Carroll calls him "a remarkable child prodigy composer" and supports this with a quote by Strauss.
On the other hand, Palmer does not go overboard with words and maintains balanced critique; he writes of Korngold as continuing "to compose prolifically, and with great success," throughout his teens, and later remarks that his works like Die Kathrin received "less critical acclaim and failed to gain a foothold in the repertory."
Thus Palmer's article is quite succinct in praise. While Palmer ends his article with a comment on Korngold's strong points and deficiencies, Carroll end the article on a highly charged note of positive praise, raising Korngold's stature to a "once forgotten classic composer" now regaining his popularity posthumously.
An interesting revelation in comparison is that Palmer seems to have almost paraphrased Carroll's words; "and have ensured the renewed and growing interest"as in Carroll's own words it appears as "after decades of neglect, a gradual reawakening of interest.increasingly popular."
Now turning to the third article appeared in New Grove's Dictionary of music and musician Carroll seems to have re-written most of the parts of this article from his earlier version. Added to that, he seems to have bettered his chronological references to the works and achievements of Korngold. Also, Carroll's assessment of Korngold's compositions for Hollywood is rather detailed in technicalities.
One would strongly fee...
Added to that, he seems to have bettered his chronological references to the works and achievements of Korngold. Also, Carroll's assessment of Korngold's compositions for Hollywood is rather detailed in technicalities.
As is obvious in Carroll's earlier articles on Korngold, the critic has high praise for the musician and hails him as a composer of "lush" style and praises his music as having "vibrant sensuousness."
One would strongly feel that Carroll's intention is to ensure that Korngold is glorified and added to the cannon of world renowned classical composers, while Palmer restrains from overtures of high-flying praise.
Palmer's article is more "academic" in nature as the references are acceptable. Though both critics have categories of similarity, like noting Korngold's landmark achievements and his gradual fame, in Hollywood, Palmer does seem more truthful in his article while Carroll's use of positive and superlative adjectives make him seem as being an international cannonizer lobbying for Korngold's position.
Based on the representation by Palmer and Carroll in their articles, it is trustworthy to believe Palmer who has tried to represent Korngold's work in words the way a painter paints a picture of nature, the way he sees it, where as Carroll has tried to add some flavor to his