critics can tell us besides gossip and trivia?

Swed adds something else of dubious relevance: his own opinion of Rachmaninoff’s Third Piano Concerto, which he describes as a “gushy” showpiece easily dismissed with the single phrase, “But great art it isn’t.” Are we to infer something about Helfgott’s musicianship from this one critic’s subjective opinion of Rachmaninoff?

Helfgott is a rare example of someone who became popular and well known without having to please the critics. Other performers are at the mercy of competition judges, recording industry executives and music critics, but Helfgott commands a mass audience without having “paid his dues” by wowing any of the established power brokers in the music business. A single film “made” his career as a performer.

For the critics to decry Helfgott as a performer without merit (without explaining the basis of this viewpoint) is most revealing, since the traditional route to establishing a career as a concert pianist has also doubtless left behind many deserving talents. Swed himself mentions one such case in his article and decries the relative invisibility of Roger Woodward, the other pianist featured in “Shine.” But Helfgott and “Shine” are not to blame for this. The system of identifying and marketing talent is to blame. The concept of human talent as a commodity is to blame.

Meanwhile, it would be refreshing if, when all is said and done, music critics would simply give us what we expect: music analysis and criticism--not sensational gossip about musical personalities, their eccentricities, their non-musical stage mannerisms and their personal weaknesses. Like any other artist, David Helfgott deserves to be judged simply on the merits of his art.