Jeff Dunn writes:

>A whopper from a shallow and unspecific fulmination by Paul Griffiths in
>the NY Times Sunday:
>
>"... in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of
>history, tonality has again become unavoidable."
>
>An incomprehensible statement from the master of the incomprehensible, the
>libretto to "Marco Polo."

To think that here is yet another example, in a major newspaper, of the
shameless abuse of the English language gives pause for concern.  Mr.
Griffith's naive pronouncement is indeed puzzling, and could itself have
been avoided with a single stroke of the pen.  Certainly, it would have
been far more prudent (and accurate) to say:

   "...in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of
   history, tonality has again become the preferred means, among composers
   whose principle interest is to pay lip service to the status quo, of
   compositional procedure".

Now that would have summed up the situation neatly, and without
misleading anyone.  The only thing that I see is unavoidable is the
ludicrous suggestion from ill-informed quarters that tonality has some kind
of monopoly on truth content.  Indeed, I have noticed in recent years this
trend at the NY Times; its prose is becoming increasingly sloppy, and the
thoughts behind it even sloppier.  Just recently, in my critique of William
Kapell's discs, I scolded Michael Kimmelman, an art critic and wannabe
pianist turned music critic (well, in fairness, he's jumped back and forth
over his career - is that what Yale does to you?), for bringing in the "w"
word - "it made me Weep".  - in his own review of those recordings.  Well,
that's just the kind of adolescent arts writing that gives criticism a bad
name.  That it found its way into the New York Times is as stunning as it
is sad.  For the right price, I'd be delighted to offer myself up as an
arts editor at the Times.  Of course, given the current state of affairs,
it's even more likely that I'll just take over someone's job there anyway.

John Bell Young