Lebrecht - More Apples & Oranges Comparisons: Conductors
Markesten
conductors. Lebrecht advances the argument that in the States, "America plumps
for seniority" while "Europe, on the other hand, is in a mood for adventure."
Of course, the glaring fallacy in his argument is that he is comparing the
recent conductorial appointments for Big 5 orchestras in the States to those
made at places like Glyndbourne, the BBC Phil, the Scottish Symphony, the
Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie in Bremen and the Belgian National Orchestra. Not
exactly the top-line positions in Europe, I would imagine.
Shouldn't he be comparing the recent appointments in NY, Boston and Philly to
the similar appointments in Berlin and Vienna?
More Yank-trashing in this paragraph:
"Historically, the union of conductor and orchestra is like a marriage,
starting with courtship. In rare cases - Rattle and Berlin, perhaps - there is
instant infatuation. In others - Ormandy and Philadelphia - both parties settle
for domestic contentment. Some, like Mariss Jansons and the Oslo Philharmonic,
grow together. Others - Seiji Ozawa and Boston - wear each other down."
So let me see if I catch his meaning: British Rattle & Berlin is an instant
success while non-American Jansons and non-American Oslo have grown together;
but Stateside, Ormandy & Philly settled for boredom while Ozawa wore out his
stay at Boston and Boston wore out Ozawa's worth.
Why not mention that Ozawa just happens to be taking over the Vienna
Staatsoper? Is Vienna showing their "mood for adventure" in this choice? Why
not mention that Jansons wasn't such a big success in the States? Why not
mention that the 41-year-old Franz Welser-Moest is taking over the Cleveland
Orchestra next year, arguably the top American orchestra? Or is it "plumping
for seniority" to appoint a 41-year-old to such a position?
More tripe:
"Gianandrea Noseda, 37, will reach Manchester after four years as the world's
busiest understudy. A Milanese who won two international competitions without
getting much of a start, he was taken on by Valery Gergiev in St Petersburg and
found himself conducting epic operas at five minutes' notice. In last summer's
Kirov let-down at Covent Garden, Noseda held several shows together on little
or no rehearsal. "
Well, duh? A conductor's primary job is to hold it together. Mr. Lebrecht might
be pleasantly surprised to learn that most opera orchestras could play
95-percent of any standard opera without a conductor. There's nothing
extraordinary in Mr. Noseda's (there's a conductor whose name is on all of our
lips!) accomplishment. Hell, I've sung in plenty of instant operas right here
in the States with orchestra where we met the conductor at the initial
downbeat. Sometimes this level of professionalism happened in semi-pro
situations in college theatres. If it can be "held together" there, why would
one imagine it wouldn't be held together further up the professional ladder?
And what is Mr. Noseda's grand prize for such an accomplishment? Why, he gets
to take over MANCHESTER: "He will be the first Italian since John Barbirolli to
take a stick to Manchester - an augury, perhaps, of excitements in store. The
players like what they have seen of him in five mixed-bag concerts, but Noseda
has yet to give an account of himself in a full symphony."
Yeah, if America was only a bit more adventurous, this guy would easily qualify
to replace Masur at the NYPO. Let's just make sure he gets "a full symphony"
under his belt in Manchester before he presents his first Bruckner cycle in NY!
Oops, forgot - Barbirolli bombed at the NYPO. I guess that might be "an augury,
perhaps, of DISASTERS in store" were Noseda to get the NYPO. OK - no NYPO job
for Noseda.
After a grand round of Yank bashing, Lebrecht fails to note that of all the
near 30 conductors he mentions in the article, only three are Americans. I
don't see any of the European orchestras he mentions welcoming young American
talent to their fold with "adventurous" arms!
Lebrecht ends his screed with the following thought: "What is needed is a fresh
set of criteria for choosing conductors who will lead a diminished art into a
dangerous era. There is very little margin for error. If the new maestros fail,
the fall will be precipitate."
Let's hope he's not the one deciding the criteria!
And aren't you glad that orchestral music is now "a diminished art"?
Read the entire piece of crap at:
http://www.culturekiosque.com/klassik/features/orchestraconductors.html
Aki Anton
fallacy that Barbirolli failed when with the NYPO being repeated.
It is true that one or two critics like Olin Downes disliked him (mainly
for not being Toscanini), but it's worth remembering that Barbirolli
conducted at higher audience receipts than Toscanini had done; he was
universally loved and respected by the orchestra (who sent a telegram to
his previous orchestra to thank them); and Toscanini on a return concert
said the orchestra was in at least as good a state as when he left it
(both men got on very well, of course).
One weekend Barbirolli and Toscanini were both conducting Beethoven's
Fifth (the latter with the NBC SO, of course) - the critics just
favoured JB's performance.
On his return in 1959, all the old players (and widows/children of those
who had since died) greeted him at the first rehearsal. The audience
and critics were bowled over by the performances.
--
Markesten <mark...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011220234628...@mb-dh.aol.com...
florien
Lebrecht is full of shite. It's the classic problem in that to fill a
weekly column of his hectoring rubbish that his arguements are gabbled
and hysterical. I remember reading a similar article of his saying
exactly the same things about Oslo and Dresden, so his writing isn't
even coherent enough to be anti-American. So what if an orchestra does
something that fails is bizarre set of criteria? There's plenty of
options out there. He bangs on about the death of music so much that
it will be a relief if it happens just to shut him up. His biggest
problem is that he sees music as the consumption of concerts and
recordings. Music is kept alive by people who want to play it, not by
people who want to pay for it. Fact.
Markesten
for not being Toscanini), but it's worth remembering that Barbirolli
conducted at higher audience receipts than Toscanini had done; >>
What you say in your rejoinder re: Sir John is most certainly true.
Unfortunately, unless one has an in-depth knowledge of the situation as you do,
received wisdom hasn't been kind to Sir John and his NYPO days. That's because
those critics who disliked him put their thoughts in print, and that survives
as the record.
Personally, I'm a big fan of any number of Barbarolli recordings. I first made
his acquaintance through his Reader's Digest Sibelius 2 which is still a
reference version.
A similar situation exists with Martinon's Chicago years. A particular critic
disliked him, so he's looked on as a failure. Yet his RCA recordings with the
CSO are fantastic.
So, I agree with YOUR take on Barbarolli/NYPO. I just don't think it's a
commonly held belief.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>Here's another Lebrecht article, this time harping on about how orchestras pick
>conductors. Lebrecht advances the argument that in the States, "America plumps
>for seniority" while "Europe, on the other hand, is in a mood for adventure."
>
Spano/Atlanta, Slatkin/NSO or MTT/San Franciso fit into yet another of
Lebrecht's artifically constructed views of reality?
Dave
David Hurwitz
dhur...@classicstoday.com
www.classicstoday.com
Markesten
<< I wonder where Vanska/Minnesota, Paavo Jarvi/Cincinnati, L.A./Salonen,
Spano/Atlanta, Slatkin/NSO or MTT/San Franciso fit into yet another of
Lebrecht's artifically constructed views of reality? >>
Exactly. Had he compared these American organizations to their European
equivalents it would have been more like comparing apples to apples.
But of course, there's no controversy inherent in that, is there? What good is
an article that states that orchestras all over the world are turining to youth
to fill their conductor chairs? That destroys his whole "backward American
philosophy/adventurous European philosophy" hypothesis for writing the article
in the first place. And, if the entire symphony world IS giving young talent a
chance, that sort of blows his whole statement at the end of the article that
"new criteria" need to be found to pick today's positioned orchestral
conductors.
With friends like Lebrecht, classical music needs few enemies.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20011221120336...@mb-ch.aol.com:
> With friends like Lebrecht, classical music needs few enemies.
I've been trying to find a certain quote by Churchill about why he was
willing to ally with Stalin against Hitler....
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
A. Brain
news:a0074...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> mark...@aol.com (Markesten) wrote in
> news:20011221120336...@mb-ch.aol.com:
>
> > With friends like Lebrecht, classical music needs few enemies.
>
> I've been trying to find a certain quote by Churchill about why he was
> willing to ally with Stalin against Hitler....
>
> --
How's this one?
In response to his private secretary's questioning Churchill's willingness
to ally with the Soviets, Churchill replied, "I have only one purpose, the
destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler
invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the
House of Commons".
--
A. Brain
Remove "nospam" when replying via email
Phil Wood
the
> near 30 conductors he mentions in the article, only three are Americans. I
> don't see any of the European orchestras he mentions welcoming young
American
> talent to their fold with "adventurous" arms!
>
Marin Alsop at Bournemouth (where Rattle learnt his trade) is an exciting
choice fro those of us near enough to hear them.
Phil
Matthew B. Tepper
news:1XNU7.1278$Vi2.59...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:
That's the one!
And that's roughly why I uttered a "bravo" to Lebrecht here recently.
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >> > With friends like Lebrecht, classical music needs few enemies.
> >>
> >> I've been trying to find a certain quote by Churchill about why he was
> >> willing to ally with Stalin against Hitler....
> >
> > How's this one?
> >
> > In response to his private secretary's questioning Churchill's
> > willingness to ally with the Soviets, Churchill replied, "I have only
> > one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified
> > thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable
> > reference to the Devil in the House of Commons".
>
> That's the one!
>
> And that's roughly why I uttered a "bravo" to Lebrecht here recently.
I trust there must be some similarities between you and Churchill but I
have to strongly disagree with a parallel drawn between Lebrecht and
Stalin. Don't be ashamed, pray, for having agreed with Lebrecht on a point
or two. The man is not as crazy as he is, in absentia, accused of being.
I am curious as to whether, were Lebrecht to write *here*, would his
critics be as outspoken as now.
regards,
SG
(who said "Bravo" in a number of occasions)
Matthew B. Tepper
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.011221...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu:
Nonsense; he would be treated at least as well as, say, David Hurwitz.
> regards,
> SG
> (who said "Bravo" in a number of occasions)
--
Edward A. Cowan
in praise of the military abilities of Erwin Rommel, "The Desert Fox".
(No, those weren't Churchill's words! <g>) --E.A.C.
A. Brain <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
> How's this one?
>
> In response to his private secretary's questioning Churchill's willingness
> to ally with the Soviets, Churchill replied, "I have only one purpose, the
> destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler
> invaded Hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the
> House of Commons".
--
E.A.C.
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> > I am curious as to whether, were Lebrecht to write *here*, would his
> > critics be as outspoken as now.
>
> Nonsense; he would be treated at least as well as, say, David Hurwitz.
You might be right -- at least the thought pleases the mind -- but let's
better not tempt the Parcae!
regards,
SG (:
Markesten
> > critics be as outspoken as now.
>
> Nonsense; he would be treated at least as well as, say, David Hurwitz.>>
I'll take Dave Hurwitz over Lebrecht any day of the week.
David is most certainly outspoken, but he presents his OPINION on matters
musical as just that, his opinion. He always backs up his reviews of recordings
- especially those he dislikes - with specific reasons for his expressed
opinions. I can live with that. I sometimes agree with him, sometimes not. I
can read a review by David and think "I LIKE that recording for the very
reasons he DISLIKES it." But at least I don't have to think "what the hell is
he talking about? I wish he'd supply some point of reference."
Lebrecht, on the other hand, is busy presenting little more than his
whole-cloth opinion of what's wrong with the classical music world at large as
FACT. He then often supports his argument by comparing apples to oranges and/or
in many cases, presenting dubious statistics to support his argument/agenda.
If most Lebrecht articles began with "this is only my opinion," or "I don't
have any statistics to support this, it's only a casual observation," then I'd
be more ready to cut the guy some slack.
Since there's no music critic operating today who will waste his increasingly
infrequent column space to debunk the half-truths of Mr. Lebrecht, it falls to
us in the industry who DO have access to certain "facts" to offer them as
counterweight to Mr. Lebrecht's often ad hominum attacks on the music world.
I've dealt with naysayers like Mr. Lebrecht in the business world. They're the
types who warn that the sky is falling, that nothing new should be tried, and
that if they had a say, it would be BS as usual. That lets them off the hook -
if things perform down to their expectations, they say "I told you so."
Implicit in that is the snotty condemnation of those who stuck their necks out
and tried something different. If things outperform their expectations, they're
either strangely silent or they say "well, I had a feeling that it would work,
but I didn't want to give people false expectations at the time."
In either case, they didn't have to do the heavy lifting and their
accountability was extremely limited.
I'll take Mr. Lebrecht seriously when he deigns to write a seriously considered
column. Until then, he offers nothing more than an unsupported opinion
presented as fact.
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, Markesten wrote:
> > > I am curious as to whether, were Lebrecht to write *here*, would his
> > > critics be as outspoken as now.
> >
> > Nonsense; he would be treated at least as well as, say, David Hurwitz.>>
>
> I'll take Dave Hurwitz over Lebrecht any day of the week.
I know, you told us you know the man personally. The unlucky most of us
know him only through his charismatic writing.
> David is most certainly outspoken, but he presents his OPINION on matters
> musical as just that, his opinion.
I am very hopeful everybody would agree that is true....
> Since there's no music critic operating today who will waste his increasingly
> infrequent column space to debunk the half-truths of Mr. Lebrecht, it falls to
> us in the industry who DO have access to certain "facts" to offer them as
> counterweight to Mr. Lebrecht's often ad hominum attacks on the music world.
You never explained how a certain response to Mr Lebrecht's articles was
*not* "ad hominum".
> I've dealt with naysayers like Mr. Lebrecht in the business world.
Do I understand correctly you are part of this music business world? In
this case, couldn't it be that you might be a little, just a little biased
against who would criticize this world strongly, "opinion" vs "fact" or a
flawed use of statistics notwithstanding?
regards,
SG
(no need to CC your messages -- thanks)
Markesten
Samir asked:
<<Do I understand correctly you are part of this music business world? In
this case, couldn't it be that you might be a little, just a little biased
against who would criticize this world strongly, "opinion" vs "fact" or a
flawed use of statistics notwithstanding?>>
You understand correctly. I've never hidden the fact that I've worked in the CD
business end of classical music for the last decade, most notably at BMG,
PolyGram and, more recently, at MHS and others. I also spent the better part of
two decades as a professional singer in NYC having concertized at Carnegie
Hall, Kennedy Center and elsewhere.
I am all for criticizing the classical music biz. Believe me, there's plenty to
criticize these days. But Lebrecht's articles set up strawmen and proceed to
skewer the same. This has the effect of diverting one's attention from the real
targets which are myriad. Ergo, he doesn't really criticize the world
"strongly" because he isn't shooting at the right world.
His Dec. 4 article on conductors is a case in point. My reading is that he
attempts an erroneously based comparison of American vs European orchestras and
the reasons behind their selection of conductors. No need to rehash that here
as it's the first post in this thread.
What would be interesting from Lebrecht would be an accurate comparison of
revenues of the classical biz today and that of 30 or 40 years ago. Present it
as percentage of market share, total dollars adjusted for inflation etc and put
that up against the size of the biz adjusted for inflation. That would form a
basis of comparison.
However, it would be a near-impossible task to accomplish accurately because
the data from decades ago is much less reliable than that available from
today's market.
Many of Mr. Lebrecht's articles center on the demise of classical music as an
art form. I question that on its face. Henry Fogel has stated that there are
approximately 900 orchestras that claim membership in the American Orchestra
League. I'd guess that there weren't nearly that many orchestras around the
country 40 years ago, not that I have statistics to back up that statement. But
that many orchestras - regardless of median quality - speaks to an art that is
more thriving than failing.
So, I take all of his naysaying with a big grain of salt. I'm not dismissing
the obvious reality that the classical recording business is in deep doo-doo
these days, just his stock-in-trade analysis of why this is so.
HenryFogel
>From: mark...@aol.com (Markesten)
>Date: 12/22/2001 10:45 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011222114534...@mb-mq.aol.com>
Wouldn't you also find it a positive move if Mr. Lebrecht made some real
suggestions (with specifics) as to what might be to improve the mess he sees?
It seems to me that the easy part is criticizing what is. The hard part is
suggesting ways to improve it -- and of that, I have seen very little from Mr.
Lebrecht. That he loves music passionately, I have no doubt. Nor do I doubt
his degree of worry over what he perceives to be its state (though I think he
overstates the 'crisis' either out of real belief or because it gives him a
special niche as a commentator to do so). But if he has real ideas about how
to make it better, I have missed seeing them.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>Do I understand correctly you are part of this music business world? In
>this case, couldn't it be that you might be a little, just a little biased
>against who would criticize this world strongly, "opinion" vs "fact" or a
>flawed use of statistics notwithstanding?
>
>regards,
>SG
And could it not be that you might be a little, just a little biased against
those who know certain facts which you do not (and are not even in fact in a
position to judge)? If you have something constructive to contribute, by all
means do, but your condescending manner is neither justified nor called for.
Questioning the remarks of others is all fine and dandy, but to do so merely to
call into doubt their motivations as a means of concealing your own ignorance is
pretty cheap, even for you.
Markesten
<< Wouldn't you also find it a positive move if Mr. Lebrecht made some real
suggestions (with specifics) as to what might be to improve the mess he sees?
It seems to me that the easy part is criticizing what is. The hard part is
suggesting ways to improve it -- and of that, I have seen very little from Mr.
Lebrecht. >>
Agreed.
I wouldn't limit it to Lebrecht. I'm more than happy to extend your
observations to music critics in general these days.
Lebrecht's niche seems to be commenting on the business of music rather than
critiquing actual performances. But I don't get the feeling that he's cognizant
of the inner workings of the music business and is observing as an outsider -
an amateur, if you will.
In like measure, I feel that some - not all - classical reviewers these days
don't offer enough specifics as to why they feel how they do about the
performances they review. The increasingly banal and superfluous observations
of some reviewers - and in this category I would place those at the NY Times -
do not serve to improve the public's knowledge or appreciation of the art. Copy
space that could be spent on reviewing the nuts-and-bolts of what made a
performance work (or not) are expended on a rehashing of the work's genesis or,
in the case of opera, the plot.
Take a look at opera reviews from earlier in the century. It was expected that
a reviewer would comment on a singer's delivery of the language. One assumes
that such reviewers understood and/or spoke these languages. You won't see such
commentary in today's reviews, probably because the reviewers haven't done the
homework that would permit them to make such comments without fear of
committing a grande faux pas. After all, how many people reading a review of La
bohème need to have the plotline explained? I'd much rather hear about the
performance itself, warts and all.
I fear things will only get worse as time passes. The resignation of John
Rockwell from the NY Times this week doesn't auger well for an improvement in
that paper's coverage of the arts anytime in the near future.
Mark Stenroos
A. Brain
> In like measure, I feel that some - not all - classical reviewers these
days
> don't offer enough specifics as to why they feel how they do about the
> performances they review. The increasingly banal and superfluous
observations
> of some reviewers - and in this category I would place those at the NY
Times -
> do not serve to improve the public's knowledge or appreciation of the art.
Copy
> space that could be spent on reviewing the nuts-and-bolts of what made a
> performance work (or not) are expended on a rehashing of the work's
genesis or,
> in the case of opera, the plot.
I agree that the reviews need work and that more details should be in them,
but the generalities, and introductory matters can be important too,
especially "to improve the public's knowledge and appreciation of the
art"--even with space limitations, though
these don't seem to be a problem in the NYT, where lengthy reviews of
mainstream shlocky movies appear routinely.
I would not want newspaper reviews, or even reviews in music publications,
to be so specialized that only the experienced or professional would be able
to understand them. That practice would tend to further the public
perception that only the initiated or learned can comprehend classical
music, and that one must study the scores and librettos in advance or know
them well, and that attending a concert or an opera is an exercise, like
grading a paper, or judging a competition. Or worse, the perception that
most of those who attend classical musical events are just participating in
a snobbish ritual, and have no real appreciation for what is going on, which
is not very much except to the cognoscenti.
I think every review should contain some expository writing on the music
itself, even if it is just some simple observation or generality about the
work in question. For some war-horse such as La Boheme, it could be one or
two sentences, but for a relatively rare work, or even a well-known one, a
paragraph or two may also help arouse interest in the music or work, not
just report on the execution.
>
> Take a look at opera reviews from earlier in the century. It was expected
that
> a reviewer would comment on a singer's delivery of the language. One
assumes
> that such reviewers understood and/or spoke these languages.
Today, many top-notch universities don't require foreign languages even for
liberal arts graduates--how many journalists or even
musicologist-journalists are going to know Italian, French, and German? I
don't think it's that important to the general public for a singer to get
the nuances "right" whatever that may mean from one opera to another. As
long as the pronunciation or delivery is not distracting, most opera goers
are not going to notice any more than I do when there are variations in
Latin or even English performances of oratorios and liturgical works.
You won't see such
> commentary in today's reviews, probably because the reviewers haven't done
the
> homework that would permit them to make such comments without fear of
> committing a grande faux pas. After all, how many people reading a review
of La
> bohème need to have the plotline explained? I'd much rather hear about the
> performance itself, warts and all.
Why not both? Like I said before, Boheme requires little explanation.
But, to take an upcoming opera here--first time seen here since 1985, why
shouldn't a review of "Eugene Onegin" include a brief description of the
plot, along with some "promotional" exposition about the opera such as:
"Everyone knows at least some music of Tchaikovsky--the Nutcracker sold out
two dozen performances here last month--and the rich tuneful melodies of his
ballets, concertos and symphonies leave happy audiences whistling for hours
afterward. But do they know that the great Russian composer also wrote
several operas too? "Eugene Onegin", based on the Pushkin novel, is about
young love and rejection, friendship and betrayal, changed circumstances,
worldly resignation, and has many of the usual sort of twists and turns.
The music is at times sensational, as in the justly famous "Letter Scene" in
Act 1 and the waltz in Act 2."
Note that the critic can write this part of the review, plus a sentence or
two about the main characters, in advance. Now, of course, the review should
go on to describe the singers, casting, staging, costumes, orchestra, etc.
And if the soprano portraying Tatyana is ineffective in the opera's biggest
scene, or whatever, that should be explored in some detail.
Sometimes, a review can outline the plot while reviewing the performance,
especially when one gets the opportunity to observe that some hefty and
obviously middle-aged soprano is from the beginning an unconvincing Salome
or Tatyana, etc.
D Krause
> Wouldn't you also find it a positive move if Mr. Lebrecht made some real
> suggestions (with specifics) as to what might be to improve the mess he sees?
> [snip]
> But if he has real ideas about how
> to make it better, I have missed seeing them.
Excuse me, Dr. Fogel (and yes, I'm aware that you've previously
informed the newsgroup that it's "merely" an honorary doctorate, but
it's still a well-deserved one, IMO), but did you actually read the
Lebrecht column being discussed, or only markesten's rather cannily
edited summary of it? If the latter, the "real ideas about how to
make it better" from Lebrecht (and in fact, the entire point of his
column, not that you'd know it from markesten's description) is his
approving reference as follows:
"The only [young conductors' competitions] that work are those where a
maestro commits to take fledglings under wing and nurse them to
maturity. Herbert von Karajan founded an event of this sort in Berlin.
The winners - Kamu, Kitaenko, Chmura, Tchakarov, Oren - failed to make
the big time, but runners-up such as Jansons and Gergiev benefited
enormously from Karajan's attention.
"This weekend, Lorin Maazel will attempt to revive the method in
Bloomington, Indiana, where he is auditioning eight Americans -
whittled down from 362 applicants - for the finals of the Maazel/Vilar
competition. The winners will receive "an intensive conducting
fellowship" lasting two or three years with Maazel, who is eager to
pass on six decades of experience."
You may or may not agree with Lebrecht about the above, but I don't
think you can legitimately deny that it's a concrete recommendation --
a "real idea about how to make it better" -- of the sort you say
you've missed seeing in his commentary.
Happy listening.
David Hurwitz
>Excuse me, Dr. Fogel (and yes, I'm aware that you've previously
>informed the newsgroup that it's "merely" an honorary doctorate, but
>it's still a well-deserved one, IMO), but did you actually read the
>Lebrecht column being discussed, or only markesten's rather cannily
>edited summary of it? If the latter, the "real ideas about how to
>make it better" from Lebrecht (and in fact, the entire point of his
>column, not that you'd know it from markesten's description) is his
>approving reference as follows:
>
realize that thrust of Mark's critique is not Lebrecht's "concrete suggestion,"
but the fallacious comparison that forms the bulk of comments with respect to
music directors in Europe vs. the USA. Nor does Lebrecht offer any "real idea
about how to make it better." He merely lends his support to a one single
program for training young conductors (a process which he himself admits does
not work terribly well). The relationship between this "solution" and the
"problem" outlined in the article is far from obvious (indeed, it is
non-existent; Lebrecht's approval, like his approbation, seems to have no
consistent or logical basis in fact), and I further note that Henry makes it
quite clear that his comments are not directed at this specific article only,
but at his experience of Lebrecht's comments IN GENERAL. Perhaps in your urgent
rush to behave like a smart ass you missed that point too. If you're going to be
obnoxious, at least try to be intelligent.
wwal...@rr.com
>Henry wrote:
><< Wouldn't you also find it a positive move if Mr. Lebrecht made some real
>suggestions (with specifics) as to what might be to improve the mess he sees?
>It seems to me that the easy part is criticizing what is. The hard part is
>suggesting ways to improve it -- and of that, I have seen very little from Mr.
>Lebrecht. >>
>
>Agreed.
>
>I wouldn't limit it to Lebrecht. I'm more than happy to extend your
>observations to music critics in general these days.
>
Agreed!
>Lebrecht's niche seems to be commenting on the business of music rather than
>critiquing actual performances. But I don't get the feeling that he's cognizant
>of the inner workings of the music business and is observing as an outsider -
>an amateur, if you will.
>
>In like measure, I feel that some - not all - classical reviewers these days
>don't offer enough specifics as to why they feel how they do about the
>performances they review. The increasingly banal and superfluous observations
>of some reviewers - and in this category I would place those at the NY Times -
>do not serve to improve the public's knowledge or appreciation of the art. Copy
>space that could be spent on reviewing the nuts-and-bolts of what made a
>performance work (or not) are expended on a rehashing of the work's genesis or,
>in the case of opera, the plot.
>
I am not challenging you; but agreeing with you. However it seems much of this
argument concerns a topic which concerns only a small percentage of actual
concert goers. Do you really think that reviews are going to help in anyway
with the public's appreciation? Who would read them except a percentage of
those already appreciative? So frankly they are a waste of news print,
especially when the people writing them don't know up from down
What would really help would be previews of coming events--get a larger
audience. Add to that something on the order of the Times and others sponsoring
certain concerts and giving tickets to those who have an interest but just don't
go. We need to build audiences and that begins in the schools at the earliest
age. We need to introduce audiences gradually with not just pop concerts but
concerts that build on what each concert presented the previous concerts. In a
large city several orchestras could participate in giving a concert in this
series, along with the regular season. These concerts should also be released
on radio and on television.
If record labels are interested only in sales they need to increase the
audience of listeners by investing in schools and seeing that teachers have a
decent collection of music CDs to build music appreciation programs. I can
remember some of my earliest recollections where my teachers who played 78's of
numerous works. I much preferred listening to live rehearsals much in the same
way we would sneak in to watch certain athletic practices. If reviews are going
to do anything they must some selling point that the public can pick up on such
as adding some pictures from the performance or the performers so that the
reviews are not so stale and too difficult for the public or if superficial, at
least catches the public eye through pictures.
For me music critics are a waste of time. They are very much like news
commentators who come on after a person speaks and then tells you what the
person just said. Most performers are their own worst critics. The public that
attends concerts, etc do not know generally enough to understand a balanced
critical review. So for whom are the critics writing? Themselves? Other
critics? I've written concerts notes, young people's concert notes, mini
series, and reviews. And as a professional musician had the respect of
musicians (e.g. Barenboim as a pianist usually asked me to rehearsals). After I
had quit reviewing, as I considered it a waste of time, I was told that of a
certain well-known conductor who would read my reviews to the orchestra at the
next rehearsal after a concert. Apparently my views of what needed improving
were also his concerns, unknown to me at the time. So even if a critic manages
to understand something of what he is reviewing, he probably will contribute
nothing new that isn't already known to those performing.
For me music is suffering from the same thing the schools are. Some suggest
that the renewed interest in reading that is emerging comes from "Harry Potter"
etc. What is surprising is that students have gone from that to reading Tolstoy
and such classics as David Copperfield. Perhaps we who love classical music
should work to find such a stimulating force for music. I do not fault all the
stories about Toscanini as it sparked a interest in something which was a
fascinating enigma among the public. Attempts to destroy all that are naive and
some fools having the nerve to tell me to my face that Toscanini was insane are
revolting. THe intrigue of men like Toscanini or Stokowski in the Disney movie
are important in striking chords in people, young and old, and moving them into
the concert hall. Classical music, unlike industrial gothic or metallic, has to
be learned. Children grew up with non-classical music all around them and
therefore it grows on them daily--no wonder they buy it and tune into it. It's
has if by imitation.
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >
> >Do I understand correctly you are part of this music business world? In
> >this case, couldn't it be that you might be a little, just a little biased
> >against who would criticize this world strongly, "opinion" vs "fact" or a
> >flawed use of statistics notwithstanding?
> >
> >regards,
> >SG
>
> And could it not be that you might be a little, just a little biased against
> those who know certain facts which you do not (and are not even in fact in a
> position to judge)?
I see -- recording industry can be either judged by somebody from inside
the recording industry or by a wannabe critic that is bought off for 2c
advertising worth by the recording industry.
> If you have something constructive to contribute, by all
> means do, but your condescending manner is neither justified nor called for.
"Condescending manner", YOU dare talk about that? Com'on now, take a break
and hit your ass toward the wall until your mind comes back where it
(hopefully) belonged.
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> [....] rush to behave like a smart ass you missed that point too.
> If you're going to be obnoxious, at least try to be intelligent.
One suggestion that is completely wasted on you. And you have the guts of
lecturing others on being "condescending"....
Samir Golescu
On 22 Dec 2001, Markesten wrote:
Well, I guess you made your points well. It would be interesting to have
Mr Lebrecht replying to them but we'll probably not see that happening.
regards,
SG
(AGAIN, please kindly do not CC your messages to my-email--many thanks)
Samir Golescu
David Hurwitz wrote
<<Questioning the remarks of others is all fine and dandy, but to do so
merely **to call into doubt their motivations as a means of concealing
your own ignorance is pretty cheap, even for you**.>>
Not particularly cheap for you, by any means.
The same and only David Hurwitz wrote:
<<In a recent article Norman Lebrecht (today's Cassandra of classical
music; there have been others at various times) once again took aim at the
major labels, Sony in particular, to keep the pot boiling on his
apocalyptic vision of the industry. [...] One of his particular targets,
however, is the "crossover" title, which he claims falsely inflates the
reality of classical music sales and to which he also objects
on principle, I assume because it earns him the applause of the
unfortunately large number of classical music snobs eager to look down on
anything that does not meet their personal standard of cultural
significance and ideological purity. This position is, of course,
hypocritical on its face. If such things didn't exist, Lebrecht would
never have achieved the notoriety he currently enjoys. He loves them; they
are his meal ticket. >>
QED
D Krause
> >Excuse me, Dr. Fogel (and yes, I'm aware that you've previously
> >informed the newsgroup that it's "merely" an honorary doctorate, but
> >it's still a well-deserved one, IMO), but did you actually read the
> >Lebrecht column being discussed, or only markesten's rather cannily
> >edited summary of it? If the latter, the "real ideas about how to
> >make it better" from Lebrecht (and in fact, the entire point of his
> >column, not that you'd know it from markesten's description) is his
> >approving reference as follows:
> >
> Excuse me, Mr. Krause, but had you read the subject of this thread, you would
> realize that thrust of Mark's critique
Excuse me, Hurwitz, but you should apply your advice about trying to
be intelligent as well as obnoxious to yourself. If you had bothered
to actually read my posting, instead of rushing to further besmear
yourself with your rhetorical excrement, you might have noticed that I
was not addressing myself to "Mark's critique," but to Dr. Fogel's
much more limited comment about a supposed failure on Lebrecht's part
to not merely criticize, but to also offer practical suggestions that
would address those situations. I didn't feel like haranguing the
good doctor with every such suggestion that could be gleaned from
Lebrecht's columns, though indeed, two such immediately spring to
mind: one, that Georg Tintner (still alive at the time Lebrecht made
his comment) should have been given a guest conductor gig with a major
orchestra, instead of his increasingly lauded talents being confined
to an appreciative but provincial Halifax, and two, that Ida Haendel,
still a formidable violinist, should be given some of the guest
soloist gigs that are going to some certainly less interesting young
pups. However, Dr. Fogel made an observation about the presence or
lack of practical suggestions in a discussion that was about a
*particular* Lebrecht column, and not in a discussion about Lebrecht's
columns in general, as you would fallaciously (and typically for you)
claim it to be; I merely pointed out that which others in the
discussion, including the original poster markesten, had failed to,
which in this instance Lebrecht did give such a practical suggestion
about the situation he was criticizing.
> Nor does Lebrecht offer any "real idea
> about how to make it better." He merely lends his support to a one single
> program for training young conductors (a process which he himself admits does
> not work terribly well).
He makes no such admission. Quote: "The only contests that work are
those where a maestro commits to take fledglings under wing and nurse
them to maturity. Herbert von Karajan founded an event of this sort in
Berlin. The winners - Kamu, Kitaenko, Chmura, Tchakarov, Oren - failed
to make the big time, but runners-up such as Jansons and Gergiev
benefited enormously from Karajan's attention." An unbiased mind --
which, of course, yours is not -- would see that Lebrecht is
describing an event in which young conductors benefited from attention
from a seasoned conductor, which von Karajan certainly qualified as.
If the runners-up in the competition seemingly benefited more from the
attention than the winners, so be it. The attention from the older
conductor still was of benefit to them -- and to those younger
conductors' eventual audiences. Musical history is full of instances
of runners-up in various competitions who went on to outshine the
winners.
> The relationship between this "solution" and the
> "problem" outlined in the article is far from obvious (indeed, it is
> non-existent; Lebrecht's approval, like his approbation, seems to have no
> consistent or logical basis in fact)
Typical nonsense from you. Conductors' biographies are full of
instances of younger ones learning from older, more experienced ones.
Lebrecht's point is that competitions that result in such attention
from an older conductor to a younger are obviously of more benefit
than ones that merely result in a conducting gig or a trophy to sit on
a shelf. For you to maintain otherwise, you would have to argue that
such attention from an older conductor is *not* of benefit to a
younger conductor. Care to?
> and I further note that Henry makes it
> quite clear that his comments are not directed at this specific article only,
> but at his experience of Lebrecht's comments IN GENERAL.
See above. But as long as you want to talk about comments IN GENERAL
(as you so rudely shout), and since there's been a bit of a sub-thread
about Lebrecht vs. Hurwitz, let me point out to others who might be
following this discussion that Lebrecht was the only journalist who
has talked about Peter Gelb, as a condition of his employment as head
of Sony Classical, placing his former boss Ronald Wilford, the head of
Columbia Artists Management, on the board of Sony Classical. Not only
did Hurwitz see nothing wrong in this egregious breach of business
ethics, but actually (here on r.m.c.r.) applauded it as a good thing
for classical music, spinning out an elaborate fantasy of a purchaser
of artists' services and a provider of the same sitting on the same
company's board and lovingly, tenderly doing what was best for
classical music in general. Well, by their fruits ye shall know them;
if two titans of the classical music biz such as Gelb, the head of
what was a major recording label when he took it over, and Wilford,
the head of the the most powerful talent agency in classical music,
are so committed to doing what's best for classical music, then why
does Sony Classical suck so badly, both in terms of providing quality
product and in generating profits for their company? Is it at all
possible that those two saints (as Hurwitz would have us believe)
aren't doing what's best for either classical music or Sony Classical,
but simply gutting a once worthy recording label for the benefit of
those with whom Gelb has such a cozy (but not offensive to Hurwitz, of
course) relationship? If that's not the explanation, then what the
would the explanation be, according to Hurwitz? This question has
been posed to Hurwitz before, but he's never answered it, prefering
instead to tra-la about those who hold the other end of his leash,
while throwing baseless allegations about someone who, IMO, is raking
up some muck that frankly needs to be raked up.
Over to you, Hurwitz. Everyone else, happy listening.
HenryFogel
>Date: 12/22/2001 8:08 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <ac4ee1cc.01122...@posting.google.com>
Endorsing the idea of a conducting competition is fine -- and yes I had read
this column. But this is a highly limited idea, and deals with one very
specific area. Mr. Lebrecht has been critical of virtually every aspect of the
classical music business, while at the same time offering very few real ideas
to improve it. My comment was a more generalized one, and I believe it to be a
fair one.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>Over to you, Hurwitz. Everyone else, happy listening.
There's no point in arguing with the paranoid or mentally ill. I leave you to
enjoy whatever reality you have constructed for yourself.
Markesten
<< but did you actually read the
Lebrecht column being discussed, or only markesten's rather cannily
edited summary of it? If the latter, the "real ideas about how to
make it better" from Lebrecht (and in fact, the entire point of his
column, not that you'd know it from markesten's description) is his
approving reference as follows:
"The only [young conductors' competitions] that work are those where a
maestro commits to take fledglings under wing and nurse them to
maturity. Herbert von Karajan founded an event of this sort in Berlin.
The winners - Kamu, Kitaenko, Chmura, Tchakarov, Oren - failed to make
the big time, but runners-up such as Jansons and Gergiev benefited
enormously from Karajan's attention.
"This weekend, Lorin Maazel will attempt to revive the method in
Bloomington, Indiana, where he is auditioning eight Americans -
whittled down from 362 applicants - for the finals of the Maazel/Vilar
competition. The winners will receive "an intensive conducting
fellowship" lasting two or three years with Maazel, who is eager to
pass on six decades of experience."
You may or may not agree with Lebrecht about the above, but I don't
think you can legitimately deny that it's a concrete recommendation --
a "real idea about how to make it better" -- of the sort you say >>
Thanks to D Krause for filling out my presentation of the Lebrecht article. It
wasn't my intention to attack every point in the article, and I did provide a
hyperlink so others could readily read the entire article for themselves.
Having said that, I'd point out that the quotes that D Krause cites don't
change the thrust of my original post.
Rather than presenting a "real idea about how to make it better", Lebrecht's
own words show that 1) the conductor competition has been around for some time
(so nothing new here), and 2) the WINNERS of such competitions rarely end up
making much of a mark on the world as conductors. Interestingly, it's the
also-rans who do well!
That is a phenomenom that isn't limited to conductor competitions. How many
winners of major piano competitions turn into household names?
Mr. Lebrecht contradicts himself in these quotes. He states that "the only
young conductors competitions that work are those where a maestro commits to
take fledglings under his wing and nurse them to maturity." He then cites the
Karajan competition as an example of just such a process - and then informs us
that the *winners*, who one assumes were those fledglings taken under HvK's
wing, "failed to make the big time." But "runners-up such as Jansons and
Gergiev benefitted enormously from Karajan's attention." Lebrecht doesn't
explain whether the runners-up were taken under the wing, or if the noteriety
of placing below first-place did the trick for them. What exactly was the
extent of "Karajan's attention" with Jansons and Gergiev? Lebrecht infers that
they received extra guidance from HvK even though they didn't win the
competition. Considering HvK's reclusiveness, I seriously doubt that he alloted
time for the win, place and show conductors. But, I could be wrong. Maybe
someone can flesh this out - again, Lebrecht didn't bother to do so.
Following Lebrecht's observations, one would guess that the LAST thing an
entrant in a conductor competition could desire is to actually win the thing!
Now, Maazel I'll give credit. If anyone can actually make a difference with
growing conductors it is Maazel. And, it's encouraging to see that he is
offering an apprenticeship under his direct supervision. But, as Lebrecht
states, Maazel is "attempt[ing] to revive the method" used by Karajan, a method
that so far hasn't been exactly a roaring success. Will Maazel succeed and
produce a winner from the winner where Karajan failed? Time will tell.
I'll stand by the thought behind my original post.
David Hurwitz
>I see -- recording industry can be either judged by somebody from inside
>the recording industry or by a wannabe critic that is bought off for 2c
>advertising worth by the recording industry.
>
indeed I know that is what you live for. But the fact remains that some people
have knowledge you do not by virtue of having worked within the business in
question. Indeed, there is no other way to acquire this knowledge. You have
offered no factual basis nor have I seen any comment of Mark's that would lend
credence to your insinuation of bias as a result of his work as a record
industry professional. If you have evidence to the contrary, kindly produce it.
As to your remarks about me, well, these are pretty weak beer. You've done
better. My work will stand on its own merits, or not, and the issue of bias with
respect to your own feelings and motivations has long been settled in this
respect.
Markesten
<< I agree that the reviews need work and that more details should be in them,
but the generalities, and introductory matters can be important too,
especially "to improve the public's knowledge and appreciation of the
art"--even with space limitations, though
these don't seem to be a problem in the NYT, where lengthy reviews of
mainstream shlocky movies appear routinely.
I would not want newspaper reviews, or even reviews in music publications,
to be so specialized that only the experienced or professional would be able
to understand them. That practice would tend to further the public
perception that only the initiated or learned can comprehend classical
music, and that one must study the scores and librettos in advance or know
them well, and that attending a concert or an opera is an exercise, like
grading a paper, or judging a competition. Or worse, the perception that
most of those who attend classical musical events are just participating in
a snobbish ritual, and have no real appreciation for what is going on, which
is not very much except to the cognoscenti.
I think every review should contain some expository writing on the music
itself, even if it is just some simple observation or generality about the
work in question. >>
I would respectfully disagree. I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said "culture
should not strive to become popular, but rather, the populace should strive to
become cultured." (paraphrased)
You have hit on a point that is a real bug-a-boo with me. For the last 20
years, classical music has sought to let the "uninitiated" into the world of
the true believers by being more "accessible." Have we seen a tremendous
upsurge in classical music lovers due to these efforts? I don't think so.
Classical music lovers are often called "elitist" or "snobby." I see nothing
elitist in people who have sampled many types of music outside of classical and
in the long run, reject most other musics from their listening experience and
embrace the classics almost exclusively. After all, we're talking about
listening to music spanning 1,200 years of human civilization. No, the
"elitists" are those who have never entered a concert hall, have never been to
an opera, who couldn't tell Bach from Bizet, who in the grand scheme of things
limit their listening to a few branches of music (rap, country, rock, etc) in a
genre that could be best described as "very late 20th & very early 21st Century
American Pop Music" and THEN have the cahones to call classical music lovers
(and, by extension, people who enjoy the fine arts) "ELITISTS."
Who's the elitist?
As far as your point on snobbery where you opine: <<"Or worse, the perception
that
most of those who attend classical musical events are just participating in
a snobbish ritual, and have no real appreciation for what is going on, which
is not very much except to the cognoscenti,">>
I say, so what? Why do I care how my love of classical music is perceived by
those who don't know *or* care?
Let me extend your argument to sports. Daily newspapers list box scores
throughout the baseball season. I would guess that less than 20-percent of the
American populace can decipher a box score. Does that stop newspapers from
printing them? No. Do newspapers provide an overview (a plot?) for the basic
rules of a baseball game in every edition so their readers can decipher the box
score? No. Do they provide a diagram of a baseball diamond with every position
defined so the non-initiated can know the difference between a shortstop and a
catcher? No. If you watch ANY sports commentary show on, say, ESPN, are the
commentators directing their in-depth analysis of hitting, pitching and
fielding statistics to anyone but the sports cognescenti? No. When sports
celebrities are inteviewed on sports shows, do they spend 80-percent of the
interview explaining the fundamentals of the game? No.
Then why oh why do we NOT consider real lovers of baseball (and I would count
myself in their numbers) "elitists"? Talk about "participating in
a snobbish ritual" - we classical music dudes ain't got NOTHIN' on these sports
types!
On the contrary, Americans are great consummers and LOVERS of sports. Sports
may be this country's true religion. Someone who has never seen a baseball game
can enjoy it on a certain level, but he can't enjoy it on the level of the
cognescenti of the game. Do we ask baseball to "dumb down" the game to attract
the "uninitiated?" I don't think so. Quite the contrary, we extol the
intricacies of the game; we provide an "insiders" look into the game that goes
well below the surface; we EXPECT sports lovers to educate themselves to a
higher love of the game and feel not a scrap of elitism providing them with the
tools to do so. Why treat classical music any differently?
There is much to be said for the MARKETING of snobbery. Speaking in
generalities now, why are classical music lovers convinced that if a CD comes
from Europe, it's probably a better recording than one made in the USA? Does
"Berliner Philharmoniker" on the CD cover push your buttons more than "Berlin
Philharmonic"? Are most Americans offended by the "elitism" portrayed in Jaguar
and Lexus commercials? Are they offended by the classical music that runs as a
background in these car commercials? Have you EVER seen a champagne commercial
where the people were dressed in blue jeans and t-shirts rather than evening
wear? Have you ever seen an Ethan Allen print ad for resin patio furniture?
Have you ever watched "Who Wants To Be An $8,000-a-naire" on TV? Is your answer
"no" to any of the above?
I've got a really radical thought - the so-called "snobbery" of classical music
is one of its main marketing points, AND THE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN MISSING THE BOAT
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS! Why do we not promote the inherent power of the arts to
enrich the lives of all? No, we're busy APOLOGIZING for the arts which has the
effect of diminishing the arts. We would never expect anyone to believe us if
we were to state that "rhinestones are just as precious as rubies." Yet, we
accept such statements about the fine arts versus entertainment on a daily
basis. I can appreciate the derrier of Jennifer Lopez as much if not more than
the next guy, but I'm not going to listen to her "music" and equate its musical
worth and longterm value with Beethoven.
<<Today, many top-notch universities don't require foreign languages even for
liberal arts graduates--how many journalists or even
musicologist-journalists are going to know Italian, French, and German?>>
Shame on them! Of course, you mean American universities. We seem to be the
only country on the planet that is uninterested in learning a second or third
language. Of course, when you're speaking "God's language" (ie: American
English) why bother? Let those Europeans and Asians learn all of those
languages - it doesn't fit into our vision of ourselves.
<< I don't think it's that important to the general public for a singer to get
the nuances "right" whatever that may mean from one opera to another. As
long as the pronunciation or delivery is not distracting, most opera goers
are not going to notice any more than I do when there are variations in
Latin or even English performances of oratorios and liturgical works.>>
And so the distinction between mere "craft" and true "art" becomes blurred to
the point where craft cannot be raised but art is inevitably diminished. True,
the "general" public won't know the difference, but what percentage of an
audience at an opera would one consider the general public? Language is an -
some would say "the" - integral part of the opera, just as is the pitch, rhythm
and dynamics of the score. Yet, if a performer wandered off into a different
key from the rest of the ensemble, or played his part backwards, or played
"forte" in a "piano" passage, we'd expect some kind of comment from the
reviewer. Why not have the same decency and respect for the language?
So, I guess I disagree with your points as presented.
Rant over.
Mark Stenroos
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: You may post whatever insults and insinuations your twisted mind may invent;
: indeed I know that is what you live for.
Does this mean that you are going to respond to my criticisms of
Barbirolli's Mahler 5th -- or at least apologize for the unprovoked
insults you saw fit to heap upon me for daring to disagree with you
and (what I'm sure was worse) to demonstrate that Barbirolli failed to
meet your own claimed standards of performance (i.e. he demonstrably
ignored what is written in the score)?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
D Krause
> Endorsing the idea of a conducting competition is fine -- and yes I had read
> this column. But this is a highly limited idea, and deals with one very
> specific area. Mr. Lebrecht has been critical of virtually every aspect of
> the
> classical music business, while at the same time offering very few real ideas
> to improve it. My comment was a more generalized one, and I believe it to be > a
> fair one.
Well, Dr. Fogel, I respectfully disagree with you. Norman Lebrecht is
neither a performing arts administrator or a recording company
executive; he's a journalist. That being the case, it's not really
his job to come up with the solutions to the situations that he
describes. If he did no more than call attention to "messes" in the
classical music world, in the absence of anyone else doing so, he
would be performing a valuable service. However, I don't in fact think
your generalized comment is accurate; Lebrecht's commentaries often do
contain concrete suggestions for improvement of those situations. I
believe fair-minded individuals can infer those suggestions rather
than needing them to be spelled out. If Lebrecht says that he
believes it's a violation of business ethics for Ronald Wilford to sit
on the board of Sony Classical, obviously the remedy that Lebrecht is
proposing would be for Wilford to be removed from that board.
Similarly, if Lebrecht says that it's a shame for British orchestras
to fail to program the music of Malcolm Arnold and Malcolm Williamson
in a year in which Arnold had his eightieth birthday and Williamson
his ninetieth, then obviously Lebrecht is saying that those orchestras
should program that music. What other reasonable interpretation is
there?
But again in fact, Lebrecht often does spell out specific
recommendations to specific situations. However, he is a British
journalist, and often those recommendations are particular to matters
in the British classical music scene, such as the ongoing problems at
Covent Garden and the ENO. Here's a quote from one such commentary:
"Covent Garden must either be taken under full state control, like
Paris or Munich, with a ¢G35 million annual subsidy - peanuts in Dome
terms - or it must be set free. The ideal public solution would be to
unify London's three lyric theatre buildings under a single
management, enabling the performing ensembles to focus entirely on art
and forget about property development. However, since there is no
public will for fundamental reforms, we shall have to settle for the
next best solution - which is ROH privatisation. The p-word has lost
its taboo. The Metropolitan Opera in New York, the world's most
successful house, is privately funded, while the Kirov, the most
successful ensemble, functions effectively without government subsidy.
Covent Garden can do the same. What would it cost? If the state were
to give an advance cheque on the next five years subsidy as a full and
final settlement, the sum of ¢G125 million would form the basis of a
workable ROH endowment. Double that fund with a few Vilars and
Moellers, and the company could live happily off the interest, reduce
seat prices, redefine its purpose and avoid controversy ever after."
How much more pointed and "spelled out" can recommendations be, in the
limited forum of a newspaper column? One can in fact go back through
Lebrecht's columns -- many of them are available on-line -- and find
similar recommendations, either spelled out or reasonably inferred.
Again, if one disagrees with such recommendations, fine; these are
matters to be discussed. But I don't believe it's a fair comment
that, in specific or in general, Lebrecht merely criticizes without
making recommendations.
Happy listening.
vaneyes
Happy Holidays and Listening to you, Mr. Krause.
Regards
D Krause
> Rather than presenting a "real idea about how to make it better", Lebrecht's
> own words show that 1) the conductor competition has been around for some
> time
> (so nothing new here),
I don't think that's the point that Lebrecht was making. The point is
that of the various types of conductor competitions that have been
tried, there's one that apparently has a better track record than
others, and those who attempt to "revive" that idea, as Lorin Maazel
is doing, should be encouraged and applauded, and others should
entertain the idea as well.
> and 2) the WINNERS of such competitions rarely end up
> making much of a mark on the world as conductors.
Which is not to say that some of them still might not have benefitted
either professionally or artistically from their participation in the
specific type of competition that Lebrecht recommends. I've heard
Kamu and Kitaenko conduct, and I would not be at all surprised if they
said they had benefited from the attention they received from von
Karajan, that came about from that competition.
> Interestingly, it's the
> also-rans who do well!
And what's wrong with that? Isn't it rather like the Olympics, where
everybody who participates benefits in some way, and not just the
winners?
> Mr. Lebrecht contradicts himself in these quotes. He states that "the only
> young conductors competitions that work are those where a maestro commits to
> take fledglings under his wing and nurse them to maturity." He then cites the
> Karajan competition as an example of just such a process - and then informs
> us
> that the *winners*, who one assumes were those fledglings taken under HvK's
> wing, "failed to make the big time."
See above. I think your point would be valid if Lebrecht had said
"the only competitions that work are those where a maestro exclusively
takes the *winners* of the competition under his wing." But he didn't
say that. Apparently, in the von Karajan competition that Lebrecht
cites, there was some significant and beneficial attention paid to the
runners-up as well. Bravo for HvK, then. If this was indeed the
case, then it illustrates Lebrecht's point, that such a specific
competition can be of value, even if the winners do not go on to the
top rung of international conducting.
> Lebrecht doesn't
> explain whether the runners-up were taken under the wing, or if the noteriety
> of placing below first-place did the trick for them. What exactly was the
> extent of "Karajan's attention" with Jansons and Gergiev?
This was a newspaper column, not a multi-volume history of conductor
competitions. Yes, I'd be interested in more details as well, but
there are practical limitations for a journalist.
> Lebrecht infers
> that
> they received extra guidance from HvK even though they didn't win the
> competition. Considering HvK's reclusiveness, I seriously doubt that he
> alloted
> time for the win, place and show conductors. But, I could be wrong.
My understanding was that HvK's reclusiveness (perhaps more accurately
described as disdain) was directed toward non-musicians, and he could
in fact be helpful with other musicians, perhaps more on occasion than
as a general rule. But if he did put aside reclusiveness for this
purpose, then again, bravo for HvK.
> Maybe
> someone can flesh this out - again, Lebrecht didn't bother to do so.
See above.
> Now, Maazel I'll give credit. If anyone can actually make a difference with
> growing conductors it is Maazel. And, it's encouraging to see that he is
> offering an apprenticeship under his direct supervision. But, as Lebrecht
> states, Maazel is "attempt[ing] to revive the method" used by Karajan, a
> method
> that so far hasn't been exactly a roaring success.
Yes, but isn't it to Lebrecht's credit that he admits that of the
various ideas for conductor competitions that have been tried, even
the best one is not a magic wand that produces sure-fire, guaranteed
results? I would think that a fair-minded individual would applaud
this realistic assessment on his part. But that same fair-minded
individual would also say that even if there is no magic wand, it's
still better to go with that idea that produces some beneficial if
unpredictable results, than with those that do not even do that much.
And Lebrecht is performing a service by using his limited forum to
direct attention to that idea.
Happy listening.
Samir Golescu
On 23 Dec 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >I see -- recording industry can be either judged by somebody from inside
> >the recording industry or by a wannabe critic that is bought off for 2c
> >advertising worth by the recording industry.
> >
> You may post whatever insults and insinuations your twisted mind may invent;
> indeed I know that is what you live for.
Hey, Grinchy! Get a grip and get a life. YOU started insulting ME, after I
had a fairly civilized exchange with "Markesten". Messers Fogel and
"Markesten" have no need for your idiotic and provocative "defenses". They
can talk just too well for themselves. Reading your garbage reminds one
the Romanian saying: "defend me God of such friends, I can defend myself
against my enemies".
Happy holidays,
SG
D Krause
> There's no point in arguing with the paranoid or mentally ill.
Most people here have already figured that out, from their encounters
with you. In the meantime, though, it's as apparent as before that
you have no explanation for what's going on at Sony Classical, other
than your touchingly maudlin fantasy construction of Peter Gelb and
Ronald Wilford, hand in hand, lovingly tending their corner of the
classical music world, to the benefit of all concerned -- that is, as
long as you like Charlotte Church and "Yo Yo Ma Meets the Beverly
Hillbillies" albums.
A little more evidence of reality, vs. your fantasy world? How's this
-- at a time when Sony Classical is collapsing financially, your
friends there bought themselves another couple million dollars worth
of red ink with a worthless piece of Vangelis fluff titled MYTHODEA, a
"soundtrack" for the NASA Mars mission. Well, nobody this side of
Mars believes that Sony Classical is going to make a dime from it.
The only people who are walking away with guaranteed fat paychecks are
the featured soloists, Jessye Norman and Kathleen Battle. Hey, I
*like* Jessye Norman and Kathleen Battle, but even if I didn't, I'd
say they're entitled to get all the bucks they can. That's not the
issue. The issue -- and the reality -- is what Gelb-appointed Sony
Classical board member's talent agency represents both Norman and
Battle?
The answer? Ronald Wilford's Columbia Artists Management. In fact,
Kathleen Battle is one of Wilford's "personal" clients. What a
coincidence. So Sony Classical winds up hemmorhaging more money, the
classical music community isn't served by a piece of crap like this --
and Ronald Wilford winds up with a hefty commission check from the
deal. And you don't see a conflict of interest here? Dream on,
little man.
Markesten
D Krause makes an excellent stab at explaining what Mr. Lebrecht may have
inferred through his remarks. In fact, had Mr. Lebrecht the lucidity of D
Krause, he could have made his points without D Krause's help.
But Mr (Ms?) Krause's reading between the Lebrecht lines to me serves only to
point out what is wrong with Mr. Lebrecht's writing style in general. Mr.
Lebrecht's lack of exposition in fleshing out his argument with statistics or
third-party confirmation (a clarity which he could easily accomplish through a
few paranthetical phrases scattered judiciously throughout his not-brief
article) allows his readers to construe his words to reach conclusions that are
polar opposites of each other. Not the sign of a successful writing talent, in
my books.
No, I think Mr. Lebrecht avoids such exposition because he would either 1) find
himself in a circular argument, or 2) disprove his own hypothesis in the
telling.
Even Mr. Krause's defense of Mr. Lebrecht must resort to words and phrases like
"apparently" and "if this was indeed the case" as caveat - Mr. Krause can't
really be sure of what Lebrecht's words really meant, and being a clearer
writer than Mr. Lebrecht, he knows enough to qualify his remarks.
In the end, Mr. Krause does find common ground with me, saying "yes, I'd be
interested in more details as well," but notes that "there are practical
limitations for a journalist." Unfortunately, Mr. Lebrecht's limitations arise
from his penchant for starting with a conclusion and tailoring the information
in his columns to support its premise.
Had Mr. Lebrecht expended even the limited amount of words in point of clarity
that Mr. Krause has in his various rejoinders to my posts, his meaning would
have been made much, much clearer without his editor going into convulsions.
David Hurwitz
>Hey, Grinchy! Get a grip and get a life. YOU started insulting ME, after I
>had a fairly civilized exchange with "Markesten". Messers Fogel and
>"Markesten" have no need for your idiotic and provocative "defenses". They
>can talk just too well for themselves. Reading your garbage reminds one
>the Romanian saying: "defend me God of such friends, I can defend myself
>against my enemies".
>
>Happy holidays,
>SG
>
based as it is (at least originally) on a disagreement about something as
trivial as the value of the recordings of a bunch of dead artists. In the grand
scheme of things, it doesn't even rate, so I don't think I'm the person who
needs to "get a life." I post here as it suits my enjoyment; and I shall
continue to do so as time permits.
As to my insulting you and my coming to the defense of those with whom I happen
to agree, please don't be a hypocrite. That's what we are here for, to take
positions, discuss them, defend them, and argue about them. If anyone here
offers a clinic in precisely the tactic of which you accuse me, it is you, and I
suspect you know it (unless you are totally without self-knowledge, always a
possibility but I do like to give you the benefit of the doubt). If I were to
make a list of the number of times you jump into a conversation with some
gratuitous or snide comment...well, let's take this very thread, for example:
Tepper wrote:
"Nonsense; he would be treated at least as well as, say, David Hurwitz."
You replied (as you always seem unable to resist whenever my name is mentioned):
"You might be right -- at least the thought pleases the mind -- but let's
better not tempt the Parcae!"
Mark then came to my defense, and you then attacked him, at least in part for
defending me. So cut the crap about who threw the first barb. It was you, the
all time NG champion of the ad hominem attack. The evidence is there for anyone
who cares to read it, and while reality is never your strong suit, others are
not so handicapped.
Now most of the time, I see no point in responding to your seeming inability to
refrain from putting in your own 2 cents whenever my name comes up (or beginning
some other provocation, as with your recent thread about ClassicsToday.com
critics). Actually, a lot of it is truly funny, and the rest I put down to the
sort of compulsion that makes it impossible for a parasite to abandon its host.
It's the price one pays for notoriety. Actually, having one's own cyberstalker
is something of a compliment, and the irony of this whole situation is that the
more you do it, the more attention it gives me and ClassicsToday.com. I have
always maintained that you are our best publicist, and for that I suppose I
should thank you.
However, in this case you saw fit to attack someone I consider a friend, and
with no basis whatsoever for your accusations.
And so despite our having gone back and forth with this issue, trading barbs and
wasting bandwidth, I put it to you again: do you have any evidence to support
your insinuation of bias directed against Mark? It's a yes or no question,
Samir. If the answer is "yes," then kindly produce such evidence.
Your non-response to date and your attempt to deflect the issue with yet another
smoke-screen of insults directed at me personally says far more about your true
motivation than anything further you might come up with, and so I leave you and
any other interested parties to draw their own conclusions.
Samir Golescu
On 23 Dec 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> >Hey, Grinchy! Get a grip and get a life. YOU started insulting ME, after I
> >had a fairly civilized exchange with "Markesten". Messers Fogel and
> >"Markesten" have no need for your idiotic and provocative "defenses". They
> >can talk just too well for themselves. Reading your garbage reminds one
> >the Romanian saying: "defend me God of such friends, I can defend myself
> >against my enemies".
> >
> I have never been your enemy.
Of course not. It was your defense what caused a disservice to the other
posters. It was about you being their friend. Not about you being my
enemy. Mr Krause and "Markesten" are continuing their discussion in
perfectly civilized terms. You can't. You are incapable to read. Your
intellectual ability to perceive even the easiest analogy is sadly
limited.
> let's take this very thread, for example:
>
> Tepper wrote:
>
> "Nonsense; he [Lebrecht] would be treated at least as well as, say,
> David Hurwitz."
>
> You replied (as you always seem unable to resist whenever my name is
> mentioned):
>
> "You might be right -- at least the thought pleases the mind -- but let's
> better not tempt the Parcae!"
SO it was about Lebrecht not about you. Incapable to read, again, poor
soul -- mind would be an overstatement.
> It was you, the all time NG champion of the ad hominem attack.
Your "reasoned" attack on Lebrecht surely deserves a runner-up.....
Your "There's no point in arguing with the paranoid or mentally ill"
addressed to another poster speaks for itself.
> The evidence is there for anyone who cares to read it,
You cannot read, as it becomes apparent.
> and while reality is never your strong suit, others are
> not so handicapped.
If handicaps paid, you would own by now McDonald, Krupp and even Sony
Classical, not a crappy website that became object of jokes more than
anything else.
> more you do it, the more attention it gives me and ClassicsToday.com.
I know how much you crave for attention. There are different kinds of
attention though, and few sane people would want the kind you're getting.
> I have always maintained that you are our best publicist, and for that I
> suppose I should thank you.
>
> However, in this case you saw fit to attack someone I consider a friend, and
> with no basis whatsoever for your accusations.
I didn't "attack" anybody, cute Paranoel. When a politician thinks that
press is cruel to politicians, I have my reasons to doubt his objectivity,
that's all. Moreover, the "attacked" himself answered reasonably and
politely my question so all your defense succeeded in was making again a
fool out of yourself. Even the entertainment value of this is somewhat
lost though, through repetition.
David Hurwitz
>I know how much you crave for attention. There are different kinds of
>attention though, and few sane people would want the kind you're getting.
>
say more about you than about me or ClassicsToday.com; we simply reap the
benefit of the attention. Naturally compliments are nicer than insults, but it
depends on the source. Coming from you, and judging from the response I usually
get as a result of your little tirades, the effect is generally exactly the
opposite of what you intend, and that's fine with me. Most people recognize
lunatics when they see them.
>I didn't "attack" anybody, cute Paranoel. When a politician thinks that
>press is cruel to politicians, I have my reasons to doubt his objectivity,
>that's all. Moreover, the "attacked" himself answered reasonably and
>politely my question so all your defense succeeded in was making again a
>fool out of yourself. Even the entertainment value of this is somewhat
>lost though, through repetition.
>
Nice try. The answer, as is clear, is that you have no evidence to support your
allegations of bias, as I maintained all along. As I first thought, so it is,
and so we all know.
Happy Holidays.
D Krause
> Even Mr. Krause's defense of Mr. Lebrecht must resort to words and phrases
> like
> "apparently" and "if this was indeed the case" as caveat - Mr. Krause can't
> really be sure of what Lebrecht's words really meant, and being a clearer
> writer than Mr. Lebrecht, he knows enough to qualify his remarks.
I'm going to tread very carefully here, as this dialogue between
myself and Mr. Sten is being conducted in a happily civilized manner.
Even with that being the case, however, I believe Mr. Sten is
conflating some perceived lack of clarity in *my* writing (though if
it weren't Christmas, I would grumble that it doesn't seem all than
unclear to me) with a putative lack of clarity in Lebrecht's writing.
My use of "apparently" and "if this was indeed the case" are not for
the purpose of my saying "Apparently, this is what Lebrecht meant" or
"If this was indeed the case of what Lebrecht meant," as if I had to
indeed read between the lines of a murky prose to figure out what he
was trying to say. To my mind, it's fairly obvious what Lebrecht was
saying in this regard. My use of "apparently" was in the intended
sense (intended by me, of course) of "Apparently, according to
Lebrecht's testimony, result X was produced by method Y." (Same with
the other phrase that Mr. Sten cites.) "Apparently" refers to what
happened in reality, and not to what can or can't be discerned from
Lebrecht's prose. I'm not trying to split hairs here, but there is a
difference.
> In the end, Mr. Krause does find common ground with me,
Actually, I found common ground with with Mr. Sten at the beginning,
rather than the end. If his entire contention had been "Lebrecht
fails to establish the premise (America chooses mature conductors,
Europe chooses youngsters) from which he derives his conclusion," I'd
absolutely agree with him. On that specific point, Mr. Sten nails
Lebrecht. Where I disagree with Mr. Sten is his own further
conclusions, that a) Lebrecht is indulging in "Yankee-bashing" (I
don't think Lebrecht is doing that, inasmuch as he finds as much fault
in what he unsupportedly contends is the European penchant for
choosing conductors); and that this particular column is typical of
Lebrecht's writing. To my mind, this is one of the worst columns that
Lebrecht has ever written, and way below his standard. But then, I
don't believe that a commentator such as Lebrecht has to be infallible
to be of value, and I in fact believe Lebrecht's commentary to
*generally* be of considerable value. I could go back through
Lebrecht's on-line archive and find many of what I consider to be
well-considered, well-stated positions, such that I would be amazed if
Mr. Sten disagreed with them. Consider just Lebrecht's ongoing (it
appears in several of his columns) prescriptions for the "mess" of
British performing organizations such as Covent Garden and the ENO
(though not limited to those); behind the well-argued (IMO) specific
recommendations that Lebrecht makes is a guiding position that the
British public should get the most value for its money, not through
the "dumbing down" of those institutions, but through the spending of
public moneys in such a way (as by creating endowments rather than
doling out money on a year-to-year basis) that the institutions are
run by effective arts managers with real decision-making power rather
than by politicians. (I can't imagine Henry Fogel disagreeing with
that position, either.) I also believe that Lebrecht very
articulately and even impassionedly argues the case for unfairly
neglected musicians such as Georg Tintner and Ida Haendel. And there
are other matters that I believe he is very good on.
What I find disturbing, however, is what seems to be a "negative
ratchet" that is unfairly applied to Lebrecht, where his generally
sound and well-stated positions are not considered against the
occasions where he undoubtedly blows it badly. And he does blow it on
occasion -- I think he's lately gotten somewhat hysterical about the
fate of the classical recording industry, which is puzzling, as he had
previously been very astute about the way in which the independent
labels were taking over from the floundering majors. There are some
sections of his book THE MAESTRO MYTH which to my mind are not much
more than low gossip. Even so, my contention is that he is of
considerably more value than not as a commentator on the performing
arts scene. Nobody else is even attempting to cover the business
aspect of what winds up on the concert hall stage and in our CD
players. For that alone, IMO, Lebrecht deserves credit, and a fair
consideration of *all* of his writing, and not just one bomb of a
piece.
Happy listening.
wwal...@rr.com
As a reviewer, you critique musical performances of great musicians all over the
world. Musicians seldom have the chance to respond to what you say, regardless
of whether it is deserved or not.
As the executive editor of your publication, you and your publication are
subject, in much the same way you critique musicians, to criticism from your
readers. You have entered the public arena. You may afford a reader with an
opportunity to respond to your views. However that is selective. Therefore I
am sure most publications would not engage in the type of responses you have
given in this forum, even when they were personal attacks on you, deserved or
not deserved. You present yourself in this forum as the executive editor of
your publication and therefore as a critic. That makes you subject to the same
rules of the road as anyone else who would put himself and his publication on
trial. Or am I mistaken that you are only offering your personal views and not
your professional views? Why risk the foundation of your publication?
Therefore if you are going to participate in this forum not on a personal level
but as a professional, are you going to open up your publication and publish
responses from those within this group with whom you have profound disagreements
as to even matters of fact? If you are going to carry out personal attacks on
individuals are you going to print your attacks and allow the respondents to
print a reply in your publication?
If not, I would like to know since when do professional publications carry on
this type of behavior by any of its staff!
You claim that we here in this newsgroup will know who is the "lunatic" here.
You posted: "Coming from you, and judging from the response I usually get as a
result of your little tirades, the effect is generally exactly the opposite of
what you intend, and that's fine with me. Most people recognize lunatics when
they see them." That is frankly not in accord with the posted statements in
this group based on your prior record here.
Obviously you wish to be taken seriously as a critic. Why then do you undermine
your efforts with what one would take as foolishness or immaturity as exhibited
publicly here.
I am not defending Samir but he is only one of many you have personally
attacked. Therefore the following quotes are just some choice words you have
given or received in this newsgroup.
(1)
> Mr. Hurwitz, you are not only not qualified to write about music, but as
>> it turns out, you are too ignorant to even quote half-a-paragraph of a
>> music-related text correctly and with some evidence of understanding
>> what is it that you copy-and-paste or type in. It doesn't help that you
>> quote Schweitzer, because you have no idea what he meant. Nothing that
>> you write in your follow-up convinces me that you have the slightest
>> idea about the music in question or even the most superficial knowledge
>> of the context of Bach's music. You just displayed even more
>> ignorance. If this is how you conduct your real-estate business, I
>> wouldn't recommend buying a doghouse from you.
>>
>> -Margaret
>
(2)
>John Grabowski wrote:
[...]
> What I don't get about Hurwitz is after he left this ng he emailed me
> privately, apparently thinking me some sort of confidant as I never
> really flamed him here and indeed spent a long time trying to understand
> him and find common ground (some of which I admittedly did), because I
> have nothing against an unconventional opinion and always welcome
> them--at first, at least. Anyway, in his email he called all of you
> pompous assholes (or some equivalent) and then made a statement I cannot
> make sense of to this day: he said you were all pathetic because you
> really thought what you said could possibly make a difference. (!)
>
> ....So what's he doing for a living? That's what I don't get. If our
> opinions are of no concern, what are his? Why does he do what he does?
>
> The guy's just weird. Best ignored. The sad thing is, people just
> getting into classical music will think he's Important because he's A
> Critic, and will listen to what he says, and maybe even be moulded by
> it. Scary.
>
(3)
>From: Alain Dagher (al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca)
>Subject: Re: Hurwitz does it again . . .
>Newsgroups: rec.music.classical.recordings
>View this article only
>Date: 2000-10-01 17:51:38 PST
>
>
>
>"Matthew B. Tepper" wrote:
>
>> pra...@cs.uchicago.edu (Pradyut Shah) wrote in
>> <as066nc...@varese.cs.uchicago.edu>:
>> >
>> >What's the problem here?
>>
>> That somebody has dared to disagree with the revealed wisdom embodied in
>> this newsgroup.
>
>Sorry Matthew but I don't agree with you. That was always his defence and I
>find it meretricious. There are frequent disagreements on performance on
>this newsgroup and relatively few flamewars. Yet David Hurwitz never entered
>a thread without it turning into a flamewar.
>
>I believe that Mr Hurwitz writes out of spite. In the review quoted at the
>beginning of this thread he doesn't content himself with reviewing the
>performance (and anyway why does he bother? why put pen to paper only to say
>'No'? why not let someone else review Furtwangler recordings?). He has to
>make a snide attack on Furtwangler's fans ("sadistic thrill"), as he always
>- tiresomely - does. To what end? Because he has to bravely serve Truth,
>whatever the consequences? And then at the end, he adds the comment about
>Goebbels which is not relevant to the musical performance and in my opinion
>aimed only at causing offence. "You like this performance, therefore you are
>a ..."
>
>He joined this group with the goal of offending and hurting people. He uses
>words like weapons (which is unadvisable with his degree of ineptitutde).
>And to top it all off he wrote from a position of superiority, as if we were
>all amateurs (which I am - but many in this group seem more knowledgeable
>than he is.) It is never pleasant to be condescended to. It is even worse to
>be condescended to by a flaming mediocrity. It's like being cornered at a
>party by a loudmouth with bad breath.
>
>THAT is the problem.
>
>cheers,
>
>Alain
(4)
>I agree that he often wrote from
>a position of superiority, and was too quick (even early on) to resort to that
>"I'll be glad to go over the score with you and show you exactly why this
>recording you love is worthless" kind of bullying. He's a very opinionated and
>acerbic person, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in this kind of forum, but
>over the course of his time on the group, he began to dig in harder, and there
>was a lot of shrill antagonizing going on on both sides of those discussions. I
>think the lingering hurt and resentment with which he left the group have had
>a detrimental effect on his writing elsewhere. In his reviews of historical and
>other recordings, he does seem to be taking gratuitous swipes at people in this
>newsgroup with whom he clashed, and against whom he holds a grudge. He isn't
>doing a service to himself or to his readers.
(5)
>I for one read Hurwitz's reviews because I find them useful - even though he is a
>pompous ass and even though I don't agree with everthing he says. As far a picking on him goes
>- he's made himself a public figure. If his use of the English language is ridiculous
>sometimes, well he's fair game. A la Case Stengel, Yogi Berra, and George W. Bush..
>Frank Berger
Samir Golescu
On 23 Dec 2001, David Hurwitz wrote:
> Most people recognize lunatics when they see them.
A truer word has never been spoken.
Markesten
subject of Lebrecht. Indeed, there is much common ground between us, and it's
quite possible that a fews hairs have been split during the discussion.
I would imagine that I have a different perspective on things than Mr. Krause
as I've been on the inside of the industry for so long. While I don't think
that I'm over-reacting to Lebrecht's schtick, I can see how others might think
so. If that's the case, mea culpa...or possibly, caveat emptor!
Mr. Krause opined:
<< I think he's [Lebrecht] lately gotten somewhat hysterical about the
fate of the classical recording industry, which is puzzling, as he had
previously been very astute about the way in which the independent
labels were taking over from the floundering majors. >>
I concur with this assessment, and I would offer this as the reason Lebrecht is
getting hysterical: his basic argument is getting old, the sky hasn't totally
fallen in the timeframe he originally imagined, and so he's ratcheting up the
rhetoric in an attempt to achieve a shock value equal to that he enjoyed on
first blush.
As far as the indies taking over from the majors,
I'd like to read his comments on the subject. Here in the States the indy
labels have taken a terrible beating this year due to major changes at Tower
Records. Most indies are having trouble even getting their product into stores,
and if it can't get into the store, it's a tough go. Yes, many indies are
spending more energy on creating viable sales mechanisims on the internet, but
let's face it, not having a presence in retail is bad business for a record
label.
Again, thanks for the civil discourse.
Happy Holidays,
Mark Stenroos
David Hurwitz
>
[tediously pompous and condescending diatribe snipped]
Must be a full moon or something.
wwal...@rr.com
Then why do you respond only at the gutter level as though you wish to confirm
the negative perception of you? I know nothing about you except what is stated
here and at your web site and frankly wonder why so much controversy surrounds
you? Is this intentional on your part? Rarely does an editor act beyond his
publication in the manner you do. If he has something to say he says it in his
publication. I added the negative statements (from long standing members of
this group) about you because the good comments about you are not exactly what
is in controversy.
And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies you
to critique any recording by a well-known artist? I understand you wrote some
for High Fidelity starting 1985 but don't know your qualifications for doing so,
and ditto for any publications thereafter. Supposedly you are percussionist but
no one seems to know anything about your training. And how does a real estate
salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?
HenryFogel
>Date: 12/24/2001 11:42 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <mkoe2uc10vd6dhmq0...@4ax.com>
>
>
>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies
>you
>to critique any recording by a well-known artist? I understand you wrote
>some
>for High Fidelity starting 1985 but don't know your qualifications for doing
>so,
>and ditto for any publications thereafter. Supposedly you are percussionist
>but
>no one seems to know anything about your training. And how does a real
>estate
>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?
>
And just how many record reviewers do you believe make record reviewing their
full time profession? Those who did would have to spend much of their time on
streetcorners, begging.
I believe that one judges the credentials of a reviewer by reading his reviews
over time and concluding whether or not they offer evidence of musical
expertise and understanding. And while Mr. Hurwitz occasionally states his
views in a very blunt and direct manner that seems to try to rouse controversy
(I think that, in fact, he enjoys stirring the pot and the reactions he gets),
it is clear to me from years of reading his work that he knows his stuff and
has a good set of ears. And I say that despite disagreeing with him on many of
his reviews, and in particular his points of view on many historical
recordings. But that results from our differing musical tastes and values, not
his lack of knowledge.
Henry Fogel
Bob Lombard
>[re Hurwitz]
>
>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies you
>to critique any recording by a well-known artist? I understand you wrote some
>for High Fidelity starting 1985 but don't know your qualifications for doing so,
>and ditto for any publications thereafter. Supposedly you are percussionist but
>no one seems to know anything about your training. And how does a real estate
>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?
Anyone who has listened to 'any recording' is qualified to
critique it, no matter who the artist. The weight the reader
places on the critic's opinions is up to the reader.
>"And how does a real estate
>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?"
You mean 'credible' there?
bl
wwal...@rr.com
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:42:01 GMT, wwal...@rr.com wrote:
>
>
>>[re Hurwitz]
>>
>>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies you
>>to critique any recording by a well-known artist? I understand you wrote some
>>for High Fidelity starting 1985 but don't know your qualifications for doing so,
>>and ditto for any publications thereafter. Supposedly you are percussionist but
>>no one seems to know anything about your training. And how does a real estate
>>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?
>
>Anyone who has listened to 'any recording' is qualified to
>critique it, no matter who the artist. The weight the reader
>places on the critic's opinions is up to the reader.
Yes everyone has an opinion and that is just fine as musical tastes vary. But
not everyone holds themselves out as a PROFESSIONAL critic/reviewer.
Are you saying if one holds oneself out as a professional then anyone can be a
professional what-have-you?
I have seen people cut to pieces in this newsgroup with demands asking what
credentials they have, who they are, where are they located, how do you know
something, etc. AND these were individuals who did NOT hold themselves out as
professionals. So why is Mr. Hurwitz any different and he does hold himself out
as a professional. Usually a professional is happy to share his credentials,
and even then we have individuals-- frauds--e.g., those who claim to be MD's and
have operated and performed all sorts of medical procedures on
people--inflicting no telling how much damage without the public ever knowing
the truth of the situation. Yet to all outward signs the person came off as a
"competent" MD. If there are no professional standards in a field by all means
let's all join in and have at it.
>
>>"And how does a real estate
>>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?"
>
>You mean 'credible' there?
>
>bl
Of course, so why the comment.
David Hurwitz
>>"And how does a real estate
>>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?"
>
>You mean 'credible' there?
>
>bl
>
worked in real estate finance and still do manage investments for certain
private clients--work I enjoy and take every bit as much pride in as I do my
writing. Having a variety of interests (not to mention sources of income) keeps
music always fresh and enjoyable; others may not feel the need for a change of
pace. I do, and one thing has never precluded the other.
Bob Lombard
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:03:34 GMT, Bob Lombard <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:42:01 GMT, wwal...@rr.com wrote:
>>
>Yes everyone has an opinion and that is just fine as musical tastes vary. But
>not everyone holds themselves out as a PROFESSIONAL critic/reviewer.
>Are you saying if one holds oneself out as a professional then anyone can be a
>professional what-have-you?
>
<g> Not a 'what-have-you'. Critic-reviewer isn't a
profession. For some, it isn't even a job. I suppose some
'critic-reviewers' think of themselves as professional - but
they ain't. If some outfit was foolish enough, they could
hire *me* as a 'critic-reviewer'. No sheepskin required, no
license exam, no 'association' membership.
>>
>>>"And how does a real estate
>>>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?"
>>
>>You mean 'credible' there?
>>
>>bl
>Of course, so why the comment.
'Creditable' would fit there, if that's what you meant. Just
checking.
bl
wwal...@rr.com
>>Subject: Re: Lebrecht - More Apples & Oranges Comparisons: Conductors
>>From: wwal...@rr.com
>>Date: 12/24/2001 11:42 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <mkoe2uc10vd6dhmq0...@4ax.com>
>>
>>
>>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies
>>you
>>to critique any recording by a well-known artist? I understand you wrote
>>some
>>for High Fidelity starting 1985 but don't know your qualifications for doing
>>so,
>>and ditto for any publications thereafter. Supposedly you are percussionist
>>but
>>no one seems to know anything about your training. And how does a real
>>estate
>>salesman have time to run a business and write creditable reviews?
>>
>
>And just how many record reviewers do you believe make record reviewing their
>full time profession? Those who did would have to spend much of their time on
>streetcorners, begging.
>
The same way they always did in a related field: musicology, journalism, etc.
>I believe that one judges the credentials of a reviewer by reading his reviews
>over time and concluding whether or not they offer evidence of musical
>expertise and understanding. And while Mr. Hurwitz occasionally states his
>views in a very blunt and direct manner that seems to try to rouse controversy
>(I think that, in fact, he enjoys stirring the pot and the reactions he gets),
>it is clear to me from years of reading his work that he knows his stuff and
>has a good set of ears. And I say that despite disagreeing with him on many of
>his reviews, and in particular his points of view on many historical
>recordings. But that results from our differing musical tastes and values, not
>his lack of knowledge.
>
>Henry Fogel
So "over time" we learn whether the critic is worthy or not? Or we judge for
ourselves as we go along. Is that it? No training, no background necessary,
not even the study of musicology, or the mastery of at least one instrument?
And if the reader is just average joe public how are they supposed to divine all
of this? Frankly I am not stating that Dave is not qualified--I don't know--and
that is not the point! My point is that if one is going to hold themselves out
as a professional and beat down others in this newsgroup using the professional
status, he should come down to earth and explain rather than hurl insults at
anyone who disagrees with him. As for his professional knowledge, Margaret
among others certainly punched a hole in that one. I know of very very very few
and rare individuals who could lay claim to the wide expanse of knowledge
exhibited and claimed by David Hurwitz. It just isn't done and it's a claim
that reduces the genius of so many composers and compositions to nothing to make
such a claim. No one can know that much and proves that Plato was basically
correct in his argument that books made it possible to mouth his words without
the mouth knowing of which it spoke.
wwal...@rr.com
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 20:03:59 GMT, wwal...@rr.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:03:34 GMT, Bob Lombard <hill...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 17:42:01 GMT, wwal...@rr.com wrote:
>>>
>>Yes everyone has an opinion and that is just fine as musical tastes vary. But
>>not everyone holds themselves out as a PROFESSIONAL critic/reviewer.
>>Are you saying if one holds oneself out as a professional then anyone can be a
>>professional what-have-you?
>>
><g> Not a 'what-have-you'. Critic-reviewer isn't a
>profession. For some, it isn't even a job. I suppose some
>'critic-reviewers' think of themselves as professional - but
>they ain't. If some outfit was foolish enough, they could
>hire *me* as a 'critic-reviewer'. No sheepskin required, no
>license exam, no 'association' membership.
>
Critic-reviewer is not a profession? You must tell that to the hundreds of
music schools in this country that have that as one of the career choices. As
for no "association" membership, there is the Music Critics Association of
America and the International Music Critics Association at the UN and located at
its Paris headquarters--both with regular meetings and agendas. They are also
part of the Music Council. Also you might look at Paul Hume's writings on what
it takes to be a music critic and his other views of the job of a critic.
In a lighter vein I guess you could say you agree with the humor:
Q: What do you call a guitar player that only knows two chords?
A: A music critic.
I am not trying to be harsh. I am trying to understand why so many people in
this group--who can't all be crazy or lunar--have so much difficulty with David
Hurwitz or is it that he has with them. Strange to me but personally I have
never been in the mix and don't intend to. My questions come from curiosity as
I lurk in this group from time to time--most recently concerning the long thread
on Israel and Palestine and bin Laden and before that the language origins of
Yiddish.
wwal...@rr.com
David Hurwitz
>to critique any recording by a well-known artist?
The above is obviously not asked in a spirit of good faith. In addition, you
constantly confuse the relationship between my personality (which you obviously
dislike) and my professional work, which I do feel speaks for itself and, as you
have noted, is available in the public arena for each person to investigate and
decide for himself. However, since you asked, I have no problem at all giving
you the brief details:
I hold Masters Degrees in Modern European History from Johns Hopkins University
(German) and Stanford University (French), where my field of concentration was
cultural history, and specifically music. On leaving Stanford, I worked
initially in real estate finance before beginning my writing career in 1985 with
High Fidelity. As a music critic, I have published in a large number of places,
including High Fidelity, Opus, Repertoire (France), Musica (Italy), Fonoforum
and Klassik Heute (Germany), Scherzo (Spain), Schwann Inside, Classical Pulse,
Amazon.com, Ovation, Keynote, Classic CD, CD Review (where I served as Associate
Editor), Musical America, American Record Guide, Fanfare (which I edited for two
years), The New York Observer, Time Out New York, Stagebill, and numerous CD
booklet notes (some of which have been very kindly commented on in this group),
program notes for innumerable concerts, etc. In a non-musical context, I also
serve (as necessary) as New York correspondent for the Tribune de Geneve. These
anyway are the highlights.
Aside from the Peabody Conservatory's degree program in music criticism, which
was not fully in place when I attended Johns Hopkins, there is no generally
accepted set of academic credentials that qualifies one to be a "professional"
critic. The job is still very much dependent on general educational experience
over time and training. I regard as my mentors Ted Libbey and Sedgwick Clark,
both of whom I met at High Fidelity and who I still view as two of the most
intelligent, positive, and literate writers on music that I have ever met. It
was a privilege to work with them, and I consider myself very lucky to have had
two such sharp critics reviewing my work early on. They remain among my most
valued professional friends. Sedge's motto: "NEVER use the word 'definitive'"
ought to be pasted on every critic's (and listener's) computer or
word-processor!
In the late 80s, I published Beethoven or Bust: A Guide to Listening to and
Understanding Great Music (Anchor/Doubleday), which spent more than 6 months on
the Quality Paperback Bookclub best-seller list (reaching No. 2), and sold
pretty well over a six year press run (I am planning to revive the concept at
ClassicsToday.com over the course of 2002). Earlier this year I co-wrote Tower
Records' Classical Music Guide which had a free distribution of over 250,000
copies. I founded the Cannes Classical Awards eight years ago in conjunction
with the MIDEM trade fair each January in Cannes, France. I am very proud of the
fact that our tribute to George Crumb as living composer a couple of years ago
led to his completing a new work, Mundus Canis, for David Starobin to premier in
Cannes.
As a percussionist, I have played continuously in community, semi-professional,
and professional orchestras for more than 22 years. Recordings in which I have
participated include Koch's recording of the Hovanhess Symphony for Metal
Orchestra with the Manhattan Chamber Orchestra, and Ondine's Earquake (which I
co-produced and where I had a great time playing Jon Leifs' Hekla with the
Helsinki Philharmonic under Segerstam). I also arranged for and played in the
"dual" world premier performances of George Lloyd's Fifth Symphony here in New
York (there was a UK performance under the composer in Brighton that same day).
Other recording projects on which I have worked include Gardiner's "Beethoven
the Revolutionary" series for DG, Denon's Classics Exposed series (repertoire
selection and notes); Supraphon Archiv (repertoire selection); Australian
Eloquence (repertoire selection and notes); Mahler and Haydn Symphonies on
Haenssler (notes, which I stopped writing because it's more fun to review the
discs and ethics preludes me from doing both); and most recently I have been
working on repertoire selection for a new series of recordings to be issued from
the archives of North German Radio (NDR).
There's a lot of other stuff, but you get the picture I'm sure.
Two years ago, I founded Classicstoday.com to offer top quality reviews of the
largest number of important new releases online; I might add in this respect
that with more than 150 full-length reviews per month, we cover more discs than
either Fanfare or Gramophone, and we do so completely free of charge. Despite
this, some people seem to have a hard time saying "thank you," but I console
myself with the fact that even if we don't please everyone, we do give many
classical afficionados the opportunity to do the only thing they do well:
complain. Where you belong in this spectrum, Mr. Wallace, is obvious.
Since I know it's too much to expect a "gentleman" such as yourself to say
"thank you" for this detailed reply to your ill-intentioned question, I'll
simply say "you're welcome" anyway. You may now either (a) tell me that these
credentials are inadequate; (b) remark that for someone with such a list of
credentials my behavior isn't worthy of them; or (c) just shut up and return to
planet Pomposia, from which you came. But you'd better hurry, the rocket ship
leaves shortly and it's largely booked. I remind you once again that if you
don't like anything I say either here or at ClassicsToday, you have only to
refrain from reading it, as I shall certainly do with respect to anything
further coming from you. You've wasted more of my time than you deserve already.
wwal...@rr.com
>WWallace wrote:
>>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what qualifies you
>>to critique any recording by a well-known artist?
>
>David Hurwitz wrote:
>The above is obviously not asked in a spirit of good faith. In addition, you
>constantly confuse the relationship between my personality (which you obviously
>dislike) and my professional work, which I do feel speaks for itself and, as you
>have noted, is available in the public arena for each person to investigate and
>decide for himself. However, since you asked, I have no problem at all giving
>you the brief details:
It was in good faith. This thread is the origin, as I have read nothing about
you in rmcr, except (1) one post months ago, by Margaret (the point was Albert
Schweitzer, not you), and (2) a search born of this thread from which came the
quotes in a prior post. This formed the basis of my inquiry to you.
I have visited your web site ONCE to view your credentials. I have not read
any of your reviews and do not intend to. My bias has nothing to do with you
and was formed decades ago when I wrote reviews. I found it academic and
hypocritical to review performers. For me reviews and critics are a waste of
time, much as with tv and radio commentators who "tell" you what a speaker has
just said. I can do my own analysis without an intermediary and had it pounded
into my head by my doctorate director at the Sorbonne: "Are you a musician or a
chronicler? Make your own interpretation!"
>
>I hold Masters Degrees in Modern European History from Johns Hopkins University
>(German) and Stanford University (French), where my field of concentration was
>cultural history, and specifically music. On leaving Stanford, I worked
>initially in real estate finance before beginning my writing career in 1985 with
>High Fidelity. As a music critic, I have published in a large number of places,
>including High Fidelity, Opus, Repertoire (France), Musica (Italy), Fonoforum
>and Klassik Heute (Germany), Scherzo (Spain), Schwann Inside, Classical Pulse,
>Amazon.com, Ovation, Keynote, Classic CD, CD Review (where I served as Associate
>Editor), Musical America, American Record Guide, Fanfare (which I edited for two
>years), The New York Observer, Time Out New York, Stagebill, and numerous CD
>booklet notes (some of which have been very kindly commented on in this group),
>program notes for innumerable concerts, etc. In a non-musical context, I also
>serve (as necessary) as New York correspondent for the Tribune de Geneve. These
>anyway are the highlights.
>
Your credentials are your credentials and people can take them as they will.
One query (not an indictment): Your masters are presumably from music faculty?
Based on a music bachelors? But if from history faculty I fail to see the
basis of your musical training and education, as I also have a PhD in history
and know full well what is required. A degree in musicology has been the basis
for an academic (non-performing) degree in music for a long time ( the field was
founded in 1809).
How can I belong to that group of complainers when I have never read any of your
reviews? I am not complaining about your work. I ask about the foundation for
your work.
>Since I know it's too much to expect a "gentleman" such as yourself to say
>"thank you" for this detailed reply to your ill-intentioned question, I'll
>simply say "you're welcome" anyway. You may now either (a) tell me that these
>credentials are inadequate; (b) remark that for someone with such a list of
>credentials my behavior isn't worthy of them; or (c) just shut up and return to
>planet Pomposia, from which you came. But you'd better hurry, the rocket ship
>leaves shortly and it's largely booked. I remind you once again that if you
>don't like anything I say either here or at ClassicsToday, you have only to
>refrain from reading it, as I shall certainly do with respect to anything
>further coming from you. You've wasted more of my time than you deserve already.
>
>Dave
>
>David Hurwitz
>dhur...@classicstoday.com
>www.classicstoday.com
Thank you for taking the time to give this reply. My apologies if my inquiry
hit a sore spot. As for your ABC's, take your own medicine, as I have no
intention of doing any of them.
As for reading your posts and work, I hadn't before so I doubt if I will in the
future.
Bonne chance! Bon courage!
Bob Lombard
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>Since I know it's too much to expect a "gentleman" such as yourself to say
>"thank you" for this detailed reply to your ill-intentioned question, I'll
>simply say "you're welcome" anyway. You may now either (a) tell me that these
>credentials are inadequate; (b) remark that for someone with such a list of
>credentials my behavior isn't worthy of them; or (c) just shut up and return to
>planet Pomposia, from which you came. But you'd better hurry, the rocket ship
>leaves shortly and it's largely booked. I remind you once again that if you
>don't like anything I say either here or at ClassicsToday, you have only to
>refrain from reading it, as I shall certainly do with respect to anything
>further coming from you. You've wasted more of my time than you deserve already.
>
Just reading that work history gave me sympathetic fatigue
symptoms. Recovered, I can thank you for spelling it all
out. I'll also use the 'occasion' to thank you for the
detailed specifics in your critiques of recordings. I don't
understand all that much of the detail, but between those
details and the posted criticisms of your critiques I can
figure a lot of it out.
bl
David Hurwitz
>Just reading that work history gave me sympathetic fatigue
>symptoms. Recovered, I can thank you for spelling it all
>out. I'll also use the 'occasion' to thank you for the
>detailed specifics in your critiques of recordings. I don't
>understand all that much of the detail, but between those
>details and the posted criticisms of your critiques I can
>figure a lot of it out.
>
>bl
Can't ask for more than that! You're welcome.
Samir Golescu
On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
> <g> Not a 'what-have-you'. Critic-reviewer isn't a
> profession. For some, it isn't even a job. I suppose some
> 'critic-reviewers' think of themselves as professional - but
> they ain't. If some outfit was foolish enough, they could
> hire *me* as a 'critic-reviewer'. No sheepskin required, no
> license exam, no 'association' membership.
Well, you are a "critic-reviewer" in my eyes, if that counts. Don't worry,
you have enough credentials. If you split coffee thirty years on the
lady guests' dresses, you'll still have "waiter credentials" --
persistence and quantity is what it counts, as my friend the veterinarian
said, when he was advertising for the services of a "municipal bull", as
they used to call it.
One caveat only, Mr Lombard: when you present your credentials as a
critic, please remember Furtwangler did himself play triangle in a
"semi-professional" orchestra. Or he did not. He might have done
something else, to get *his* credentials, I can't remember what though, it
must have been something of little or no relevance. Whatever.
regards -- and Merry Christmas,
SG ( :
Samir Golescu
> >Just reading that work history gave me sympathetic fatigue
> >symptoms. Recovered, I can thank you for spelling it all
> >out. I'll also use the 'occasion' to thank you for the
> >detailed specifics in your critiques of recordings. I don't
> >understand all that much of the detail, but between those
> >details and the posted criticisms of your critiques I can
> >figure a lot of it out.
> >
> >bl
LOL! I bet you the Complete Japanese EMI Weingartner Edition against
a bronzed Charlotte Church's Greatest Hits CDR that your humor will be
understood by everybody. *Almost* everybody, that is, but that is
what makes it better.
David Hurwitz
>I have visited your web site ONCE to view your credentials. I have not read
>any of your reviews and do not intend to. My bias has nothing to do with you
>and was formed decades ago when I wrote reviews. I found it academic and
>hypocritical to review performers.
Then you must have been an extremely poor critic. Good critical writing is
neither academic nor hypocritical, though I respect your honesty in admitting
that your writing was both (or so it seemed to you at the time).
For me reviews and critics are a waste of
>time, much as with tv and radio commentators who "tell" you what a speaker has
>just said. I can do my own analysis without an intermediary>>
If you feel that this is the purpose of criticism, then you really do have a few
things to learn. This rather sophomoric comment, combined with the above facts,
moves me to one further posting in response (and only one, rest assured).
Your concept of "good faith" strikes me as peculiarly as does your view of what
criticism is. You claim to be interested only in the "foundation" of work that
you have not bothered to investigate at all (a fact about which you seem
somewhat proud). You are thus in no position to even begin to discern whether
the foundation was adequate to the job in question, as this can ONLY be realized
by careful and thorough examination of the work product that results (as Henry
pointed out to you). Since you had not done so and had no intention of so doing
when you asked your original questions (concealing this particular point for
obvious reasons) the entire basis for your inquiry was false on its face. I can
think of no more telling instance of "bad faith" in operation.
What's especially depressing is the fact that you somehow feel comfortable in
that smug certainly born of what can only be called "defensive ignorance"--of
what criticism is, of what professional standards are, of the possibility that
you might NOT in fact be able to do your own "analysis" (whatever that means)
without an "intermediary," in every instance. There's nothing wrong, of course,
with knowing what one wants and likes, but the platitudes offered above merely
reflect the frequently encountered phenomenon of a mind that has said: "I have
learned THIS much, and need never go any farther."
The clear evidence of this is, of course, the fact that your particular bias
against criticism resulted from your own comparative failure at it or
distasteful personal experience of it. For example, I was never a good football
player, and disliked playing the game, but I understand and enjoy it as a
spectator and certainly don't denegrate the talents of those who play the game
well because I happen not to share them (or even sillier, question the
"foundations" of a professional with many years experience on the job because he
may occasionally create a controversy among a tiny group of self-proclaimed
enthusiasts for the sport). What's more, watching "professional" players at work
gives me insight into why I was NOT especially good at it, and teaches me to
enjoy and appreciate what professionals do that I could not. I might add in this
context that it is not the degree that makes one a "professional," but the work
that one does after receiving it.
Underlying your inquiry into my "foundations" was your initial reaction to the
way I am treated and treat others in this NG. Let me tell you something: I enjoy
posting here. I don't really care about the abuse, because I feel I give as good
as I get. But beyond that, the reason I enjoy being here is because there are
many music lovers who have knowledge in specific areas that I do not. And I
suspect the reverse is true also: some here have learned a thing or two from me.
No degree in the world is adequate to encompass the universe of classical music,
and this is doubly true of the situation with recordings today. None of us has
perfect knowledge.
In the final analysis, what we all do here is learn from each other, despite the
occasional battle. I discover new things here all the time, and the vast
majority of my interactions (which of course you neglected to verify before you
dove into the fray) are civil and pleasant. If you spent some serious time
reading the postings here, as well as my reviews and those of other
professionals (as so many here do, if only to serve as a basis for further
criticism and discussion), and otherwise participated actively and with an open
mind, you might learn something too. Your declared intention not to do so speaks
for itself. It's your loss.
wwal...@rr.com
>>It was in good faith. [snip]
>
>>I have visited your web site ONCE to view your credentials. I have not read
>>any of your reviews and do not intend to. My bias has nothing to do with you
>>and was formed decades ago when I wrote reviews. I found it academic and
>>hypocritical to review performers.
>
>Then you must have been an extremely poor critic. Good critical writing is
>neither academic nor hypocritical, though I respect your honesty in admitting
>that your writing was both (or so it seemed to you at the time).
>
Apparently you mistook my use of academic as "academic exercise." In music all
critical reviews are academic, as they are not performance. They are
hypocritical because the critic is reviewing artists performing at a higher
level than his own achievement or his inability to perform at all. See George
B. Shaw. Thus all reviews fall into that category. It says nothing about
whether the review is scholarly or poor.
As for being a poor critic, my reviews were received openly by the music
community as one of their own and informed, yet readable, and specifically
helpful without damaging good will (to name but one young artist of this view,
the pianist-yet-to-be conductor, Daniel Barenboim, who always insisted I attend
rehearsals, apparently enjoying our conversation). But being a critic was not
for me; I preferred performance over academics. After I quit reviewing I
learned that one well-known conductor always read my reviews to his orchestra at
the next rehearsal following a concert. I asked why and learned that apparently
the points I made were the same points he wanted stressed--so much for my
contribution.
>For me reviews and critics are a waste of
>>time, much as with tv and radio commentators who "tell" you what a speaker has
>>just said. I can do my own analysis without an intermediary>>
>
>If you feel that this is the purpose of criticism, then you really do have a few
>things to learn. This rather sophomoric comment, combined with the above facts,
>moves me to one further posting in response (and only one, rest assured).
>
If I have something to learn about music criticism than hasn't already been
revealed over the last two centuries, it must be under a rock. What can a
music critic contribute to a composer's work? What can a music critic
contribute to an artist's performance? What can a music critic contribute to
any musician who can go to the very same sources critics do and understand it
better than they do because they understand the instrument on which they play
and how it fits within the context. You cannot possibly understand every
instrument--even Rachmaninoff consulted with trumpet players, etc. to ascertain
the right touch.
>Your concept of "good faith" strikes me as peculiarly as does your view of what
>criticism is. You claim to be interested only in the "foundation" of work that
>you have not bothered to investigate at all (a fact about which you seem
>somewhat proud). You are thus in no position to even begin to discern whether
>the foundation was adequate to the job in question, as this can ONLY be realized
>by careful and thorough examination of the work product that results (as Henry
>pointed out to you). Since you had not done so and had no intention of so doing
>when you asked your original questions (concealing this particular point for
>obvious reasons) the entire basis for your inquiry was false on its face. I can
>think of no more telling instance of "bad faith" in operation.
>
Well since I didn't know you or your work the first question that came to mind
is who is David Hurwitz. One usually asks what one does and then ascertains
something about the person. If I went out and explored every Tom, Dick and
Harry to the point of looking at everything they had done before I did anything,
nothing would ever happen. I only look at a man's work after I know I will not
be wasting my time. But I was not and am not interested in your work, but ONLY
in why you raised so much rage from so many.
That I hadn't previously searched you out and tried to weigh your work
indicates that I had no prior bias or prejudice toward you. Pride has nothing to
do with that. I emphasized it to show neutrality.
My question was and remains why you stir people up so much. Thus the question.
I do not have to know your work to ask if you had a foundation for it. The
question is proper to ask anyone in any profession. It is a common query.
>What's especially depressing is the fact that you somehow feel comfortable in
>that smug certainly born of what can only be called "defensive ignorance"--of
>what criticism is, of what professional standards are, of the possibility that
>you might NOT in fact be able to do your own "analysis" (whatever that means)
>without an "intermediary," in every instance. There's nothing wrong, of course,
>with knowing what one wants and likes, but the platitudes offered above merely
>reflect the frequently encountered phenomenon of a mind that has said: "I have
>learned THIS much, and need never go any farther."
One can always learn and the original sources are best, not secondary ones. If
I want to understand something I study the source and relevant materials related
to the source. Learned treatises on the subject are often useful, as the
authors have probably spent a lifetime working on the monographs. I do not
need a filter, nor does anyone else. I also will not investigate everything to
the same degree or depth an time limits everything.
>
>The clear evidence of this is, of course, the fact that your particular bias
>against criticism resulted from your own comparative failure at it or
>distasteful personal experience of it. For example, I was never a good football
>player, and disliked playing the game, but I understand and enjoy it as a
>spectator and certainly don't denegrate the talents of those who play the game
>well because I happen not to share them (or even sillier, question the
>"foundations" of a professional with many years experience on the job because he
>may occasionally create a controversy among a tiny group of self-proclaimed
>enthusiasts for the sport). What's more, watching "professional" players at work
>gives me insight into why I was NOT especially good at it, and teaches me to
>enjoy and appreciate what professionals do that I could not. I might add in this
>context that it is not the degree that makes one a "professional," but the work
>that one does after receiving it.
>
Are you now into psycho-analysis? I learned a long time ago that it is what you
do with the degree that is important and not the degree as a piece of paper.
However, if you have not learned the basics that the degree requires (or at
least used to require--considering how scholarship has slipped and went to hell
starting about 1967 on), then you cannot perform as you will have little or no
comprehension of what a professional really is. What passes for professionalism
nowadays amazes me as I don't see a modicum of it in most places. As one who
has been retired now for 20 years come this next May, I have professional
accomplishments in three fields of service--as a university professor, as a
lawyer, and as a musician. I continue to practice some law on a pro bono basis
for other senior citizens and those unable to pay, as a lawyer can practice
until he drops dead.
>Underlying your inquiry into my "foundations" was your initial reaction to the
>way I am treated and treat others in this NG. Let me tell you something: I enjoy
>posting here. I don't really care about the abuse, because I feel I give as good
>as I get. But beyond that, the reason I enjoy being here is because there are
>many music lovers who have knowledge in specific areas that I do not. And I
>suspect the reverse is true also: some here have learned a thing or two from me.
>No degree in the world is adequate to encompass the universe of classical music,
>and this is doubly true of the situation with recordings today. None of us has
>perfect knowledge.
>
>In the final analysis, what we all do here is learn from each other, despite the
>occasional battle. I discover new things here all the time, and the vast
>majority of my interactions (which of course you neglected to verify before you
>dove into the fray) are civil and pleasant. If you spent some serious time
>reading the postings here, as well as my reviews and those of other
>professionals (as so many here do, if only to serve as a basis for further
>criticism and discussion), and otherwise participated actively and with an open
>mind, you might learn something too. Your declared intention not to do so speaks
>for itself. It's your loss.
>
I do enjoy reading posts where something can be learned. I just skip those with
flames. I have skipped a number of your lines and see no sense in responding to
what you have cooked up as an attack upon me for asking about your background.
Your behavior is reason to ask such a thing. But you are so defensive about it
that you seem to want to go to war. In the end you have come at me, and we have
no history to prejudice the question, the same way you have targeted so many
others in this group. This sentence alone from you is so telling: "...(or
even sillier, question the "foundations" of a professional with many years
experience on the job because he may occasionally create a controversy among a
tiny group of self-proclaimed enthusiasts for the sport" Is that how you see
this "tiny" group and not as you declared in your last two graphs above? Abuse
you don't care about because you give as good as you get? You left this NG once
in a fit. Why, if you learned so much, did you take your ball (your football
above) and go home?
I f all this is a sore spot or wound for you, as you flame so much, just forget
about it and blame it on an old man's curiosity. I really could care less since
it has dropped into a cesspool.
Roland van Gaalen
news:iidg2ugcg0tvr7db7...@4ax.com...
>
> [...] In music all
> critical reviews are academic, as they are not performance. They are
> hypocritical because the critic is reviewing artists performing at a
higher
> level than his own achievement or his inability to perform at all. See
George
> B. Shaw. Thus all reviews fall into that category. It says nothing
about
> whether the review is scholarly or poor.
> [...]
But what if the traditional "in my humble opinion" is always implicit?
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Bob Lombard
Hmm. My admitted tendency to post less-than-serious messages
has backfired again.
Samir's interpretation of my post above is an excellent
example of the inadequacies of written language. The same
words delivered in person would be accompanied by body
language,
I was not *entirely* serious when I wrote that message, but
there is no ridicule of DH in it. I poked a little fun at
myself, and a little at the posters of 'criticism of the
critiques. I value those criticisms, for the reason stated;
but, by their very nature, criticisms of criticism are on
another plane away from the reality of the performance.
After a few reiterations the process does get ridiculous.
bl
Simon Roberts
[snip]
> Apparently you mistook my use of academic as "academic exercise." In
music all
> critical reviews are academic, as they are not performance. They are
> hypocritical because the critic is reviewing artists performing at a
higher
> level than his own achievement or his inability to perform at all.
See George
> B. Shaw. Thus all reviews fall into that category. It says nothing
about
> whether the review is scholarly or poor.
You seem to have an unconventional understanding of "academic" and
"hypocritical." Where's the hypocrisy? Critics don't claim to be able
to perform, let alone at a higher level, than the artist reviewed
(though some can or could - Igor Kipnis, for instance and, for all I
know, David Hurwitz), nor does reviewing imply the belief that one can.
Besides, as Shaw and (anyone else) ought to know, reviewing and doing
what is reviewed (be it a recording, a meal at a restaurant, a movie, a
building, a herbaceous border) are separate and independent activities
requiring skills that are not mutually necessary. The commonly
encountered notion that one isn't qualified to review something unless
one can do it at least as well as the reviewed is wrong. One doesn't
have to be able to make pastry to be entitled to complain about soggy
pastry on the bottom of a leek tart.
> If I have something to learn about music criticism than hasn't
already been
> revealed over the last two centuries, it must be under a rock. What
can a
> music critic contribute to a composer's work? What can a music critic
> contribute to an artist's performance?
Even if the answer to those questions is "nothing", so what? Reviewers
don't write solely (or even at all) for the reviewed but for readers of
reviews, who may include the reviewed but are typically
amateurs/outsiders - people seeking guidance concerning what recording
to buy, for instance, or people interested in reading a different
opinion about a recording or a concert they just attended, etc.
What can a music critic contribute to
> any musician who can go to the very same sources critics do and
understand it
> better than they do because they understand the instrument on which
they play
> and how it fits within the context.
Well, they could, but if they do it's hardly necessarily so. Besides,
understanding how to play an instrument is different from understanding
historical or interpretative arguments (especially interpretative
theory), and it's perfectly obvious from reading/hearing the comments of
many musicians that they're often quite bad at the latter. Why does a
horn player understand better than anyone else whether Haydn's alto horn
parts in symphonies should gently blend in or ring out (or do something
in between)? Why does one have to be a performer to "understand" why
the arguments for performing the Saint Matthew Passion one per part are
fallacious (or persuasive or...)? These are matters quite independent
of the ability to play an instrument.
Simon
wwal...@rr.com
wrote:
>
><wwal...@rr.com> wrote in message
>news:iidg2ugcg0tvr7db7...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Apparently you mistook my use of academic as "academic exercise." In
>music all
>> critical reviews are academic, as they are not performance. They are
>> hypocritical because the critic is reviewing artists performing at a
>higher
>> level than his own achievement or his inability to perform at all.
>See George
>> B. Shaw. Thus all reviews fall into that category. It says nothing
>about
>> whether the review is scholarly or poor.
>
Simon Roberts wrote:
>You seem to have an unconventional understanding of "academic" and
>"hypocritical." Where's the hypocrisy? Critics don't claim to be able
>to perform, let alone at a higher level, than the artist reviewed
>(though some can or could - Igor Kipnis, for instance and, for all I
>know, David Hurwitz), nor does reviewing imply the belief that one can.
>Besides, as Shaw and (anyone else) ought to know, reviewing and doing
>what is reviewed (be it a recording, a meal at a restaurant, a movie, a
>building, a herbaceous border) are separate and independent activities
>requiring skills that are not mutually necessary. The commonly
>encountered notion that one isn't qualified to review something unless
>one can do it at least as well as the reviewed is wrong. One doesn't
>have to be able to make pastry to be entitled to complain about soggy
>pastry on the bottom of a leek tart.
>
No one said that critics should perform at all, and certainly not at a higher
level. Shaw's point was one of envy or "Those who can, do....those who can't
teach." Thus many are disqualified as critics on that point alone. And while
"one doesn't have to be able to make pastry to be entitled to complain about
soggy pastry on the bottom of a leek tart," one better know more than a little
if the complainer is going to instruct the chef! Your example fits the average
concert goer, not the music critic.
In the US music education and training is divided into two fields of study:
academic and performing. The European view is that the two cannot be separated
so easily and require study in both. Thus from an American perspective an
American educated musician might well be an academic and go into academic
pursuits or careers. I follow the European perspective and believe that while
one need not make performance your career mastery of at least one instrument
with at least one recital is necessary along with a recital of one piano piece
of suitable difficulty.
WWallace wrote:
>> If I have something to learn about music criticism than hasn't
>already been
>> revealed over the last two centuries, it must be under a rock. What
>can a
>> music critic contribute to a composer's work? What can a music critic
>> contribute to an artist's performance?
>
Simon Roberts wrote:
>Even if the answer to those questions is "nothing", so what? Reviewers
>don't write solely (or even at all) for the reviewed but for readers of
>reviews, who may include the reviewed but are typically
>amateurs/outsiders - people seeking guidance concerning what recording
>to buy, for instance, or people interested in reading a different
>opinion about a recording or a concert they just attended, etc.
>
So what, if it is nothing? Well it's just the heart of the matter. As for the
rest of the list, fine. As G. B. Shaw noted, there's nothing objective about
art criticism, it's all subjective.
WWallace wrote:
> What can a music critic contribute to
>> any musician who can go to the very same sources critics do and
>understand it
>> better than they do because they understand the instrument on which
>they play
>> and how it fits within the context.
>
Simon Roberts wrote:
>Well, they could, but if they do it's hardly necessarily so. Besides,
>understanding how to play an instrument is different from understanding
>historical or interpretative arguments (especially interpretative
>theory), and it's perfectly obvious from reading/hearing the comments of
>many musicians that they're often quite bad at the latter. Why does a
>horn player understand better than anyone else whether Haydn's alto horn
>parts in symphonies should gently blend in or ring out (or do something
>in between)? Why does one have to be a performer to "understand" why
>the arguments for performing the Saint Matthew Passion one per part are
>fallacious (or persuasive or...)? These are matters quite independent
>of the ability to play an instrument.
>
>Simon
>
I have no problem with that, but I don't see this coming from music critics.
In the long run performers do the performing whether what they know is gleaned
by self study, other performers or from conductors or musicologists.
Musicologists concentrate on a part of the whole music spectrum. In contrast
music critics, as a rule, cover such a wide expanse that that type of depth
would be unusual. The music critic who is also a musicologist and specializes
in the music performed would of course be able to contribute.
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
> criticisms of criticism are on
> another plane away from the reality of the performance.
> After a few reiterations the process does get ridiculous.
You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
I agree, that's ridiculous.
Merry Christmas,
SG
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > [...] In music all
> > critical reviews are academic, as they are not performance. They are
> > hypocritical because the critic is reviewing artists performing at a
> higher
> > level than his own achievement or his inability to perform at all. See
> George
> > B. Shaw. Thus all reviews fall into that category. It says nothing
> about
> > whether the review is scholarly or poor.
> > [...]
>
> But what if the traditional "in my humble opinion" is always implicit?
Is it? Always?
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
<gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
>attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
>performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
>Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
>Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
>rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
>
>I agree, that's ridiculous.
>
>Merry Christmas,
>SG
When the starting point is a critique of a performance, it's
ridiculous. Standing alone, it depends on whether the
inflection on that last 'they' goes up in pitch or down.
Merry Christmas to you too.
bl
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
> >You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
> >attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
> >performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
> >Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
> >Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
> >rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
> >
> >I agree, that's ridiculous.
> When the starting point is a critique of a performance,
It is.
> it's ridiculous.
I knew we would agree on that.
> Standing alone, it depends on whether the
> inflection on that last 'they' goes up in pitch or down.
Mr Lombard -- a man of vocal nuance.... which one would be the "British
inflection", the "up" or the "down"? (/:
regards,
SG
Roland van Gaalen
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.011225...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu...
Just one exception: when you are talking about the absolute & objective
superiority of one kind of music over another, it's _your_ humble opinion,
of course.
Merry Christmas.
Simon Roberts
<wwal...@rr.com> wrote in message
news:mc6h2ugjhsul1d10a...@4ax.com...
> No one said that critics should perform at all, and certainly not at a
higher
> level. Shaw's point was one of envy or "Those who can, do....those
who can't
> teach."
Yes, I know that's his point, and it's wrong - though an amusing insult
(at least on the first encounter). Teaching is an independent activity
with its own independent skills (in other words, it's also something
one "can"). People don't necessarily (but some might) go into teaching
motivated by envy or ineptitude in the field in question.
Simon
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > > But what if the traditional "in my humble opinion" is always implicit?
> >
> > Is it? Always?
>
> Just one exception
[me, of course]
Count Van Gaalen, I knew I could count on you even while you seemingly
can't count. "On me" it's not what I mean, mean one (not the numeral)! (-:
Happy holidays,
Samir
Samir Golescu
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Simon Roberts wrote:
> Teaching is an independent activity
> with its own independent skills (in other words, it's also something
> one "can"). People don't necessarily (but some might) go into teaching
> motivated by envy or ineptitude in the field in question.
This is well put and all true, I think. Turning back to the subject of
musical criticism, though, it might be said that one difference
between a simple music lover and a "professional critic" might/should be
possible if, alas, just too seldom found. Found not really in the critic's
ability to transcend the subjective into factual -- first, it wouldn't be
"transcending" but "downgrading", second, getting rid of the subjective
part of the musical perception is, fortunately, an impossibility.
Where then? Perhaps in the responsibility of communicating how successful
an interpretation is "on its own terms". Let me put this more clear. I don't
like harpsichords -- that's hardly a secret. As a music lover it is my
right to feel so and to rant here about my personal nemesis, adding
local color to our discussions and bringing, at worst, an element of
amusement into them -- while it is highly improbable that I will ever
change the mind -- woe to them! (-: -- of those who for one reason or
another do like harpsichords.
Say though I was compelled to gain my living from "professional musical
criticism" (may such a hard fate be never bestowed upon me). I think I
would be supposed, if not compelled, to give my own idiosyncrasy a break
and to try to judge how well that recording works on its own terms,
perhaps compared to other harpsichord recordings that assume more or less
common and definable stylistic traits. No flattery intended, this is what
Simon Roberts is most often doing. Not that he wouldn't have his black
holes but the bulk of his advice is given keeping in mind, as much as
humanly possible, the "otherness" of the reader, thing that I -- and
for that matter, more sadly, many a critic who deems itself a
"professional" -- am/is less capable to do.
Only noticing that harpsichords buzz, that Beecham or Scherchen are
conducting Handel or Mozart "too slowly", and that the clarinet is less in
tune in a Moscow 1936 recording than in a Philadelphia 1970 one, and
making *these* things the core of one's professional critical judgment
on music or, more often, on those who think differently, is little more
than letting oneself be intoxicated with low-grade, self-serving
materialistic presumptuousness.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
<gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
>
>> >You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
>> >attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
>> >performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
>> >Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
>> >Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
>> >rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
>> >
>> Standing alone, it depends on whether the
>> inflection on that last 'they' goes up in pitch or down.
>
>Mr Lombard -- a man of vocal nuance.... which one would be the "British
>inflection", the "up" or the "down"? (/:
>
Don't know about that 'British inflection'. I'm suggesting
that if the pitch goes up, I'll treat the above sentence as
a real question; if the pitch goes down it's a rhetorical
question. If it's a rhetorical question, I will request
further explication.
Raymond Hall
news:iidg2ugcg0tvr7db7...@4ax.com...
I have absolutely no idea why the word hypocritical is used above. The
critic is not pretending to be something different than what he is, surely?
How does honest opinion, whether it is believed or not, and filtered through
the spectrum of acquired wisdom and knowledge, gained academically and/or
through practical experience by performing or much listening, have anything
to do with hypocrisy?
I see no correlation at all, else GB Shaw, including yourself, as critics,
are hypocrites by your own strange definition and admission. I can see GB
Shaw having a field day here were he alive. Not that he wasn't perhaps one
of the greatest hypocrites alive, especially when it came to music, and his
"assumed" authority on the subject.
| As for being a poor critic, my reviews were received openly by the music
| community as one of their own and informed, yet readable, and
specifically
| helpful without damaging good will (to name but one young artist of this
view,
| the pianist-yet-to-be conductor, Daniel Barenboim, who always insisted I
attend
| rehearsals, apparently enjoying our conversation). But being a critic was
not
| for me; I preferred performance over academics. After I quit reviewing I
| learned that one well-known conductor always read my reviews to his
orchestra at
| the next rehearsal following a concert. I asked why and learned that
apparently
| the points I made were the same points he wanted stressed--so much for my
| contribution.
A good pat on the back for yourself. How about tendering just one example of
one of your reviews, in order that we may understand the finer points of a
good critical review, the hypocrisy of it notwithstanding.
| >For me reviews and critics are a waste of
| >>time, much as with tv and radio commentators who "tell" you what a
speaker has
| >>just said. I can do my own analysis without an intermediary>>
The only way most of us can do our own analysis is by listening to the many
recordings. Critics tender opinions, and as such, make our lives easier by
narrowing down considerably what we might like to listen to. I contend that
your comment, "For me reviews and critics are a waste of time ....", is a
completely rash statement, even if it is your opinion.
| >If you feel that this is the purpose of criticism, then you really do
have a few
| >things to learn. This rather sophomoric comment, combined with the above
facts,
| >moves me to one further posting in response (and only one, rest assured).
| >
| If I have something to learn about music criticism than hasn't already
been
| revealed over the last two centuries, it must be under a rock. What can
a
| music critic contribute to a composer's work? What can a music critic
| contribute to an artist's performance?
You have already said that Daniel Barenboim has benefitted by *your* reviews
when he was younger. Are you suggesting that you are the very exemplar of
what a critic might and should do then? I do detect some hypocrisy here, if
I correctly understand the meaning of the word.
| >Your concept of "good faith" strikes me as peculiarly as does your view
of what
| >criticism is. You claim to be interested only in the "foundation" of work
that
| >you have not bothered to investigate at all (a fact about which you seem
| >somewhat proud). You are thus in no position to even begin to discern
whether
| >the foundation was adequate to the job in question, as this can ONLY be
realized
| >by careful and thorough examination of the work product that results (as
Henry
| >pointed out to you). Since you had not done so and had no intention of so
doing
| >when you asked your original questions (concealing this particular point
for
| >obvious reasons) the entire basis for your inquiry was false on its face.
I can
| >think of no more telling instance of "bad faith" in operation.
| >
| Well since I didn't know you or your work the first question that came to
mind
| is who is David Hurwitz.
Why don't you bother to find out? DH did give you a fairly detailed
description of his CV. What more do you want? After all, even regarding the
newsgroup, do you, know *who* the posters who contribute here really are? I
would suggest trying to read DH's reviews as a kick off. It is not going to
cost you anything but a few moments of your time.
| One usually asks what one does and then ascertains
| something about the person. If I went out and explored every Tom, Dick
and
| Harry to the point of looking at everything they had done before I did
anything,
| nothing would ever happen. I only look at a man's work after I know I
will not
| be wasting my time. But I was not and am not interested in your work, but
ONLY
| in why you raised so much rage from so many.
Because, like many of us, we are extremely self opinionated (within natural
bounds), as most of us have several decades of listening experience under
our belts. Many of us even play musical instruments (as amateurs), can read
music, study music, and that is not even counting the professional musicians
who post here. DH has strong opinions, backed up by a very good musical
knowledge, not liked by some. But you must also remember that DH is a
different kettle of fish in his often well fleshed-out and always
informative reviews (whether one disagrees or not), than the DH who enters
the hurly burly of this newsgroup. I find he can take the flak, as well as
dish it out. Part and parcel of newsgroup life.
| comprehension of what a professional really is. What passes for
professionalism
| nowadays amazes me as I don't see a modicum of it in most places. As one
who
Try telling that to the many professional musicians, many of whom play in a
variety of orchestras, reaching levels of execution which are generally
regarded as an improvement upon previously regarded levels.
In essence, I cannot see what all the fuss you are creating is really all
about. It seems to me it represents an ad hominem attack, fleshed out in a
lot of hogwash. To get back to the Subject, Lebrecht is often informative,
thought provoking, sometimes states the obvious, often invites controversy,
and is very *readable*. The fact that so many people read what Lebrecht has
to say is testimony to that.
Happy Christmas (or Boxing day if in Australia).
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/tassiedevil2.htm
# Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/01
wwal...@rr.com
wrote:
>
He's not wrong when a reviewer writes from that perspective and many do--we are
only human. As for teaching--all learning is in the end self-learning. I
understand what teaching is and its skills. And of course people don't go as a
rule in the fields out of envy, but many certainly engage in it.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
>
>> >You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
>> >attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
>> >performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
>> >Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
>> >Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
>> >rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
>> >
find just the right statement to take out of context and/or deliberately
misconstrue. I don't attribute any "base motivation" to anyone in that comment.
There's no moral judgment implied or expressed. I am simply pointing out that
those who believe a certain performer can do no wrong have necessarily allowed
hero-worship to overcome musical values, a statement particularly relevant given
the details of the performance in question (which context you--as
usual--conveniently ignore). This is not base, evil, wrong, or otherwise
suspect. It's what certain people do, as is their right. But it's also not
particularly musical. I should think this point obvious, but then again, I
suppose we shouldn't look too closely at your own motivations, should we,
especially as you offer in your person an absolute clinic on the "rabid fan"
syndrome (not to mention baseness of intentions)? Oh well, keep on reading and
(mis)quoting.
HenryFogel
>From: Samir Golescu gol...@uiuc.edu
>Date: 12/25/2001 2:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id:
> field in question.
As someone who practices criticism as a side profession, and who also works
full time in the music business and thus sees criticism from "both sides of the
fence" so to speak, I have thought long and hard about the issues Samir raises
here. I think he eloquently gotten to the core of an important issue of
criticism.
Clearly, depending on one's circumstances, one can avoid reviewing the kind of
music or performance that one has no sympathy for. In "Fanfare", for instance,
I can simply refuse to review a recording that seems to lie outside of my
sympathies -- to the point where I would have difficulty even identifying with
the musicians on the disc.
But it is also possible to try to separate the subjective from the objective --
and to write about them with recognition of that difference. Beecham does NOT
conduct Messiah too slowly -- he conducts it far more slowly than is the norm
today -- and with greater weight to the rhythms and thickness of texture (not
to mention orchestration that goes far beyond anything Handel ever imagined).
One can describe that in a non judgemental manner, and one can even give one's
own reaction to it while making it clear that it is just that -- a personal
reaction. On the other hand, out of tune playing (or singing), sloppy
ensemble, these are objective matters that one can comment on rightly passing
judgement.
The problem is that there is a huge gray area in the middle -- matters of
balance and color, phrasing, question of whether one thinks one hears playing
of commitment and force or what sounds like a "read through," these represent
the difficult areas for an honest critic.
I think that all a critic can do is to try to remember that there is a
difference between his subjective reaction to something and to something having
clear, undisputed flaws -- and to try to write in such a way as to make those
differences clear.
Henry Fogel
HenryFogel
>> >
>> > Is it? Always?
>>
I think that the style of the writing of the specific review makes clear
whether the traditional IMHO is implicit or not. It is possible to make clear
that a statement is "just my opinion and the reader might legitimately differ,"
and it is equally possible to write in such a way as to imply "this is the way
the piece should go and anyone who doesn't see it that way is a moron." We've
all read reviews of both types, I believe.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.011225...@ux12.cso.uiuc.edu>, Samir
>says...
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Bob Lombard wrote:
>>
the comment that appears below it in my last posting. The authorship is obvious,
but just to be on the safe side...
Samir Golescu
> >> >You mean, like in being obsessed with how other people react to music and
> >> >attributing them base motivations, as opposed to referring to the
> >> >performance and to your reaction alone? Instead of referring to, say, Hans
> >> >Rosbaud's X recording, saying <<I can't imagine even the most rabid
> >> >Rosbaud fan getting any pleasure out of this sad affair, but then again,
> >> >rabid fans of anyone don't really care about music, do they?>>
> >> >
> I'm always greatly amused by the care with which you read my remarks, if only to
> find just the right statement to take out of context and/or deliberately
> misconstrue.
Cut it out Mr Grinchy. Such a statement is the same, regardless of how
good or bad that particular Rosbaud recording was. It speaks for itself.
Your posterior attempt to rationalization is pathetic, but that's no
surprise. I picked a Rosbaud quote because I am not known as a Rosbaud
fan. That you are obsessed with music lovers, instead of music, is hardly
a secret anymore. It takes no deliberate misconstruction to understand
a clear phrase and you know it too well. And be amused all you like, with
your present status you deserve being amused, as opposed to amuse, for a
change.
Samir Golescu
Well said. At times, though, even some of the "objective" flaws might
be judged in context. A *relatively* sloppy orchestral ensemble, when
coupled with fantastic colors, quasi-vocal lines and highly daring rubato
is even technically more impressive, to my ears, than a squarely
predictable execution in which "accidents" do not happen because the
driving is extremely cautious, at constant speeds and in the middle of the
road. Pardon me if I react angrily when I am told in such situations that
I am an undiscerning fool.
> I think that all a critic can do is to try to remember that there is a
> difference between his subjective reaction to something and to something having
> clear, undisputed flaws -- and to try to write in such a way as to make those
> differences clear.
If only....
Thanks for a reasoned answer,
SG
D Krause
> I think that the style of the writing of the specific review makes clear
> all read reviews of both types, I believe.
Yes, and Dr. Fogel's reviews in Fanfare are excellent examples of the
"IMHO (implict or not)" type, which to my mind makes them such
worthwhile reading. Though I still think he missed the boat on
Siegfried Wagner.
Happy listening.
wwal...@rr.com
wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote:
>I have absolutely no idea why the word hypocritical is used above. The
>critic is not pretending to be something different than what he is, surely?
>How does honest opinion, whether it is believed or not, and filtered through
>the spectrum of acquired wisdom and knowledge, gained academically and/or
>through practical experience by performing or much listening, have anything
>to do with hypocrisy?
>
>I see no correlation at all, else GB Shaw, including yourself, as critics,
>are hypocrites by your own strange definition and admission. I can see GB
>Shaw having a field day here were he alive. Not that he wasn't perhaps one
>of the greatest hypocrites alive, especially when it came to music, and his
>"assumed" authority on the subject.
>
Of course critics are hypocritical if they talk the talk but have no
comprehension of walking the walk. You can analyze forever--that is essentially
science--but to mold it together--the art--is to know something that can never
be comprehended by breaking down something piece by piece. Certain objective
aspects are rather sterile in art, put in isolation, and on the whole as Shaw
has noted art criticism is utterly subjective.
>
WWallace wrote:
>| As for being a poor critic, my reviews were received openly by the music
>| community as one of their own and informed, yet readable, and
>specifically
>| helpful without damaging good will (to name but one young artist of this
>view,
>| the pianist-yet-to-be conductor, Daniel Barenboim, who always insisted I
>attend
>| rehearsals, apparently enjoying our conversation). But being a critic was
>not
>| for me; I preferred performance over academics. After I quit reviewing I
>| learned that one well-known conductor always read my reviews to his
>orchestra at
>| the next rehearsal following a concert. I asked why and learned that
>apparently
>| the points I made were the same points he wanted stressed--so much for my
>| contribution.
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>A good pat on the back for yourself. How about tendering just one example of
>one of your reviews, in order that we may understand the finer points of a
>good critical review, the hypocrisy of it notwithstanding.
>
>
WWallace wrote:
Hurwitz used the label "poor" , "failure", etc. I replied not to pat myself on
the back as I have no idea whether Barenboim cared one way or the other. As for
a sample, I wouldn't have the slightest if I have any 40 year clippings around.
As I explain below I certainly never considered my writing a model, only
competent as against someone from sports "reporting" the concert.
Do you normally put people on trial before they can put a question? David
Hurwitz puts himself in the public arena. I do not and rejected that arena long
ago. Any bias or prejudice I might have has nothing to do with how Mr. Hurwitz
cast himself before the public. Nor should it make any difference if I was
avidly against Mr. Hurwitz personally or professionally. The question is a
legitimate one regardless of any baggage and one that should be answered
honestly and forthrightly without any complaint when parading before the public.
Turning on me for asking the question is simply to divert attention and cloak a
true open response. Strange that no one in this group ever asked before and
that only speculation abounded. Strange that Mr. Hurwitz did not disclose this
without being asked. What is the reply: Look at my work and don't bother me
with petty details. Well if such are petty details by all means let's open up
the flood gates and let anyone occupy any position without any need for
background reports, credentials, etc. Moreover, I am not saying Hurwitz is a
fraud and doesn't have the credentials--but why does he bash out when asked?
For that suddenly I become the focus of examination and every word is dissected
as if I go over my posts with the skill of a great surgeon (it's posted as keyed
in -- and I'm not much of a keyboarder). I am not complaining; I am just
astonished when many of you have from time to time and only recently said some
of the very same things about critics in general.
WWallace wrote:
>| >For me reviews and critics are a waste of
>| >>time, much as with tv and radio commentators who "tell" you what a
>speaker has
>| >>just said. I can do my own analysis without an intermediary>>
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>The only way most of us can do our own analysis is by listening to the many
>recordings. Critics tender opinions, and as such, make our lives easier by
>narrowing down considerably what we might like to listen to. I contend that
>your comment, "For me reviews and critics are a waste of time ....", is a
>completely rash statement, even if it is your opinion.
>
WWallace wrote:
I simply listen to the music. How could it be rash when I just got burned out
year after year reading reviews and finally noticed that I only used them to
find out what was being released. Maybe I'll take a fresh look. If the
landscape has changed great.
>
David Hurwitz wrote:
>| >If you feel that this is the purpose of criticism, then you really do
>have a few
>| >things to learn. This rather sophomoric comment, combined with the above
>facts,
>| >moves me to one further posting in response (and only one, rest assured).
>| >
WWallace wrote:
>| If I have something to learn about music criticism than hasn't already
>been
>| revealed over the last two centuries, it must be under a rock. What can
>a
>| music critic contribute to a composer's work? What can a music critic
>| contribute to an artist's performance?
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>You have already said that Daniel Barenboim has benefitted by *your* reviews
>when he was younger. Are you suggesting that you are the very exemplar of
>what a critic might and should do then? I do detect some hypocrisy here, if
>I correctly understand the meaning of the word.
>
WWallace wrote:
I said Barenboim enjoyed our conversations the point of which was that I was not
a failure, (stated by Mr. Hurwitz for giving up reviewing), but it does not
mean I was a great critic or that anyone benefitted from my criticism. I am
sure that I didn't point out a thing that wasn't readily known to anyone with
any sense of music already. What was refreshing to musicians was to have
someone who had music education and training and not thrown into the job from
the sports page.
>
David Hurwitz wrote:
>| >Your concept of "good faith" strikes me as peculiarly as does your view
>of what
>| >criticism is. You claim to be interested only in the "foundation" of work
>that
>| >you have not bothered to investigate at all (a fact about which you seem
>| >somewhat proud). You are thus in no position to even begin to discern
>whether
>| >the foundation was adequate to the job in question, as this can ONLY be
>realized
>| >by careful and thorough examination of the work product that results (as
>Henry
>| >pointed out to you). Since you had not done so and had no intention of so
>doing
>| >when you asked your original questions (concealing this particular point
>for
>| >obvious reasons) the entire basis for your inquiry was false on its face.
>I can
>| >think of no more telling instance of "bad faith" in operation.
>| >
WWallace wrote:
>| Well since I didn't know you or your work the first question that came to
>mind
>| is who is David Hurwitz.
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>Why don't you bother to find out? DH did give you a fairly detailed
>description of his CV. What more do you want? After all, even regarding the
>newsgroup, do you, know *who* the posters who contribute here really are? I
>would suggest trying to read DH's reviews as a kick off. It is not going to
>cost you anything but a few moments of your time.
>
Why do you think I asked the question in the first place? I did a search and
discovered that no one knew much of anything except that he was apparently in
real estate. I didn't really care, until he launched an attack on me for asking
the question. As for what do I want now? Nothing and I really never did. If
Mr. Hurwitz had simply responded AT THE BEGINNING with even the slightest
consideration AND without all the rancor nothing more would have been said.
When he did respond with his CV it was full of invective.
As for other posters here I seldom see anyone lashing out or claiming
professional expertise so no one need ask. We all have our opinions; that's
good enough.
>
WWallace wrote:
>| One usually asks what one does and then ascertains
>| something about the person. If I went out and explored every Tom, Dick
>and
>| Harry to the point of looking at everything they had done before I did
>anything,
>| nothing would ever happen. I only look at a man's work after I know I
>will not
>| be wasting my time. But I was not and am not interested in your work, but
>ONLY
>| in why you raised so much rage from so many.
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>Because, like many of us, we are extremely self opinionated (within natural
>bounds), as most of us have several decades of listening experience under
>our belts. Many of us even play musical instruments (as amateurs), can read
>music, study music, and that is not even counting the professional musicians
>who post here. DH has strong opinions, backed up by a very good musical
>knowledge, not liked by some. But you must also remember that DH is a
>different kettle of fish in his often well fleshed-out and always
>informative reviews (whether one disagrees or not), than the DH who enters
>the hurly burly of this newsgroup. I find he can take the flak, as well as
>dish it out. Part and parcel of newsgroup life.
>
My query was simple. I had no history with Mr. Hurwitz. Yet because he sees
himself as an established professional he apparently felt it beneath him to
respond even though he holds himself out in every post as a professional.
WWallace wrote:
>
>| comprehension of what a professional really is. What passes for
>professionalism
>| nowadays amazes me as I don't see a modicum of it in most places. As one
>who
>
Raymond Hall wrote:
>Try telling that to the many professional musicians, many of whom play in a
>variety of orchestras, reaching levels of execution which are generally
>regarded as an improvement upon previously regarded levels.
>
WWallace wrote:
Performance is the one place everyone has to shut up and put up. I agree. My
statement is directed at those who have no measuring stick applied to them.
Raymond Hall wrote:
>In essence, I cannot see what all the fuss you are creating is really all
>about. It seems to me it represents an ad hominem attack, fleshed out in a
>lot of hogwash. To get back to the Subject, Lebrecht is often informative,
>thought provoking, sometimes states the obvious, often invites controversy,
>and is very *readable*. The fact that so many people read what Lebrecht has
>to say is testimony to that.
>
WWallace wrote:
Fuss I am creating? I'm attacked for making a query? That's creating a fuss?
And now I have directed an ad hominem attack on Hurwitz for making the query? I
suppose if we were on an orchestra board I would be making an ad hominem attack
on a not so famous conductor if I asked about his background--his musical
training? Or if we were hiring faculty I would be making an ad hominem attack
to inquire into the professor's credentials? Or I would be making an ad hominem
attack to ask the MD to see to verify his credentials with me before he
operated?
Any hogwash was my willingness in light of being attacked to be open about any
bias or prejudice and to be open about my views, for which I became the
immediate target in response, was then dissected for any honesty, and then
accused of making ad hominem attacks on one who many of you have clearly made ad
hominem attacks in response to ad hominem attacks.
If this is how ball is played here, I'll just continue to lurk, as it certainly
is a lot more enjoyable listening to music than writing about it, reading about
it, and most certainly arguing, not over music but verbiage. I'm not offended
in the least, just don't want to get in arguments particularly at my age, my
blood pressure, etc.
A Merry Christmas and now on to A Happy New Year.
Raymond Hall
nor was I particularly leaping to any defence of Mr Hurwitz. He is far more
capable of defending himself that I would ever be able. In fact he thrives
on it (criticism), and I am not going to go out of my way to interfere <g>
Frankly I haven't read the thread all the way through, so the sordid details
of who said what, and when, and how, are largely lost on me. They would be
even if I *had* read the whole thread, because I quickly dispense into the
trash-bin of forgotten history such irrelevant details. Hurwitzian phenomena
are rather common place here, and I would say that being blunt and often
brusque in manner to us RMCRers, and upsetting certain musical applecarts,
are all part of DH's devilish intent in this newsgroup. This upsets certain
people, as I am sure you are aware. But they shouldn't be imho, because they
all should be totally secure regarding their favourite musiks and musicians.
All I was essentially high-lighting, and *please* don't get the idea that I
was attacking you, was the use of the word hypocritical in your particular
post. This word is loaded, and can suggest that falseness and pretence are
implied. I see no use for this word when discussing the role of a critic,
unless it is used specifically in an ad hominem way.
I am seriously interested in your discussions with Daniel Barenboim, and if
he did indeed treasure some of your comments, then it is certainly to your
credit. As someone who knew all the Beethoven sonatas by heart at some
unbelievably young age, then DB will never rank as a fool. Boring maybe, but
akin to genius of a sort. I simply thought you might have supplied some
details - being a sticky-beak that I am.
As for the Lebrecht mania, as witness this thread (among many such Lebrecht
threads), this is due mainly IMO because he is often controversial, and
partly because he writes in an intuitive way, rather like reading a comic,
that is accessible and fun to read. But Lebrecht is also no fool, and is
often perceptive, if nothing else.
In short, I simply put the question as to why the word hypocritical even
came into the discussion (as picked up from your post). As for GB Shaw then
the word certainly might apply, although even with consideration of the
great literary man, I am sure his musical views and comments were genuine.
Perhaps the word pompous might be more apt in describing his dabblings into
music.
Sometimes a thick skin is required here, invective and hogwash is
commonplace, some good humour exists, but after a while, it all becomes a
bit of a cyber pie throwing contest, amidst the gleaning of some extremely
useful information.
It is not (and never will be) my intention to upset people here, because
behind the so-called cyber-strings, there lurks real human beings. I think
<g>
Take Care,
Best Regards,
David Hurwitz
>Well said. At times, though, even some of the "objective" flaws might
>be judged in context. A *relatively* sloppy orchestral ensemble, when
>coupled with fantastic colors, quasi-vocal lines and highly daring rubato
>is even technically more impressive, to my ears, than a squarely
>predictable execution in which "accidents" do not happen because the
>driving is extremely cautious, at constant speeds and in the middle of the
>road. Pardon me if I react angrily when I am told in such situations that
>I am an undiscerning fool.
>
such a way so that there is no question which is preferable. The problems arise
when one compares the "sloppy" example above, to one which is technically
superb, tense, exciting, if perhaps less "daring" in other respects. As I have
said so many times in this group, music is not a zero-sum game, and the presence
of certain qualities does not imply or necessitate the absense of others.
Reductio ad absurdum comparisons such as that above serve no useful purpose at
all, and you have never been told that you are an undiscerning fool as a result
of one. If you are an undiscerning fool (and I do not say that you are and
really don't especially care), it will be because you view the musical world
exactly as you state it above, and therefore fail to acknowledge all of the
other myriad possibilities which are both the province of the discerning
listener and the reality of performance today.
This is even more true in the world of record collecting, where the presence of
so many versions of standard (and even non-standard) repertoire makes comparison
between recordings comparatively easy, and for the critic, obligatory. It is
remarkable how often a "daring" but sloppy performance pales when listened to in
direct proximity to a technically accomplished but more "literal" one. Often,
one hears something fresh and new and finds that the interpreter has actually
simply been following the score in a way in which none of his predecessors has
even done before. So there is more to "daring" than ignoring what the composer
wrote, or doing something that is obvious or attention-getting in and of itself,
just as there is more to an interpretation than questions of tempo.
That said, what essentially distinguishes the critic from the collector is this:
the critic (if he is "professional" in his devotion to his job) cannot play
favorites. However difficult it may be, it is his job to listen to each
performance as it comes, listening as blindly as he can manage, and accurately
describe what he hears. Collectors have a different agenda. The love of music,
like any hobby about which one feels passionately, involves a complex set of
associations and motivations in the listener's mind, some of which may not
necessarily even be musical in nature. And there's nothing wrong with this at
all, because a hobbyist or fan has no other obligation than to define that which
pleases them in whatever manner they choose.
The problem with this (from the critic's point of view) is that all too often
the enthusiast makes the following leap of judgment: greatness = that which I
like best. And while this is no doubt true in the subjective sense, in the world
of comparisons of multiple recordings which is the critic's backyard, this
position is completely inconsistent with one of his most important jobs: the
consistent application of the highest standards both technically and
interpretively to each and every performance he comes across. As Henry points
out, there are subjective and objective elements to this process, but I would
contend that a lot more of it is objective (particularly when the comparisons
are ready to hand in the form of permanent documents such as recordings) than
many music lovers cherishing favorite performances with obvious flaws would be
willing to admit. A listener is perfectly within his rights to say "this flaw
does not matter, I think it's great anyway." A critic does so at his peril, for
along that path lies a relativistic and essentially arbitrary application of
standards, with all the potential for confusion and chaos that this implies (in
other words, you wind up with Gramophone). Indeed, a lack of such standards,
intelligently and consistently applied, is the biggest problem afflicting the
writing of criticism today.
While Henry and Samir exaggerate for effect (ironically while accusing me of the
same), I have never in my professional writing called anyone an idiot or moron
for not agreeing with any of my observations about the value of a recording. I
make it a point, however, to uphold the integrity of the music itself as
expressed through what the composer wrote in his score by applying the highest
standards of technical and interpretive mastery as consistently as possible to
each disc I review. The insinuation that I (or any critic) prefers bland, middle
of the road performances to more exciting yet accident-prone versions is
unsustainable in any fair appraisal of my work, or that of any competent
colleague.
Often there are deep disagreements about the meaning of the facts regarding
specific performances, even if the facts themselves are not in dispute (and
sometimes they are). I have many performances in my collection that I love
personally, which I would never recommend as a reference version professionally
because the things I love about it are personal, emotional, and inexplicable as
positive qualities either technically or interpretively. No critic can say
whether or not a performance, however charismatic or dreadful he or others feel
it is, will speak to any individual listener, and this does tend to limit the
effective value of any review (but does not compromise the objectivity of the
review process as such).
This does not mean, however, that criticism is doomed always to recommend or
exalt mediocrity. It does mean that many enthusiasts who equate greatness with
their personal perferences, and revel in the very irrationality of their choice
(loving it "despite" its flaws and weaknesses), will likely be infuriated by a
dispassionate, comparative, and (relatively speaking) objective appraisal of
their favorite versions according to rational critical methods and consistently
applied standards. And I admit that I deliberately enjoy challenging such
people, because part of a critic's additional responsibilities to his public
include (a) to inform them of the existence of "groupies" whom they may very
well encounter in their peregrinations through the classical music world, some
of whom may be functioning with a screw loose and whose enthusiasms and hatreds
are anything but rational; (b) constantly re-examine preconceived notions about
so-called "classic" recordings and interpretive standards; and (c) remind the
listener and the fan that irrespective of one's personal enthusiasms, there are
indeed standards of performance that transcend the reputations of even the
finest interpreters, and not all "great musicians" make great recordings all the
time.
This last point is perhaps the most important, the one which I personally
believe is largely lacking in so much criticism written today, and the one where
I think the critic's greatest value lies. Criticism should challenge and
disturb, even as it educates and informs. I have always said that the opinions
and conclusions expressed in my writing (those statements that Samir so likes to
misquote and take out of context--always a tiny fraction of the whole) are not
the most valuable or important parts of the review , but that the facts speak
for themselves. I am not interested in being "right" about these judgments; it's
not a question of "right" and "wrong" at all. I am content to be accurate with
regard to the facts. What does concern me, though, is that listeners all too
easily lapse into complacency, and rightly or wrongly, I regard "fandom" as a
form of intellectual laziness incompatible with a professed love of MUSIC, which
I define (again rightly or wrongly) as what the composer wrote, and not as what
some favorite performer does (and I hasten to add that I define "score" not as
"what is merely written literally," but as the entire corpus of knowledge and
technique--musical, cultural, historical, stylistic--necessary for a
comprehensive realization of the printed page according to the highest and best
standards of performance).
This does not diminish the crucial role of the performer in bringing music to
life (on the contrary, if anything, it adds to the performer's responsibilities
as interpreter), but it does mean that as a critic I cannot ever take for
granted the quality of results assumed to emanate from any mere recreative
artist, however storied his reputation. And this critical responsibility becomes
even more important today, when radio archives and private sources pour forth
performances unauthorized by great artists of the past, recordings which will be
snapped up by fans as being of inherent historical "interest" without a passing
thought as to their quality or provenance. When this happens, the critic becomes
the performer's advocate, never more so than when he can honestly say that the
version in question is NOT worthy of the artist's reputation and would likely
never have been approved for release or accepted as part of his legacy by an
artist with the highest STANDARDS.
Finally, in sum, I would like to share with you a slightly paraphrased version
of a wonderful quotation from the introduction to Schoenberg's Theory of Harmony
that has been with me since I first read it a couple of decades ago:
"It should clear, then, that the [critic's] first task is to shake up the
[listener] thoroughly. When the resultant tumult subsides, everything will have
presumably found its proper place. Or it will never happen!"
Max Schmeder
> >Where then? Perhaps in the responsibility of communicating how successful
> >an interpretation is "on its own terms". Let me put this more clear. I don't
> >like harpsichords -- that's hardly a secret. As a music lover it is my
> >right to feel so and to rant here about my personal nemesis, adding
> >local color to our discussions and bringing, at worst, an element of
> >amusement into them -- while it is highly improbable that I will ever
> >change the mind -- woe to them! (-: -- of those who for one reason or
> >another do like harpsichords.
> >
> >
> >Say though I was compelled to gain my living from "professional musical
> >criticism" (may such a hard fate be never bestowed upon me). I think I
> >would be supposed, if not compelled, to give my own idiosyncrasy a break
> >and to try to judge how well that recording works on its own terms,
> >perhaps compared to other harpsichord recordings that assume more or less
> >common and definable stylistic traits.
Henry Fogel wrote:
> Clearly, depending on one's circumstances, one can avoid reviewing the kind of
> music or performance that one has no sympathy for. In "Fanfare", for instance,
> I can simply refuse to review a recording that seems to lie outside of my
> sympathies -- to the point where I would have difficulty even identifying with
> the musicians on the disc.
This is where you and Samir diverge since he would nonetheless review
a harpsichord performance even though it lies outside of his taste.
> But it is also possible to try to separate the subjective from the objective --
> and to write about them with recognition of that difference.
I don't think a critic should ever review a performance if he/she is
already unsympathetic to one of the important parameters (composer,
performer, HIP or non-HIP).
Love of the music brings about the truest perceptivity and there is no
substitution for that. I have never in my life seen a competent
review of a harpsichord performance by a reviewer who already admits
he prefers piano. If you don't already love the instrument, you're
not going to hear or understand the nuances, and you should STAY AWAY
from reviewing it.
Forget about trusting your own abilities to judge objectively (and
certainly forget about your ability to judge subjectively, which is
what usually matters most in a review, anyway). It won't happen. If
you're already turned off by an instrument or performer, don't review
it! It's guaranteed that you'll be one of those critics that screw up
the world a little more and mislead people. ..no matter how smart you
are. Love before brains in this department.
rgds,
Max
wwal...@rr.com
wrote:
You are very kind and I didn't think you were pursuing anything more than
natural curiosity. As for Daniel Barenboim, if I think long enough about it, I
can perhaps recall something of our conversations--it's been a long time. As I
recall something I'll post it here. I can tell you he had absorbed and knew
the piano music he was performing but he wasn't interested in talking about that
when I first met him--he was intently set on conducting. That was the basis of
our conversations. That's all he talked about. One of the reasons he was
making his concert tours during those years in the late 50's was to pick up
anything of worth from conductors he played under. He had already completed
conducting classes with Markevich and brought Furtwangler under his spell. He
performed brilliantly in rehearsal. It was as if two people sat at the
piano--the one, who executed everything with total dedication to the work at
hand--and the other, who seemingly never took his eyes off the
conductor--watching his every cue, movement, etc. solely as a conductor. He
would even mimic gestures of a conductor when he was not engaged in a passage on
the piano. All this I could see from my vantage point watching his hands move
over the keys. At performance his mimic was of course absent, but his eyes
still focused on the conductor to see if he picked up any change in demeanor,
gesture, emotion. I always marveled at his ability to focus so powerfully on
the piano concerto and yet absorb the role of conductor at the same time. I
know this is often done with the conductor at the keyboard--but here it was
slightly different as Barenboim was not substituting himself into the
conductor's role--he was gleaning everything he could from the conductor as a
conductor! I enjoyed him immensely and perhaps he returned my enthusiasm and
certain interest. His energy was immense and what I remember most abou t him,
was not his dedication or his intensity or his precision, but his genuine
friendliness, his warmth, his smile, his openness. I remember the first review
I ever did of him. I drove him to the airport the next morning and when I
arrived to pick him up he already had the review in his hand with a great big
smile. I didn't say a thing as he held it up and said: "Honest! Honest!" We
didn't discuss it further, he was a better critic of his own playing than I ever
could be. Unfortunately I never archived anything I wrote in those days, though
the orchestras certainly did. This has softened me up enough I mit just get
the energy up to turn up some of those reviews to see how bad they were.
Something else I noticed was Barenboim's respect for second tier orchestras and
older conductors at second tier orchestras--many of whom were outstanding
musicians and performers but were not groomed for the new age of television or
showboaters. He wanted to know what they knew, he wanted to understand
everything about how they made music--it was almost as if he was afraid he might
miss something, some element that would make a difference in his future as a
conductor.
Samir Golescu
> >Well said. At times, though, even some of the "objective" flaws might
> >be judged in context. A *relatively* sloppy orchestral ensemble, when
> >coupled with fantastic colors, quasi-vocal lines and highly daring rubato
> >is even technically more impressive, to my ears, than a squarely
> >predictable execution in which "accidents" do not happen because the
> >driving is extremely cautious, at constant speeds and in the middle of the
> >road. Pardon me if I react angrily when I am told in such situations that
> >I am an undiscerning fool.
> >
> This is no doubt true, because you have defined the terms of the comparison in
> such a way so that there is no question which is preferable. The problems arise
> when one compares the "sloppy" example above, to one which is technically
> superb, tense, exciting, if perhaps less "daring" in other respects.
Why should you define for me -- or for X or for Y -- what is "exciting"?
Or is that part of the domain of the professional critic too?
> As I have
> said so many times in this group, music is not a zero-sum game, and the presence
> of certain qualities does not imply or necessitate the absense of others.
And nobody said otherwise. But also there is no way to prove that what
music lovers perceive as a specific, unsubstitutable kind of excitement
can be found to the same degree in a "technically superb" performance.
Neither could everything one expects from an interpretation in terms
undefinable professionally could be reduced to some generic,
interchangeable, excitement or tension.
> Reductio ad absurdum comparisons such as that above serve no useful purpose at
> all
They certainly does not serve yours, that's a given.
> you view the musical world exactly as you state it above, and therefore
> fail to acknowledge all of the other myriad possibilities
I do not "fail to acknowledge the possibilities" but I am neither
compelled to perceive the musical world as you do.
> which are both the province of the discerning
> listener and the reality of performance today.
So the "discerning listener" is the one that agrees with you and you have
"the" perception of the reality of performance today.
> This is even more true in the world of record collecting, where the presence of
> so many versions of standard (and even non-standard) repertoire makes comparison
> between recordings comparatively easy, and for the critic, obligatory.
Most collectors compare versions. We have here a couple of collectors who
can stand comparison to say the least, even in quantity parameters, with
every musical critic.
> It is
> remarkable how often a "daring" but sloppy performance pales when listened to in
> direct proximity to a technically accomplished but more "literal" one.
It is remarkable how convinced you are that that "paling" is a "fact" and
that the result of your comparison should be appropriated by everybody
else.
> Often,
> one hears something fresh and new and finds that the interpreter has actually
> simply been following the score in a way in which none of his predecessors has
> even done before.
Very true, and I said it innumerable times.
> So there is more to "daring" than ignoring what the composer
> wrote, or doing something that is obvious or attention-getting in and of
> itself,
There is this tendency to find interpreters whom we like true to the
composer and to accuse those we don't of "attention-getting in and of
itself". These are not "facts", though, only perceptions.
> just as there is more to an interpretation than questions of tempo.
This is obvious and my short posting has not represented a treatise on
interpretation neither did it claim to cover every complex facet of an
aesthetics of interpretation.
> That said, what essentially distinguishes the critic from the collector is this:
> the critic (if he is "professional" in his devotion to his job) cannot play
> favorites. However difficult it may be, it is his job to listen to each
> performance as it comes, listening as blindly as he can manage, and accurately
> describe what he hears. Collectors have a different agenda. The love of music,
> like any hobby about which one feels passionately, involves a complex set of
> associations and motivations in the listener's mind, some of which may not
> necessarily even be musical in nature.
This comparison is most condescending and inadequate. Perhaps there are
collectors that have no "agenda" or no agenda you or I would know of.
Perhaps some collectors' "associations and motivations" are more musical
in nature than yours or mine. Perhaps some collectors have their own brand
of discernment and who they become fans of is determined by what they are
listening to and not vice versa, as your implication is.
> The problem with this (from the critic's point of view) is that all too often
> the enthusiast makes the following leap of judgment: greatness = that which I
> like best.
While with the critic: greatness = what *he* likes is what IS great, one
gathers....
> And while this is no doubt true in the subjective sense, in the world
> of comparisons of multiple recordings which is the critic's backyard, this
> position is completely inconsistent with one of his most important jobs: the
> consistent application of the highest standards both technically and
> interpretively to each and every performance he comes across.
The critic applies "the highest interpretive standards"? This is so rich.
A critic has access, through the virtue of his being a professional
critic, to the "objective highest standards" of interpretation..... um.....
> A listener is perfectly within his rights to say "this flaw
> does not matter, I think it's great anyway." A critic does so at his peril, for
> along that path lies a relativistic and essentially arbitrary application of
> standards, with all the potential for confusion and chaos that this implies (in
> other words, you wind up with Gramophone). Indeed, a lack of such standards,
> intelligently and consistently applied, is the biggest problem afflicting the
> writing of criticism today.
Why do you serve us such self-serving self-flattering self-glorifying
fare, pray? What you are basically saying is that, unlike Gramophone
critics and many other unnamed ones (as long as this "is the biggest
problem etc.") you do possess those standards. It is true that I don't
like you but at least let others, who might, or who do like you, tell
whether they detect in your writing those self-defined, liberally-flaunted
"intelligently and consistently applied" standards. Self-aggrandizement
can become nauseating even for someone's few fans.
> While Henry and Samir exaggerate for effect (ironically while accusing me of the
> same), I have never in my professional writing called anyone an idiot or moron
> for not agreeing with any of my observations about the value of a recording. I
> make it a point, however, to uphold the integrity of the music itself as
> expressed through what the composer wrote in his score by applying the highest
> standards of technical and interpretive mastery as consistently as possible to
> each disc I review.
You were never able to understand or to accept that those "highest
standards" come not from God, but are part of *you*, of your nature,
culture, background, qualities and limitations. Even -- horribile dictu!
-- biases. That you may attempt to focus on what you define as factual in
music does not mean you succeed in reaching a higher -- "the highest
standards'" -- truth.
> The insinuation that I (or any critic) prefers bland, middle
> of the road performances to more exciting yet accident-prone versions is
> unsustainable in any fair appraisal of my work, or that of any competent
> colleague.
This is not an "insinuation", but other people can detect in one's
preferences patterns one wouldn't be conscious of. I never liked an artist
because is dead, but I am still told that I do.
> This last point is perhaps the most important, the one which I personally
> believe is largely lacking in so much criticism written today, and the one where
> I think the critic's greatest value lies. Criticism should challenge and
> disturb, even as it educates and informs.
Indeed. It is a pity when the former happens without the latter though.
[paragraphs containing the "highest standards" trouvaille used with a
frightening frequency snipped]
[from Schoenberg]
> "It should clear, then, that the [critic's] first task is to shake up the
> [listener] thoroughly.
Thanks for the quote. What Schoenberg didn't mention, but probably
intended to say, was that the shaking up should be the
splendor of a conceptual hurricane, not through the rather over-domestic
process of regurgitating old cliches.
David Hurwitz
>a secret anymore. It takes no deliberate misconstruction to understand
>a clear phrase and you know it too well.>
>
question appears in context. You have nothing to fear if your claim is correct.
Your definition as to what constitutes "obsession" is typical of your quixotic
view of reality. I make no secret of my views about "fans" (a very specific
subset of "music lovers"). I write and post approximately 360 reviews per year
(or about one per day). Since ClassicsToday.com began two years and two months
ago, about 800 of the more than 4,500 reviews archived are mine. Of those,
perhaps a dozen have ever attracted any special notice here on account of my
"obsession" (as you describe it) or for any other reason that I can think of. I
challenge you to document exactly how many embody this "obsession." Have fun.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>
>
>> >Well said. At times, though, even some of the "objective" flaws might
>> >be judged in context. A *relatively* sloppy orchestral ensemble, when
>> >coupled with fantastic colors, quasi-vocal lines and highly daring rubato
>> >is even technically more impressive, to my ears, than a squarely
>> >predictable execution in which "accidents" do not happen because the
>> >driving is extremely cautious, at constant speeds and in the middle of the
>> >road. Pardon me if I react angrily when I am told in such situations that
>> >I am an undiscerning fool.
>> >
>>This is no doubt true, because you have defined the terms of the comparison in
>>such a way so that there is no question which is preferable. The problems arise
>> when one compares the "sloppy" example above, to one which is technically
>> superb, tense, exciting, if perhaps less "daring" in other respects.
>
>Why should you define for me -- or for X or for Y -- what is "exciting"?
:::Because that is what a critic does.
>Or is that part of the domain of the professional critic too?
:::Of course.
>
>
>> As I have
>>said so many times in this group, music is not a zero-sum game, and the presence
>> of certain qualities does not imply or necessitate the absense of others.
>
>And nobody said otherwise. But also there is no way to prove that what
>music lovers perceive as a specific, unsubstitutable kind of excitement
>can be found to the same degree in a "technically superb" performance.
>Neither could everything one expects from an interpretation in terms
>undefinable professionally could be reduced to some generic,
>interchangeable, excitement or tension.
>
:::That is true, but you are as usual missing the point, which is that it's
possible to have great performances without the sloppiness that you cite. The
mix of attributes which go into them may be different, but they are no less
rewarding to listeners for that. On the other hand, to deny that demonstrable
flaws "matter" or to even enjoy a performance because of them is to venture into
territory beyond which a critic should go. You of course are free to "go"
anywhere you please. I have never challenged anyone's right to enjoy favorite
performances, but speaking critically, flaws do matter, and it's my job to say
so. And if I can recommend a performance that offers many of the positive
attributes of one of your favorites, and fewer of the negative ones, then I will
do that too.
>
>>Reductio ad absurdum comparisons such as that above serve no useful purpose at
>> all
>
>They certainly does not serve yours, that's a given.
>
>> you view the musical world exactly as you state it above, and therefore
>> fail to acknowledge all of the other myriad possibilities
>
>I do not "fail to acknowledge the possibilities" but I am neither
>compelled to perceive the musical world as you do.
:::No, you are not, but your own words certainly do "fail to acknowledge the
possibilities" and speak for themselves in this respect. You defined your own
terms here, not I, and while I understand that you were not offering a
comprehensive view of interpretive aesthetics in that brief paragraph, there's
nothing there that is inconsistent with your position as expressed in inumerable
other postings of a similar nature. I therefore conclude that you mean what you
say.
>
>> which are both the province of the discerning
>> listener and the reality of performance today.
>
>So the "discerning listener" is the one that agrees with you and you have
>"the" perception of the reality of performance today.
:::I have a perception based on an open minded and active comparative listening
to the widest range of performances and interpretations available to me of any
work that I chose to write about. That's what professional critics do. As one
who listens and reports facts accordingly, I feel very comfortable that my
perception of reality rests on a reasonably objective and demonstrably factual
foundation. What yours rests on, I have no idea and would not care to speculate.
>
>>This is even more true in the world of record collecting, where the presence of
>>so many versions of standard (and even non-standard) repertoire makes comparison
>> between recordings comparatively easy, and for the critic, obligatory.
>
>
>Most collectors compare versions. We have here a couple of collectors who
>can stand comparison to say the least, even in quantity parameters, with
>every musical critic.
>
:::That is quite true, but a collector, however passionate, has no other goal
than his own enjoyment and preferences. A critic's mandate is to attempt to
assist others is realizing their enjoyments and preferences, and so his entire
perspective is necessarily different. Sneer at the attempt though you may, or
the method, that's what critics do, and I find it an honorable and in its way
important calling.
>> It is
>>remarkable how often a "daring" but sloppy performance pales when listened to in
>> direct proximity to a technically accomplished but more "literal" one.
>
>It is remarkable how convinced you are that that "paling" is a "fact" and
>that the result of your comparison should be appropriated by everybody
>else.
:::The results of my comparisons are facts confirmable by everyone else. I have
always said that each listener will make of those facts what they will (as do I
in the course of the review). But there's more to it than the above example.
There can also be "daring" but NOT sloppy performances, and everything in
between. The dichotomy you establish is utterly false, and the fact that you
feel you may have settled on the One True Path (or Paths) does not mean that
there are not many more to be discovered and described by those more open to
differing viewpoints than you seem to be.
>
>> Often,
>> one hears something fresh and new and finds that the interpreter has actually
>>simply been following the score in a way in which none of his predecessors has
>> even done before.
>
>Very true, and I said it innumerable times.
:::Then we agree on something. Marvelous!
>
>>That said, what essentially distinguishes the critic from the collector is this:
>> the critic (if he is "professional" in his devotion to his job) cannot play
>> favorites. However difficult it may be, it is his job to listen to each
>>performance as it comes, listening as blindly as he can manage, and accurately
>>describe what he hears. Collectors have a different agenda. The love of music,
>> like any hobby about which one feels passionately, involves a complex set of
>> associations and motivations in the listener's mind, some of which may not
>> necessarily even be musical in nature.
>
>
>This comparison is most condescending and inadequate. Perhaps there are
>collectors that have no "agenda" or no agenda you or I would know of.
>Perhaps some collectors' "associations and motivations" are more musical
>in nature than yours or mine. Perhaps some collectors have their own brand
>of discernment and who they become fans of is determined by what they are
>listening to and not vice versa, as your implication is.
:::It is perfectly adequate, not condescending in the least (unless you are
taking it in a way I did not intend, which of course you are) and an accurate
description of the facts in question. The essential point is that the collector
collects to please himself, whatever his motivations. I merely suggest that the
act of self-satifaction is complex. I do not question anyone's genuine love of
music (not even yours), but it would be very strange if you could not accept
that other issues are in play as well.
>
>> The problem with this (from the critic's point of view) is that all too often
>> the enthusiast makes the following leap of judgment: greatness = that which I
>> like best.
>
>While with the critic: greatness = what *he* likes is what IS great, one
>gathers....
>
Not at all, as I take some pains to explain.
>> And while this is no doubt true in the subjective sense, in the world
>> of comparisons of multiple recordings which is the critic's backyard, this
>> position is completely inconsistent with one of his most important jobs: the
>> consistent application of the highest standards both technically and
>> interpretively to each and every performance he comes across.
>
>The critic applies "the highest interpretive standards"? This is so rich.
>A critic has access, through the virtue of his being a professional
>critic, to the "objective highest standards" of interpretation..... um.....
>
:::No, everyone has access to those standards. A critic has the opportunity to
apply them, and the obligation to do so intelligently, fairly, and consistently.
This is very different from the typical motivations of the collector or fan. You
know this perfectly well. Take an example: I collect Stokowski because I'm
curious about everything he did. But admiring him and collecting him are one
thing; calling everything he did "great" is another, and evaluating what he did
based on the standards I employ in my professional life is another again.
>> A listener is perfectly within his rights to say "this flaw
>>does not matter, I think it's great anyway." A critic does so at his peril, for
>> along that path lies a relativistic and essentially arbitrary application of
>>standards, with all the potential for confusion and chaos that this implies (in
>> other words, you wind up with Gramophone). Indeed, a lack of such standards,
>> intelligently and consistently applied, is the biggest problem afflicting the
>> writing of criticism today.
>
>Why do you serve us such self-serving self-flattering self-glorifying
>fare, pray? What you are basically saying is that, unlike Gramophone
>critics and many other unnamed ones (as long as this "is the biggest
>problem etc.") you do possess those standards. It is true that I don't
>like you but at least let others, who might, or who do like you, tell
>whether they detect in your writing those self-defined, liberally-flaunted
>"intelligently and consistently applied" standards. Self-aggrandizement
>can become nauseating even for someone's few fans.
>
:::And why do you insist on attributing to everything I say the basest of
motives and the most unflattering possible "spin?" Cool down, Samir. If you find
my contention that I have standards and apply them as I have described
offensive, that's fine. I understand why you might feel threatened by it. In
fact, those who do like me, and it will disappoint you to know that there are
many more than you would no doubt wish, do indeed detect exactly those
qualities, which is precisely why I have come to value them. For 16 years I have
written record reviews and interacted with the public that reads them, and my
approach to criticism did not spring fully formed from my head as Athena did
from the head of Zeus. It is the result of a tremendous amount of hard work,
trial and error, listening to people talk about what they want to see and what
constitutes a useful review. And that is another aspect of "professionalism." If
the exercise of one's profession, based on the confident use of the knowledge
and experience one has acquired in the course of one's career, is
"self-aggrandizement," then so be it. Anyone who agrees with you need not read
my criticism. It's that simple.
>
>>While Henry and Samir exaggerate for effect (ironically while accusing me of the
>>same), I have never in my professional writing called anyone an idiot or moron
>>for not agreeing with any of my observations about the value of a recording. I
>> make it a point, however, to uphold the integrity of the music itself as
>>expressed through what the composer wrote in his score by applying the highest
>>standards of technical and interpretive mastery as consistently as possible to
>> each disc I review.
>
>You were never able to understand or to accept that those "highest
>standards" come not from God, but are part of *you*, of your nature,
>culture, background, qualities and limitations. Even -- horribile dictu!
>-- biases. That you may attempt to focus on what you define as factual in
>music does not mean you succeed in reaching a higher -- "the highest
>standards'" -- truth.
:::Don't obscure the issue with silly pseudo-philosophy. We are not talking
about "truth." We are talking about a permanently preserved performance of a
piece of music that anyone can listen to and understand, and evaluate score in
hand--a THING. Not a concept. Playing flat, missing notes, inner lines that
cannot be heard as a result of poor sound: these are not part of my "nature,
culture, background, etc." These are facts. Facts are important, Samir. The
conclusions one draws from these facts--these I have always maintained are my
own opinions, but I try to ensure that the opinion generally stems from the
facts, and not from some preconception or bias. That at least is the ideal. Do I
always live up to it? No. I've never said I was perfect. But I try my best, and
I can always fall back on the essential point that if my description of the
facts is accurate, then the reader will know what to make of the recording,
irrespective of whether or not he agrees with my final assessment. What matters,
as I have said about a million times, in not whether I am "right" or "wrong,"
but whether or not the performance is described accurately. Perhaps this does
not reach the "highest" standard as you would define it, but it does reach a
"higher" one than that which typifies most discussions about music in this ng or
anywhere else, and I'm very proud of that fact too.
>
>> The insinuation that I (or any critic) prefers bland, middle
>> of the road performances to more exciting yet accident-prone versions is
>> unsustainable in any fair appraisal of my work, or that of any competent
>> colleague.
>
>This is not an "insinuation", but other people can detect in one's
>preferences patterns one wouldn't be conscious of. I never liked an artist
>because is dead, but I am still told that I do.
>
:::I agree the fact that an artist is merely "dead" is not a consideration for
you. That would be stupid and unmusical, and you are neither one nor the other.
I also agree that other people often see things in our work that we, being so
close to it do not. But this does not challenge or dispute my initial point,
which is that I do not prefer or recommend "bland, middle of the road"
performances in preference to those "daring" ones that you describe. The
converse of disliking (or not being thrilled with) what thrills you personally
is not an inevitable mediocrity.
>> This last point is perhaps the most important, the one which I personally
>>believe is largely lacking in so much criticism written today, and the one where
>> I think the critic's greatest value lies. Criticism should challenge and
>> disturb, even as it educates and informs.
>
>Indeed. It is a pity when the former happens without the latter though.
:::Just as it is a pity that some readers have rendered themselves ineducable.
>
>[from Schoenberg]
>
>> "It should clear, then, that the [critic's] first task is to shake up the
>> [listener] thoroughly.
>
>Thanks for the quote. What Schoenberg didn't mention, but probably
>intended to say, was that the shaking up should be the
>splendor of a conceptual hurricane, not through the rather over-domestic
>process of regurgitating old cliches.
>
:::Cheap shot, Samir, just when we were having a comparatively civil
conversation for a change. Oh, well.
Raymond Hall
news:qkii2uokt4vh5n8dt...@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 14:46:51 +1100, "Raymond Hall"
<hallr...@bigpond.com>
| wrote:
|
| You are very kind and I didn't think you were pursuing anything more than
| natural curiosity. As for Daniel Barenboim, if I think long enough about
it, I
| can perhaps recall something of our conversations--it's been a long time.
As I
| recall something I'll post it here.
[good memories snipped ....]
I hope you do remember some stuff.
Many thanks for your reminiscences. Very interesting. I never knew that
conducting was such an early obsession with Barenboim, although I think most
people here have some knowledge of the fact that he aspires more towards the
Furtwänglerian school of conducting (whatever that *really* means). I did
know that Barenboim as an 11 or 12 year old met Furtwängler in 1954 in
Salzburg (the year Furtwängler caught pneumonia and died), whilst attending
conducting classes led by Igor Markevitch, and caught Furty at some
rehearsals there. So I suppose it should have been obvious that conducting
was always in the back of DB's mind, although it never occurred to me, that
as a well known pianist and early piano prodigy, he would eventually
progress on that path.
My memories, from film and book, and maybe urban legend, has it that there
was always a so-called "Barenboim clique", and one memory I have (of a TV
documentary together with Jacqueline du Pré) was a snide and sneering remark
(made during a TV Schubertiad) regarding some jazz music or other, as though
looking down in disdain upon a genre from their oh so comfy and airy
Schubertian cloud of bliss. I never really forgot those lofty elitist sneers
though, even though I am sure they came from Jacqueline. I was much too much
of an impressionable Previn groupy then, being young, and those sneers did
hurt <g> Just a few memories of mine.
Your remarks made regarding Barenboim's "genuine friendliness, his warmth,
his smile, his openness" are great to hear however, and I'll gladly take
your memories along my future trails.
David Wake
[apologies for long quote]
>
> The problem with this (from the critic's point of view) is that all
> too often the enthusiast makes the following leap of judgment:
> greatness = that which I like best. And while this is no doubt true
> in the subjective sense, in the world of comparisons of multiple
> recordings which is the critic's backyard, this position is
> completely inconsistent with one of his most important jobs: the
> consistent application of the highest standards both technically and
> interpretively to each and every performance he comes across. As
> Henry points out, there are subjective and objective elements to
> this process, but I would contend that a lot more of it is objective
> (particularly when the comparisons are ready to hand in the form of
> permanent documents such as recordings) than many music lovers
> cherishing favorite performances with obvious flaws would be willing
> to admit. A listener is perfectly within his rights to say "this
> flaw does not matter, I think it's great anyway." A critic does so
> at his peril, for along that path lies a relativistic and
> essentially arbitrary application of standards, with all the
> potential for confusion and chaos that this implies (in other words,
> you wind up with Gramophone). Indeed, a lack of such standards,
> intelligently and consistently applied, is the biggest problem
> afflicting the writing of criticism today.
>
This is where I find it hard to agree with you. You claim that there
exist "objective" standards for evaluating an interpretation. Now
there can only be such objective standards if someone could not
disagree with you about an interpretation without being ignorant or
irrational. Many of us here at RMCR and elsewhere frequently disagree
with you, and with each other, about the merits of this or that
interpretation. And, indeed, your reviews sometimes seem to suggest
that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant or irrational.
Here are two possibilities:
1) You are right: there are objective standards in interpretation, and
anyone who disagrees with you (or anyone else "in possession" of the
true standards) must be ignorant or irrational.
2) All assessments of interpretations are inherently subjective.
Disagreements about the merits of different interpretations are as
natural as disagreements about one's favorite food.
If you have a good argument for 1) I would be interested to hear it.
But, for now, I find option 2) more plausible. The reason I more
often agree with your reviews than Gramophone's is not that you have
an "objective" standard which Gramophone does not: it is merely that
my tastes more nearly coincide with yours.
David
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> writes:
:> . . . As Henry points out, there are subjective and objective elements to
:> this process, but I would contend that a lot more of it is objective
:> (particularly when the comparisons are ready to hand in the form of
:> permanent documents such as recordings) than many music lovers
:> cherishing favorite performances with obvious flaws would be willing
:> to admit. A listener is perfectly within his rights to say "this
:> flaw does not matter, I think it's great anyway." A critic does so
:> at his peril. . .
: This is where I find it hard to agree with you. You claim that there
: exist "objective" standards for evaluating an interpretation. Now
: there can only be such objective standards if someone could not
: disagree with you about an interpretation without being ignorant or
: irrational. Many of us here at RMCR and elsewhere frequently disagree
: with you, and with each other, about the merits of this or that
: interpretation. And, indeed, your reviews sometimes seem to suggest
: that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant or irrational.
It's worse than that: he quietly abandons his own stated standards when he
comes across a flawed performance that he likes, and insults anyone who
points out the flaws to him. You'll note that he never responded to the
specific points I raised about Barbirolli's Mahler 5th -- although he did
manage to find the time to lob random insults at me for reporting a
semi-humorous quote about Barbirolli's personality.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Phil Wood
<wwal...@rr.com> wrote in message
news:6vgf2uks1mmaaskrn...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Dec 2001 14:05:01 -0800, David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
>
> >WWallace wrote:
> >>And since you have placed yourself in the public arena, just what
qualifies you
> >>to critique any recording by a well-known artist?
> >
> >David Hurwitz wrote:
SNIP (lots of qualifications, experience etc.)
In my experience there are two useful kinds of critic - of music or any
other art. Those who I usually agree with, and those I usually disagree
with. All the rest are just inconsistent and useless when I am trying to
work out what to buy, go to see etc.
As far as I can tell training means nothing in this regard. In fact I
cannot see how anyone can look for any qualification to be a critic beyond
the ability to have an opinion and the ability to clearly transmit that
opinion via the written or spoken word. A better critic may be able to get
deeper into the nuances of his/her opinion on a work than the "Rock is crap"
statement often seen in rmcr - but that is a review that leaves you in no
doubt as to the reviewer's stance - even if one suspects that the review is
written before the work is heard!
Phil