Van Cliburn Competition - Report #6
Trafton Bogert
Eleventh Van Cliburn International Piano Competition in Ft. Worth, TX.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 1:30 PM - Yunjie Chen - Age 20 - China - Cliburn
Foundation NY Steinway - "Pushing the Sound Barrier"
Bach - Partita No. 5 in G major, BWV 829
Mozart - Sonata in B-flat major, K. 570
Liszt - Mephisto Waltz No. 1
Muczynski - Toccata, Op. 15
Chen strode out and took a bow, but looked embarrassed to be in front
of all of those people. He took the Partita at a breathtaking tempo
with spit and polish. Some parts were so fast that they were actually
blurred, and the character of these pieces was lost. There were
occasional missed notes due to the sheer speed. There was another
embarrassed bow, as if he were thinking, "Oh, that audience is here.
Okay, I'll take this bow to pacify them and then get back to work."
The Mozart was restrained and held back to the point that it didn't
flow. Someone behind me even started snoring. I think he must have
been jabbed in the ribs, but he started up again a few minutes later.
Chen has a particular kind of stage presence. When he walks out, he
is looking stage-right. He quickly turns around to bow, looking
directly at the floor. Then as he is coming back up, he wheels around
so that he never makes eye contact with the audience. This is a shy
creature, to be sure.
He started the Liszt with a very light pedal, which I liked. He
quickly whipped up a great fury, which woke up anyone who was still
asleep. This rendition was extremely spirited. He literally threw
himself at the piano. The lyrical section was the calm before the
storm, and uninteresting. But the last section was as fast and loud
as I've ever heard. It is not humanly possible to play it that fast,
and there were lots of missed/dropped notes. In fact, the whole thing
nearly fell apart in two or three places. A friend of mine described
his performance as a circus act.
Perhaps it is because my second time to hear the Muczynski, but I
found more to enjoy. His style of alternating passivity with
heart-poundingly fast tempi worked for this piece.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 2:35 PM - Roger Wright - Age 27 - United States -
Cliburn Foundation NY Steinway - "Token American"
Schumann - Blumenstuck, Op. 19
Haydn - Sonata in C major, Hob. XVI:48
Frederic Rzewski - Winnsboro Cotton Mill Blues from North American
Ballads
Chopin - Sonata No. 2 in B-flat minor, Op. 35
The page for Roger Wright is an insert in the program. He was the
last contestant to be added, after Elizabeth Schumann (19), also from
the U.S. was pulled by her teacher, Sergei Babayan, because she was
too young. Wright is one of only two Americans of the thirty
contestants. My nickname for him is severe and unkind, but I simply
did not like his playing, and I don't think he should have been
included in this competition.
The Schumann was lyrically played, but it didn't hold my interest.
The soft parts were slow, and the loud parts were faster, and the
melody of this piece did not captivate me.
His Haydn was a play-through with dynamics and rubato. It was as if
he were told to hesitate here or there, but he didn't really feel it.
This added nothing to my understanding of Haydn. Wright reminds me a
lot of the average sort of contestant from previous competitions. The
playing is at a much higher level now, and it has passed him by.
Cotton Mill Blues started with low tremolo chords which might sound
like cotton mill machinery. It got very loud, and he probably
elicited more volume from the stage than anyone else thus far--nearly
as much as a symphony orchestra. Next was a winding series of notes
in the bass underneath some sort of melody of chords in the treble.
This section ended with rapidly repeated chords in both the highest
and lowest registers of the piano. Following was something which
alternately sounded like Gershwin, Scriabin, and a blues piece. The
audience loved this and gave him a standing ovation.
Wright had nothing meaningful to say about the Chopin sonata. The
first movement was somewhat labored, the second movement was another
play-through, and the "Funeral March" was too fast to be mournful. He
proceeded from one phrase to the next with no reflection on what he
had just played.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 3:40 PM - Tadashi Imai - Age 25 - Japan - Steinway
Hall NY Steinway
Bartok - Three Etudes, Op. 18
Takemitsu - Litany II
Liszt - Ballade No. 2 in B minor
Chopin - Scherzo No. 3 in C-sharp minor, Op. 39
Berg - Sonata, Op. 1
There should be a book about Etudes, and about how their composers
came to write them. Perhaps someone has already thought of this. I
don't recall hearing Bartok's Etudes before. The first was athletic
and loud, and the second was impressionistic.
Litany II sounded both French and Japanese and ended quietly. It did
not affect me emotionally in any way.
Imai generated a lot of noise in the Liszt, but this sounded like
really boring "program music."
I didn't feel that Imai had anything to say about the Scherzo. The
rapidly descending notes in the middle section were well-played, but
such a noble and delicate melody as this deserves something special.
His interpretation sounded like something Liberace might do.
The Berg Sonata was also entirely characterless.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 7:30 PM - Andrew Russo - Age 25 - United States -
Steinway Hall NY Steinway
Copland - Piano Variations
Crumb - A Little Suite for Christmas, A.D. 1979
Schubert - Fantasy in C major, D. 760 "Wanderer"
Russo's phrasing in the Copland was careful and deliberate, and he was
always looking for interesting harmonics, dynamics, and effects. I
thought this was one of the better interpretations of a 20th Century
piece.
Russo has a way of making modern music sound like more than just a
bunch of notes. This piece featured strumming of strings inside the
piano. A friend of mine, Marsha Neale, described it as
"finger-pickin' good." Much of the piece was mystical and hypnotic,
but it went on for a long time, and it had worn out its welcome by the
end. I wonder how long it will be before someone will win this
competition and never play a note of music written earlier than 1900.
Will it happen before the year 2100?
The "Wanderer Fantasy" was lethargic, and I barely recognized it as
Schubert. Most of it was either too slow and ponderous, or it was
pounded out. Russo did his early training with William Goodrum, a
protégé of Claudio Arrau. Arrau could really stretch things out at
times too, but he also had more to say.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 8:35 PM - Vassily Primakov - Age 21 - Russia -
Steinway Hall NY Steinway
Schubert - Twelve Landler from D. 366 and D. 790
Beethoven - Sonata in E-flat major, Op. 27, No. 1
Chopin - Sonata No. 3 in B minor, Op. 58
The Schubert was free and dance-like, sensitively played, and with
character. It was a delight to hear this repertoire, with which I was
unfamiliar.
The Beethoven was not as playful as I would imagine Beethoven would
have liked. The Allegro molto e vivace is one of my favorite
movements in all of Beethoven, sounding spooky with broken minor
chords, yet seductively beautiful. He didn't find the color which
that movement demands nor try to do anything special with it. There
were several slips throughout the sonata.
The slips continued in the Chopin. He tried to play the second
movement fast and light, but he didn't allow enough of a pause before
beginning the third movement. My criticism previously about the
adagio is that the outer sections of the Largo should be different in
character from the gentle inner theme. It sounded as if he were
trying to make them the same. I did not hear any sort of an
interpretation of this sonata.
Mon., 28 May 2001, 9:40 PM - Maxim Philippov - Age 29 - Russia -
Cliburn Foundation NY Steinway
Schumann - Fantasiestucke, Op. 12
Prokofiev - Sonata No. 6 in A major, Op. 82
The Schumann should be free and playful. He missed the subtle beauty
of these pieces with his big, Russian style.
Philippov's overbearing approach worked well for the Prokofiev. It
was loud, but there were lots of nice effects. Philippov performed at
a high technical level, as do all of them. This was thrilling and
exhilarating playing--some of the best Prokofiev I've heard. He is
most comfortable with his countrymen.
The twelve semifinalists will be announced tonight.
Andrew
compare with other major competitions?
I wonder if there is a particular reason for the shortage of American
competitors. And, indeed, British; and French.
Could someone tell me how long Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit compared to
Balakirev's "Islamey: an Oriental Fantasy?"
I've steadily been following these reports, thanks for the work you've
put in.
Icicle1139
quite interesting the extent to which I'm disagreeing with some of them. I'm
trying to listen to as many as possible via webcast (www.webcasting.com/vc/),
and I'm coming up with a number of different opinions. Besides the usual YMMV,
I assume there's a huge difference between being there and simply listening via
the webcast.
K
Trafton Bogert
might be due to technology. I have yet to meet the person with whom I
agree 50% of the time, so this doesn't surprise me.
Trafton Bogert
Trafton Bogert
writer was objecting to my nickname for Roger Wright ("Token
American") as well as to my critique of his playing. I must admit
that I had second thoughts the next day about the name for a couple of
reasons--one being that it wasn't even accurate. There was another
American in the competition. I intended for the name to be a comment
on the fact that there were so few Americans (for whatever reasons) as
much as I meant for it to be a comment on the contestant's playing. I
had decided to withdraw the name should I ever do a repost or put the
reviews on a web page. I do stand by what I wrote about his
performance. It was really quite lame and not up to the standard of
the other competitors.
The person who sent me this email signed it, but s/he did not have the
courage to post it here. The purpose of a newsgroup is to air various
viewpoints, so that is why I am posting it myself. Now, to respond to
individual points:
--"With only your ego and presumptuousness driving you, you misled
hundreds."--
Oh, I doubt that hundreds were mislead. I doubt that "hundreds" even
read the post, and of those who did, there may be a fair percentage
who would agree with me.
--"He was not my favorite performer, but if you could not tell his
refinement in the Haydn then you should simply stop trying to exert
influence."--
Exert influence? Not really. I'm not concerned about influencing
anyone. I'm just trying to provide some alternative criticism for
those who are interested. I don't know how many people read this
newsgroup, but I suspect it is a discriminating crowd which would not
take my opinion (nor scarcely anyone else's) as the last word on
anything. It sounds like since my opinion about one pianist, in
particular, is different from YOURS, that I shouldn't be posting
reviews. Which one of us really has the ego problem here?
--"Many I know who are all great fans of classical piano performances
consider you a complete ass based on your air headed comments."
I don't doubt what you say, but I wish some of these many people would
post responses to the group and air their views. After all, this
isn't a nursery school. Why are these many people so silent? As for
being an ass, well, I always try to speak from the heart. Sometimes I
end up coming off a bit cruel. Finding the line between (radical)
honesty and kindness can often be difficult (at least for me). All I
can tell you is that I do not try to be unkind to others, but it does
sometimes occur before I realize what has happened.
--"Please do not respond, as it will be deleted immediately."--
I think it says a great deal about you that you were too spineless to
either post your comments here or to use a valid email account
(assuming that your return address is, indeed, invalid).
--"Go back to pizza delivery until you learn something about piano."--
I described my profession at the beginning of report #4. I've never
tried pizza delivery. To me, it sounds as honorable as most any other
job, though somewhat more dangerous, what with hostile customers and
angry dogs. My credentials for writing reviews, and the fact that
they are practically nonexistent, are detailed at the beginning of
report #5.
===================
[The following email was sent to me from a hotmail account on 31 May
2001.]
Your presumed knowledge and stone hearing has put a mark on Roger
Wright that this young artist did not deserve. With only your ego and
presumptuousness driving you, you misled hundreds. It was the wrong
thing to do. He was not my favorite performer, but if you could not
tell his refinement in the Haydn then you should simply stop trying to
exert influence. I hope you feel proud for hurting one of the most
refined performers in the group. Many I know who are all great fans
of classical piano performances consider you a complete ass based on
your air headed comments. Please do not respond, as it will be deleted
immediately. Go back to pizza delivery until you learn something
about piano.
[I have omitted the signature.]
Henk van Tuijl
follow the competition through KTCU and WebCasting.com. The additional
information about how the candidates look and sound in real life is very
welcome.
I would have remained a lurker if it was not for the only member of this
group who cannot cope with diversity of opinion and lacks civil courage. It
seems that the time has come to say that I have no problems at all with your
opinions - let alone your opinion of Wright.
This does not mean that I always agree with you. On my list Katz was a
semi-finalist. It is not that I believe him to be a second Horowitz. I just
prefer his interpretations (and way of playing the piano) to those of many
other candidates.
Henk
Peter T. Daniels
If not, you violated their copyright; if so, you need to have said so
explicitly.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
JTT
a member or even a lurker of this group was posted WITHOUT my permission. I
only heard of Bogert's messages and this posting from a small group of
friends who discuss music intimately via email. His messages were forwarded
into the group.
I sent it with my real name and real address, despite Bogert's erroneous
implications. I sent it in private because I do not belong to this group
firstly, and secondly, I did not have the desire, nor energy, to get into a
public shouting match with this individual. I never even forward private
emails to friends without permission, let alone publish it in a public
forum. I have been deeply shaken since I have found out that this has
happened, I cannot begin to express the feeling of violation and anger his
indiscretion has caused.
I have spent an hour hunting this group down in order to demand a complete
apology and to reveal the gross violation this person has committed. I
think this reflects on his desire to judge from on high and his complete
lack of ethics and concern for individuals in general. Imagine my horror
today, when, in my personal email, someone wrote saying this Bogert person
had violated a basic trust by printing a private email in a public forum.
They didn't even know it was from me! They were shocked that he had gone
that low.
I feel deeply violated in that he choose to take that private mail and print
it in full to this forum. I believe it is wrong ethically, and shows the
arrogant disregard for another human being that this person possesses. I
think this reflects on the kind of person who dismisses this one and praises
this one in a field that is extremely difficult to survive in as it is. My
ego is such sir that I do not openly criticize artists I hate, in a pseudo
official format.
He wrote publicly, that's how I read his message. He invites criticism.
The fact that I choose to do so privately was simply my right.
But beyond all that, I abhor, this violation of my rights to privacy. You
can be sure that I am not going to forget this or let this pass lightly. I
demand a complete apology and a public statement proclaiming he realizes
publishing private email without the writers consent is wrong, for I would
never want this to happen to anyone else.
James T Thomas.
"Trafton Bogert" <tra...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:9E4D7E442008841C.849A0BA1...@lp.airnews.net...
JTT
"Henk van Tuijl" <h.van...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:C_JR6.231262$Uo2.5...@zwoll1.home.nl...
> Many thanks for your comments on the Van Cliburn Competition. I can only
> follow the competition through KTCU and WebCasting.com. The additional
> information about how the candidates look and sound in real life is very
> welcome.
>
> I would have remained a lurker if it was not for the only member of this
> group who cannot cope with diversity of opinion and lacks civil courage.
For your information, I did not even know what group Bogert was writing in
so it was hard to answer him in this forum. I hunted for it looking in all
the classical groups until finding his name and finally that post. I can
cope with diversity of opinion and do on a regular basis. I strongly felt
in this case, based on repeated listening and the opinions of others long
time music lovers that I greatly respect, that he had written Wright off so
scathingly as to be shocking, starting off with the "Token American". As
for civil courage, I have no problem stating what I said publicly and I will
do so now, repeatedly and often. I do not like competitions for the reason
that it pits musicians together before judges and critics so as to point to
a *single* correct way of playing - the ANTITHESIS of interesting music.
As for Wright, The Schumann was clear and moving, with an underlying wisdom
and wonderful articulation. Simple, as befitted the piece itself. Not
played to show off as one often finds in competitions. His Haydn was
refined with wit and structure. I felt he knew exactly what to do, why, and
he convinced me. Again, not playing up to the judges or to some frenetic
ideal of what the one way to play is. I at first hated the Cotton Mill
piece, (I guess I missed it at first), but after hearing what it was about
and listening to it again, a profound impression was left on me. The force
of expression was startling, the colors and technique were unusual and
moving. The Chopin was weak at first and he has performed it better.
However, by the time he hit the funeral march, he had found his way again.
The tempo was just right, and the voicings were wonderful. Overall, I would
have placed him in the final 12. He deserved that chance.
JTT
judgements generally reveal little about the music. Sometimes one gets the
feeling that you just didn't like the piece or were not paying much
attention. Statements like "the melody of the piece didn't captivate me"
really mean what? You are "captivated" usually by the melody but now you
aren't? You love the melody, but not this time. WHY? I mean for someone
who can dismiss someone with, "I don't think he should have been included
in this competition.", one would expect some real substance and weight.
But that is not what one gets with your opinions here. It is not only about
Wright, those shallow characterizations about your emotional reaction to
this and that are all over the place. For example, "The lyrical section was
the calm before the storm, and uninteresting." Well, is there something
wrong with that? Did you just not like the lyrical section? A calm before
the storm? I have heard people toss that off when describing music they
really love. Are we suppose to know it is bad because it was the calm
before the storm?
While passing judgement, if one reads closely, you admit to not being
particularly knowledgeable about the repertoire. You seem to blur when maybe
it is the repertoire you don't like with the quality of the performance.
For example "Perhaps it is because my second time to hear the Muczynski, but
I found more to enjoy." Well I can appreciate that, but you are combining
emotional reactions and judgment of material you have not heard with
performance critique. That is irresponsible. In review after review this
pattern can be found. Statements like something sounded French, or
something sounded boring or the Berg was characterless? What character do
you want the Berg to have? Do you even like Berg? What sounds French? Is
that a good thing?
I am sure you will clever retorts to all these comments, because you write
well. But I ask readers to please take with a heavy grain of salt these
judgements. Go out and listen to the performances yourself on the Cliburn
site. Before we dismiss someone as never even belonging here, find out for
yourselves and question the position of the person who is making that
judgement in a public forum. "Next was a winding series of notes in the bass
underneath some sort of melody of chords in the treble." That sir was the
PIECE he was playing, were you critiquing the piece or the performer, or the
clothes for that matter? That lack of distinction combined with your
pretense of humbleness doesn't work if you then distill it all down to the
"Token American" or the "Wanderer"
This slapstick pseudo-professional, one-liner characterizations of music
with no discussion of what an "interpretation" really should be is a
disservice to the artists whose lives you negatively impact. Sure, some may
enjoy reading this, it's like the sports page, but when you claim someone
didn't belong in this competition, you better back it up with some
substantial credentials and knowledge, because you are publicly
assassinating a hard working individual. YOU took my private email and
posted it without my consent, dragging me into this. I was never hoping to
get into the guts of what is wrong with your style, and your doing that
warrants an apology. But more importantly, I hope you hear it from several
others and in the future, just pause for a moment, and think "do I really
know what I am talking about?" I am not sure how good Wright was, I
admitted to not having even liked a piece at first, because I wasn't
familiar with it. But to me and many others, he has much potential. He
didn't play to the judges and competitions have certainly not left him
behind. You came across you were real sure how bad he was, and for that, you
owe him an apology.
James Thomas
"Trafton Bogert" <tra...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:EDBAB068DBDCCBD5.C7C4E482...@lp.airnews.net...
Andrys Basten
JTT <jamest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>cope with diversity of opinion and do on a regular basis. I strongly felt
>in this case, based on repeated listening and the opinions of others long
>time music lovers that I greatly respect, that he had written Wright off so
>scathingly as to be shocking, starting off with the "Token
American.'
I was shocked at how *lovingly* he he seemed to write Wright off.
Anyone curious about Wright can see for themselves his
possibilities (whether or not they agree with his choices) in a
video online filmed at someone's home after a recital he gave in
Washington D.C. in March for the series of the Philips Collection.
That recital was arranged by Jacques Leiser, who happens to be the
man who represented Richter and Michelangeli in the U.S. and who
knows what makes an interesting pianist. He made a trip across the
U.S. to attend that concert. The video is viewable at
http://share.videowave.com/play/?clipID=MCCA49A09AE36961BD5A63EB3EC
I can't believe anyone would find Wright's Haydn at this
Competition or his Rzewski's Winsboro Cottonmill Blues at any level
that would merit the destructive bent of the 'criticism' posted
here in the name of "honesty" as if Truth were being dispensed, the
allegedly "self-effacing" disclaimers notwithstanding. It's not
what people say but what they do and how they do it.
The Rwzewski piece has to do with the soul-destroying mechanical
and repetitive life in the cotton mills as it was experienced.
It's not pleasant 'blues' as in good humor but as a rawer basis for
the true ugliness of what they were subjected to. The instructions
in the score are said to be specific about balance and the way he
wants the rhythm to work... insistent, uncompromising, absolutely
strict, but also inflected with hair pin crescendos and decrescendos
in each repetition in the left hand. This was done so well that
there was pandemonium in the hall when it was over.
Then came the Chopin and I heard the nerves that resulted after
what must have been the adrenalin releases from both the piece itself
(an exhausting one) and the audience reaction, which was extreme and
lengthy. I had heard his Chopin live in the Australian competition
and, there, he was in total command of the effects he wanted in the
first movement. Here the first movement was nervous, and there were
errors.
The funeral melody, somewhat glib in Australia, was, however,
more internal and bittersweet in this one, but not heart-on-sleeve,
and more reflecting the kind of feelings one has within the rhythm
of a funeral procession, which I'm afraid I know too well. I
suppose there wasn't enough drama or rubato in it to suit those
looking for it, but this was truer, as an interpretation, for me,
than others I've heard, to the internal and external atmosphere of
a procession.
While the reporter draws this crowd's attention to the ridiculous
situation of Wright's not having been initially selected as if that
supports the writer's truly ludicrous, nasty and irrational
argument that Wright never should have been selected to compete, I
did not notice his also reminding the crowd that Wright's
Australian failure with competition judges so upset the critics,
audience, and competition announcer (who was quite frank about it
all during the competition itself) that ABC Broadcasting, which was
recording the event decided to sign Wright that same week for a
solo album of his live Competition programs while the winners were
relegated to slots on solo and concerto CDs shared with others.
This was released on Eloquence and has been discussed in the
Recordings newsgroup. The Competition folks were not ecstatic
about this development.
I wrote to the recordings newsgroup at the time the following:
> In the 2nd movement, I think he may have been hurt by an
> almost glib, very pretty but not at all bittersweet rendition
> of the funeral melody. Considering his stunning first
> movement, the almost pedestrian rendition of the slow movement
> was a bit disconcerting.
>
> BUT, I didn't hear anyone play the Sculthorpe "Between Five
> Bells" half as well. What had seemed a quite prosaic piece
> took on an aura of mystery when he was playing it. He found
> so much in it, it was hard to realize this was the same piece
> I'd heard other contestants play. Wonderful imagination,
> tonal control, color, absolute control with a sense of
> freedom. That is the piece which should be strongest on the
> CD.
While I had my caveats then and now, in no way does Wright's
playing merit the scathing and total dismissal he receives here or a
ranking of 30 in a field. Any reasonable person would have a hard
time ranking people in this manner anyway, and it speaks of an
ability or desire to think in b&w to do that. The Cliburn
Competition, realizing this, decided this year to have something like
the top 3 share the same prizes.
From
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/arts/27TOMM.html?searchpv=day06 :
"For the competition this year, Mr. Rodzinski has grappled with the
issue of ranking. For the first time, the top three winners will
each receive the same cash prize, $20,000, as well as two years of
tours and management provided by the foundation
>The tempo was just right, and the voicings were wonderful. Overall, I would
>have placed him in the final 12. He deserved that chance.
Obviously I would have too. But people can disagree on
interpretation. What I object to is what seemed to me
self-satisified pride in actually writing for the large audience here
(and for Google's newsgroup archives) that an intensely musical
pianist did not deserve to even be in this competition. That went
beyone the pale. There wasn't one musician who wasn't immensely
talented, though I heard plenty of raw nerves affecting musicality
and I heard interpretations that didn't suit me personally, but on
these things people will disagree.
- Andrys
--
http://andrys.com/books.html - Classical-music Vendor-searchboxes
http://andrys.com/coupons.html - Current coupons, sales
http://mp3.com/stations/classical_Oasis - My classical MP3 favorites
http://andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://andrys.com/argerich.html - Available Argerich recordings
Henk van Tuijl
to this group as you have done now I would have remained a lurker. Opinions
vented in public should be commented upon in public - unless there is an
agreement to continue the discussion in private.
I appreciate your staunch support of Wright. I'll listen to his
interpretations again.
BTW, is attacking the competence of juries and laureates of international
competitions really the best defence of competitors who do not make it in
one competition? Wasn't Wright one of the laureates in Australia?
Henk
"JTT" <jamest...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:LmWR6.44589$v5.37...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
JTT
I did not want to get into a shouting match in public. I never was on this
board before nor did I read his post here. Anyone who would rank young
artists so flippantly, and then take those rankings so seriously, is not
doing them a service. I see Bogert has not yet apologized for his
indiscretion. So I will continue to post. Is music a ranking??? Number 1,
Number 2... no it is not.
My notes are less about Wright, and more about the arrogance and
cluelessness of this man. I have NO PROBLEM with the differences in taste
we all share. It is when one acting as a reporter and a critique presumes to
rank the competition. He had Wright last before he heard the rest. First
of all, there is no last. There are only the 12 that go on. Secondly,
preconceived biases make matters worse.
James
\"Henk van Tuijl" <h.van...@home.nl> wrote in message
news:e9aS6.237202$Uo2.5...@zwoll1.home.nl...
Jonathan Yungkans
> I received the enclosed email (below) to my account on 31 May. The
> writer was objecting to my nickname for Roger Wright ("Token
> American") as well as to my critique of his playing.
I don't blame him on either count, the latter for reasons I'll go into
below, and the former because the practice of "tokenism," and its
connection to prejudice and racial hatred over history, has tainted
the term "token" to a near-irreversible degree. I realize you may not
have meant it in this way, but to some, the use of that term in the
way that you did can connote an attitude akin to calling a person with
black skin a six-letter word beginning with "n." I know you really
did not mean to do that, but perhaps you did not consider this at the
time you posted.
> I must admit
> that I had second thoughts the next day about the name for a couple of
> reasons--one being that it wasn't even accurate. There was another
> American in the competition.
True, so why think about using that term in the first place,
considering all the political baggage mentioned above?
> I intended for the name to be a comment
> on the fact that there were so few Americans (for whatever reasons) as
> much as I meant for it to be a comment on the contestant's playing. I
> had decided to withdraw the name should I ever do a repost or put the
> reviews on a web page. I do stand by what I wrote about his
> performance.
Let's look at that, shall we? You start with this statement:
> > The page for Roger Wright is an insert in the program. He was the
> > last contestant to be added, after Elizabeth Schumann (19), also
> > from the U.S. was pulled by her teacher, Sergei Babayan, because she
> > was too young. Wright is one of only two Americans of the thirty
> > contestants. My nickname for him is severe and unkind, but I simply
> > did not like his playing, and I don't think he should have been
> > included in this competition. It was really quite lame and not up
> > to the standard of the other competitors.
One thing that could be implied by your emphasis is perhaps a bias by
the fact Wright didn't make the original selection, thus implying him
as not worthy of participating. If you're there acting as a
supposedly impartial reviewer, how Wright got to the competition is
basically irrelevant and should make no difference in how you evaluate
his playing.
This bias is reinforced by your using a self-admittedly "severe and
unkind nickname," immediately before "but I simply did not like his
playing, and I don't think he should have been included in this
competition" reinforces the impression of bias. It's one thing not to
have liked Wright's playing, but quite another to state whether or not
Wright should have been allowed to compete. The fact you use this
"nickname," one with such negative overtones, in the manner that you
do here undercuts your explanation of using it as "a comment on the
fact that there were so few Americans" and places doubts on your
honesty in using it.
You go on to state, regarding Wright's performance of a Haydn sonata:
> > His Haydn was a play-through with dynamics and rubato. It was as if
> > he were told to hesitate here or there, but he didn't really feel it.
> > This added nothing to my understanding of Haydn.
This much is relevant, but then you go on:
> > Wright reminds me a lot of the average sort of contestant from previous
> > competitions. The playing is at a much higher level now, and it has
> > passed him by.
Other than the fact this statement, phrased as generally as it is, has
nothing to do with how Wright played this particular composition, the
wording is condescending to the point of being snide and dismissive.
If his playing or interpretation were unimpresive, that could be
mentioned in a few words, or phrased in a manner more directly related
to the piece at hand. But you write, "The playing is at a much higher
level now, and is has passed him by." The attitude that "we're above
this kind of playing" sports an elitism as childish as it is
needlessly destructive.
I'm not going to quibble over Wright's performance, which I thought of
more highly than you did. I will take issue, though, over your
near-slanderous and irrelevant attacks while posing with a mantle of
critical authority. If you want to be a critic, then kindly conduct
yourself with the appropriate maturity, decorum and objectivity. I
find virtually none of that in your writing on this thread, which
makes your cavalier handling of Wright's recital all the more
disgraceful and irresponsible.
Now, back to the post at hand, you write:
>
> The person who sent me this email signed it, but s/he did not have the
> courage to post it here.
There you go again. Was it courage, or perhaps a concern, out of
respect or decorum to not unduly embarrass you by sharing his views
publically? In either case, the issue by itself is irrelevant, but
your stating it in the way that you have is cutting, dismissive and
unduly confrontational. The fact this person posted it privately
means whatever was said was simply between you and the writer, so
there was really no reason to go on the offensive here.
> The purpose of a newsgroup is to air various viewpoints,
But because he did not post to you on the newgroup, this fact does not
apply.
> so that is why I am posting it myself.
Without procuring permission to quote and comment publically on the
individual's PRIVATE e-mail, I might add, which the writer has
mentioned in this thread. That is not only unprofessional -- and
while you act in the self-appoiinted capacity that you do in this
competition, you are on the same leganistic plain as a professional
critic as to how you should conduct yourself -- but morally bankrupt,
as well. It is the literary equivalent of rape.
Now, to respond to individual points:
>
> --"With only your ego and presumptuousness driving you, you misled
> hundreds."--
>
> Oh, I doubt that hundreds were mislead. I doubt that "hundreds" even
> read the post, and of those who did, there may be a fair percentage
> who would agree with me.
But there is still the potential for doing so because of the nature of
this newsgroup, the fact these messages are archived and anyone
searching under "Cliburn" or "Cliburn Competition" can find it. That
potential cannot be ignored.
>
> --"He was not my favorite performer, but if you could not tell his
> refinement in the Haydn then you should simply stop trying to exert
> influence."--
>
> Exert influence? Not really. I'm not concerned about influencing
> anyone. I'm just trying to provide some alternative criticism for
> those who are interested. I don't know how many people read this
> newsgroup, but I suspect it is a discriminating crowd which would not
> take my opinion (nor scarcely anyone else's) as the last word on
> anything. It sounds like since my opinion about one pianist, in
> particular, is different from YOURS, that I shouldn't be posting
> reviews. Which one of us really has the ego problem here?
Again, this was a private issue before you felt inclined to bring it
up here. Whose ego felt so inclined that he had to defend himself or
dominate the situation that he had to do so in public, and without the
writer's permission?
>
> --"Many I know who are all great fans of classical piano performances
> consider you a complete ass based on your air headed comments."
>
> I don't doubt what you say, but I wish some of these many people would
> post responses to the group and air their views. After all, this
> isn't a nursery school. Why are these many people so silent? As for
> being an ass, well, I always try to speak from the heart. Sometimes I
> end up coming off a bit cruel. Finding the line between (radical)
> honesty and kindness can often be difficult (at least for me). All I
> can tell you is that I do not try to be unkind to others, but it does
> sometimes occur before I realize what has happened.
I would seriously disagree, considering your comments on Wright as
well as the nature of music criticism in general. It is one thing to
write and send out an e-mail hurridly before realizing the full import
of either how you phrased your views or those views themselves. Music
criticism, on the other hand, takes concentration, considerable
thought and the weighing of pros and cons of the peformance and
performers. It is not something one could or generally should rush.
Expediency can be a factor, especially when there are tight deadlines
likethe ones I imagine you have been facing, but this does not
preclude the critic or reviewer's responsibility to be fair and
objective enough to give an accurate account of the performance based
on its own merits, not on outside factors. A reviewer has that
responsibility to his or her readers, it it cannot be shirked or blown
off by saying, "I didn't know what I was doing until after I did it,"
as you basically have.
>
> --"Please do not respond, as it will be deleted immediately."--
>
> I think it says a great deal about you that you were too spineless to
> either post your comments here or to use a valid email account
> (assuming that your return address is, indeed, invalid).
I won't justify the writer's comment here. Your branding that person
as "spineless" in a public forum is another matter. It's not only
inflammatory but juvenile, and you were the one who decided to air
this message. Until then, you had no reason to feel threatened on
this forum.
>
> --"Go back to pizza delivery until you learn something about piano."--
>
> I described my profession at the beginning of report #4.
Which is, quoting you:
> > Knowing that I was not in possession of all the requisite skills
> > to be a professional musician, I sought a combined degree in
> > computer information systems and accounting in college. Now I
> > provide the technical support for a mainframe/client-server
> > accounting system at a large organization in Dallas.
Which leaves me a puzzling question: If you work in a profession that
demands such attention on relevant detail and logic, why does your
review lack these things to such a degree? There are some relevant
comments on Wright's performance, but not the degree of detail or
logic of argument that would show me the full validity of your views
-- only the irrelevant facts and opinions about Wright that weaken
your case irretrievably.
> I've never
> tried pizza delivery. To me, it sounds as honorable as most any other
> job, though somewhat more dangerous, what with hostile customers and
> angry dogs. My credentials for writing reviews, and the fact that
> they are practically nonexistent, are detailed at the beginning of
> report #5.
Which, again quoting you, is:
> > I have no official association other than ticket holder, but an
> > unofficial one as self-appointed critic. Neither do I have any
> > professional training as a musician or journalist, as is probably
> > obvious....
This does not excuse you to any degree from adhering to standards of
fairness and relative objectivity, since you are acting in the
position of a critic. If you are going down the read in a car and you
are sitting in the driver's seat, you can't say, "I don't know how to
drive, so I'm not responsible if I get into a wrect." No way. You're
there, so you're responsible. Same thing with criticism. Take it
from someone who writes classical music reviews and articles himself
-- you can't go there. If you have any doubts as to my credentials,
feel free to read my reviews at www.inkpot.com/classical. Meanwhile,
how about acting a little more like a mature adult, huh?
Jonathan Yungkans
Mikeq1139
his reviews of the Cliburn competition performers. Are you all writing the
Fort Worth Telegram and the Dallas Morning News criticizing their reviews of
the Competition? Trafton screwed up by printing the private email without
permission, no question. But, IMHO, he is offering a valuable service in
giving his opinion of the performers. He is clearly offering his reviews as
opinion; they are evidently biased, and I appreciate this much more than if he
was pretending some greater, unbiased critical insight into the performances.
He is also clearly working very hard in getting these reviews out, and I for
one appreciate it. These performers knew, or at least should have known, that
the Cliburn competition is highly publicized, and they would be risking this
type of criticism of their performances. That's the danger of being a
performer, and of entering such a competition: publicity works both ways.
I think the writer(s) who are spending so much time criticizing Trafton would
be better served by offering their own reviews of the concerts.
Mike
JTT
"Mikeq1139" <mike...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010602221106...@ng-mp1.aol.com...
> I, personally, am really sick of reading these endless attacks of Trafton
and
> his reviews of the Cliburn competition performers. Are you all writing
the
> Fort Worth Telegram and the Dallas Morning News criticizing their reviews
of
> the Competition?
I have read many of those and find that I often disagree with their
assessment of the music, particularly the Star-Telegram. But I have no
problem with that, it is to be expected when discussing music. It is when
the music is not discussed as much as personality traits, appearances,
dress, and hidden motivations that are used to dismiss people outright.
Trafton screwed up by printing the private email without
> permission, no question. But, IMHO, he is offering a valuable service in
> giving his opinion of the performers. He is clearly offering his reviews
as
> opinion; they are evidently biased, and I appreciate this much more than
if he
> was pretending some greater, unbiased critical insight into the
performances.
But he is. He makes the admission of his own personal views are biased, and
admits humble background etc... but then reads into performers faces,
motions and dress things only that a God could understand. So how he paints
himself then how he acts are two different things.
> He is also clearly working very hard in getting these reviews out, and I
for
> one appreciate it. These performers knew, or at least should have known,
that
> the Cliburn competition is highly publicized, and they would be risking
this
> type of criticism of their performances. That's the danger of being a
> performer, and of entering such a competition: publicity works both ways.
Yes , their are dangers of being a performer, and dangers for one who
dismisses people with an admitted cruelty on a public forum. The sensitive
and artistic performers, and every on of these 30 are just that, can be hurt
and set back. It has happened, and will continue to happen. They are the
ones walking out on that lonely stage.
> I think the writer(s) who are spending so much time criticizing Trafton
would
> be better served by offering their own reviews of the concerts.
>
> Mike
Maybe they are, by trying to set the record straight.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:
: I received the enclosed email (below) to my account on 31 May.
I have deleted the email part without reading it because the content
is none of my business. If you are going to continue posting to Usenet,
however, you should know that it is considered a gross breach of netiquette
to post private email without the permission of the sender.
-----
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
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Henk van Tuijl
attack Bogert's privately because of the opinions he vented in public. I
also don't get it that you did so because you did not "want to get into a
shouting match in public". And I "don't get it" at all why you wrote in your
private posting to Bogert that you did not want to hear what he had to say
in return.
Again, I read Bogert's comments with pleasure. Of course I disagree more
with him now he is commenting upon the interpretations of semi-finalists. It
is no longer a matter of competence. Each round the (musical) personality of
the candidates plays a more important role.
Henk
"JTT" <jamest...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:CtcS6.47723$v5.39...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
Mary Counce
and
printing the private email without
> permission, no question. But, IMHO, he is offering a valuable service in
> giving his opinion of the performers. He is clearly offering his reviews
as
> opinion; they are evidently biased, and I appreciate this much more than
if he
> was pretending some greater, unbiased critical insight into the
performances.
> He is also clearly working very hard in getting these reviews out, and I
for
> one appreciate it. These performers knew, or at least should have known,
that
> the Cliburn competition is highly publicized, and they would be risking
this
> type of criticism of their performances. That's the danger of being a
> performer, and of entering such a competition: publicity works both ways.
>
> I think the writer(s) who are spending so much time criticizing Trafton
would
> be better served by offering their own reviews of the concerts.
>
> Mike
I agree with Mike. I was enjoying reading his reviews. Not everybody
agrees with his opinion, so state your opinion and don[t attack him.
When did the word, token, get to be a slanderous word?
Mary
Henk van Tuijl
also don't get it that you did so because you did not "want to get into a
shouting match in public". And I "don't get it" at all why you wrote in your
private posting to Bogert that you did not want to hear what he had to say
in return.
Again, I read Bogert's comments with great pleasure. Of course I disagree
more with him now he is commenting upon the interpretations of
semi-finalists.
It is no longer a matter of competence: each round the (musical) personality
of the candidates plays a more important role.
Judging the (musical) personality of highly talented young people should be
a delicate task. In reality it is not. The only standard I use are my
personal
likes and dislikes. Ranking the candidates is for me answering the question:
how likely is it that I want to hear him or her again after the competition?
A few weeks ago a former member of an international jury said on the Belgian
radio that he used to judge candidates independent of his personal likes or
dislikes.
If this is true the only standard left is the lack of mistakes - of any
kind.
This may explain why the learning context of highly talented young musicians
seems to be one of instrumental avoidance rather than instrumental reward.
Trafton Bogert
email publicly on the newsgroup. At the time, I thought it was
justified. According to the email, the writer was not providing
another method for me to respond, because any response which I
attempted would be deleted. It was the verbal equivalent of placing a
bomb in my house and sealing all of the exits. Therefore, I wrote a
reply here in order to generate discussion, but I withheld the name at
the bottom of the email so that it would be anonymous. I considered it
appropriate to include the text of the message so it would be fairly
represented, instead of merely attempting to paraphrase it. There was
even the admission in one of the posts that the person's colleagues
did not recognize it as having been written by anyone in particular.
Nevertheless, a number of readers have expressed their disapproval
about my breach of netiquette. Therefore, I humbly apologize, and I
will not make that mistake again.
Thanks for all of your comments, both favorable and unfavorable. I
will make a sincere attempt to both provide alternative commentary
about the competition and avoid making statements which will cause
offense. I consider the quality of my writing to be far below that of
published critics and my knowledge to be limited. Furthermore, there
is so little time that I must practically pound the submissions out
before the next session begins. If I had a bit more time to reflect,
I might do slightly (but not significantly) better. For those of you
who continue to find objections to my commentaries, I encourage to you
to post replies here, if you deem it worthy of your time. Thanks for
your patience.
Trafton Bogert
Trafton Bogert
the discussion, but what I've seen has been highly unfavorable. I
just realized how I could have better handled this situation. I
should have invited the person "who sent me the severely critical
email" to post those comments publicly so that I could respond
publicly. Perhaps this would have lessened the degree of censure I'm
presently sustaining. I will to try to complete these postings,
though I'm not sure I have the stomach for this much abuse. Four
years from now, it may be better to put up a web page with the
postings, if I write them at all. I really prefer to post them here,
because it is enjoyable to read the replies and rebuttals. However, I
do not seem to be capable of writing anything right now without
offending a great many people, and that is quite discouraging to me.
Again, I offer my deepest-felt apologies to the original person I
offended and the numerous people who followed.
Henk van Tuijl
Henk
"Trafton Bogert" <tra...@airmail.net> schreef in bericht
news:083BB6DD272F0F97.B6894377...@lp.airnews.net...
Peter T. Daniels
Bogert wrote:
>
> A follow-up comment.... I haven't yet finished wading through all of
> the discussion, but what I've seen has been highly unfavorable. I
> just realized how I could have better handled this situation. I
> should have invited the person "who sent me the severely critical
> email" to post those comments publicly so that I could respond
(yes, that's the most appropriate approach)
> publicly. Perhaps this would have lessened the degree of censure I'm
> presently sustaining. I will to try to complete these postings,
> though I'm not sure I have the stomach for this much abuse. Four
> years from now, it may be better to put up a web page with the
> postings, if I write them at all. I really prefer to post them here,
> because it is enjoyable to read the replies and rebuttals. However, I
> do not seem to be capable of writing anything right now without
> offending a great many people, and that is quite discouraging to me.
> Again, I offer my deepest-felt apologies to the original person I
> offended and the numerous people who followed.
But you really ought to explain why you talk about the women's clothes
...
Jonathan Yungkans
> I agree with Mike. I was enjoying reading his reviews. Not everybody
> agrees with his opinion, so state your opinion and don[t attack him.
I have no problem with opinions, which is why I did not write about
Trafton's opinions even though I disagreed with him about Wright.
What I wrote about so strongly was what I interpreted as (1) the
apparent show of bias against Wright being allowed to compete in the
Cliburn at all, which was unwarrented and frankly none of Trafton's
concern as a reviewer, and (2) his using of a private e-mail on a
public post without the writer's permission and in an unnecessarily
combative manner.
Even if one is not a writer or reviewer by trade, there is a code of
conduct that still applies when that person acts in such a capacity as
Trafton has been. This does not preclude negative opinions, but it
does mean a degree not being overtly destructive in voicing those
opinions as well as degree of fairness in coming to them. As a
reviewer and professional writer, I was appalled that, in my opinion,
Trafton appeared to cross the line on both counts and wrote
accordingly.
There have been times when the way the phrasing of a review has
terrible results. One example is Harold Schonberg's stating, after
Martha Argerich played Mozart's C major concerto, K 503, that Argerich
had no understanding of that composer's music. Writing that a pianist
played a work in a manner with which the reviewer did not agree is one
thing, but saying the artist has no understanding of it is another
thing altogether.
As a result of the way this review was phrased, and the way it is said
that Argerich took that review, she to this day has played virtually
no Mozart -- somthing which, after hearing and reviewing Argerich's
EMI live recording of K 503, I find disastrous. An Argerich set of
Mozart late concertos in the more delicate style in which she played
that music in the late 1970s, would have been priceless.
Granted, I'm not talking about Dresden china or Waterford crystal when
I'm talking about Cliburn competitors. But I am talking about people
with feelings who would get much more out of constructively phrased
criticism than from some of the things Trafton has written. This is
also part of the responsibility of a reviewer, and one that should be
taken very seriously.
>
> When did the word, token, get to be a slanderous word?
It's been one for a quite a while, as much as it's been used for
referring to "token blacks," "token women," and so on.
Jonathan Yungkans
Andrys Basten
Mikeq1139 <mike...@aol.com> wrote:
>I, personally, am really sick of reading these endless attacks of Trafton and
>his reviews of the Cliburn competition performers.
Good. Then you have an inkling of how some others will feel with
Trafton's endless personal attacks on musicians just making a start
on a possibly professional life, who are *offering* music just as
Trafton is *offering* reviews. He is doing a sort of solo recital
of impressions as well as passionate denunciations of BASIC worth
(Wright) and people like Iodenitch, evaluated for what Trafton
*feels* is Iodenitch's feeling for his own brilliance (to read
Trafton's take) and his 'manipulation' of the audience. This has
no place in reviews of individual programs.
As soon as musicians expose themselves in programs and solo
offerings they will get criticism. That it be germane rather than
an attack on their basic worth or their personalities and what a
listener feels may be what they are thinking or feeling, is
important. Trafon has set himself up as a person who can make
denunciations of competitors' personalities (scathingly so) or
their intrinsic worth rather than what they're showing in one or
two pieces.
Like the musicians, he will get feedback too. Now he will
understand what it is to offer something of yourself and get
negativity back where it may be due. He's no more immune to it
than anyone who offers anything publicly. It IS easier to sit and
make sport of young pianists or tell us the pianists must think
very highly of themselves but it is an unpleasant read except for
those who don't mind it. The sports arena is like that.
Andrys Basten
Mary Counce <tch...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I agree with Mike. I was enjoying reading his reviews. Not everybody
>agrees with his opinion, so state your opinion and don[t attack him.
>
>When did the word, token, get to be a slanderous word?
Mary, surely you jest. In case you've not paid attention in the
last 25 years (but you seem intelligent to me so you may just not
have given it much thought), 'token' people are called that because
they are considered taken as a result of being required to take
someone from a group, with no evidence of a person meeting
requirements. Believe me, Wright meets requirements and then some.
That you might believe otherwise is sad. That Dan Koren likes to
call Perahia and Schiff "mediocrities" is just more of the same. I
may disagree with their interpretations and their approaches (and I
generally do), but anyone who calls them 'mediocrities' is narrow
and needing to put people below them. Anyone sitting down and
totally dismissing totally performers based on his own impressions of a
couple of pieces or bent on telling us how a competitor seems to
think highly of himself and his 'secluded brilliance' is another
matter. While you may love this kind of reporting, others of us
don't. And you will have to see feedback from those of us who feel
differently from you.
That's what forums tend to be about.
Andrys Basten
Trafton Bogert <tra...@airmail.net> wrote:
>There have been a number of complaints about my responding to this
>email publicly on the newsgroup. At the time, I thought it was
>justified. According to the email, the writer was not providing
>another method for me to respond, because any response which I
>attempted would be deleted. It was the verbal equivalent of placing a
>bomb in my house and sealing all of the exits.
Much too melodramatic though. It was feedback and the person
didn't seem to want to have an exchange but responded to what he
felt were undue and somewhat destructive statements on a public
board, posts from which are often copied and sent to many other
forums (as well as archived for posterity), and you did request
feedback. When I worry about embarrassing someone, i write them
privately.
No one sealed your exits. You obviously can continue reporting
and evaluating, and there's just no problem. You can speak to any
of the points made. Had you kept the actual note private you would
not have this furor. It just led others to say what we think.
Before all this, I read you quietly, with not a little horror as
to your tendency to write putdowns of people who do a funny little
smile on stage. You call one 'manipulative' or interpret for us
that he seems surprised to see a crowd of people due to his being
wrapped up in his 'secluded brilliance' (a concept given us twice
about one individual).
I'm sorry, but it made me feel dirty just to read it, though as I
told you I am appreciative of your reporting on the musical aspects
and on the feel of the auditorium as well as getting that in
real-time. It's just that you're not immune to what others think
when you choose to do this anymore than performers of music are
when they offer us music. Last year I sent you private kudos
because I enjoyed some of your reports.
>Thanks for all of your comments, both favorable and unfavorable. I
>will make a sincere attempt to both provide alternative commentary
>about the competition and avoid making statements which will cause
>offense.
Not to worry, in general. Different takes on just truly musical
things will often cause offense but that's expected. People hold
to their own preferences quite often and people here will even say,
as you have, that certain top pianists are "mediocrities" - a
syndrome I hope to see less of.
Let us know how the pieces or programs go. I just get in a bad
mood when I see a negative interpretation of a young performer's
smile when the interpretation seems based on visceral dislike
though. Doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to do what you feel is
needed for you but that you will likely get feedback when you do.
From any competition critic, pro or amateur, I'd just rather hear
what it is about the playing of a piece that is liked or not liked
though preferably in music known and understood by the critic
before making harsh judgments. I'm not even at all averse to
gossip as long as it's based on some reality.
>I might do slightly (but not significantly) better. For those of you
>who continue to find objections to my commentaries, I encourage to you
>to post replies here, if you deem it worthy of your time. Thanks for
>your patience.
I think you really didn't know how some of this was coming off.
I think many of us read you silently, preferring not to say what we
were thinking as we read, but when you made one feedback public,
hoping for discussion of that feedback, you just changed some of us
into less quiet readers. Thanks for your attempt to understand
what we're saying. It's not your reporting of the events, which I
certainly appreciate and did 4 years ago too, but the addition of
too much negativity about personalities or basic aptitude that's
inappropriate with the information at hand.
The complexity of these competitions is given shortshrift when
you can say one player was #30 of 30. Even the competitions never
do that. There is too much to evaluate and too many pluses and
minuses in each player and as you know, knowledgeable people differ
widely on all these things.