And this by Matthew Aucoin is equally illuminating:
The writer of a newspaper-style review of a live performance is typically asked to experience a work of art only once and then to craft a coherent assessment of it, often in under twenty-four hours. The more one thinks about it, the more it seems like this process, with its frantic timeline, might be the worst of all possible worlds.
Why, then, this perpetual demand that performing arts critics make definitive proclamations about works they barely know? If the performance being reviewed is a program of Beethoven symphonies that the writer has heard a hundred times, that’s one thing, but a brand-new orchestral piece, opera, or play rarely reveals its secrets on the first night. I’ve spent countless hours listening to music, and never once have I encountered a worthwhile new piece that I felt capable of assessing after a single hearing. If a musical work is powerful, or mysterious, or beautiful in some new way, then the listener’s initial experience of it is precisely an experience of incomprehension. It’s only with time, reflection, and repeated listenings that any critic can hope to gain entry to a piece of music, to get inside it and understand its inner workings, in such a way that they’re ready to speak about it to others.