An indication of how stupid Anthony Tommasini is - truly unforgiveably,
mind numbling oblivious to reason and logic - is found in this morning's
New York Times:

   "The Emerson String Quartet is becoming a victim of its own popularity.
   Last year tickets for its concert at the Mostly Mozart Festival at
   Alice Tully Hall sold out almost as soon as they were made available.
   So for this summer's festival the Emerson Quartet was presented in
   Avery Fisher Hall on Thursday night.  That a string quartet can
   attract a nearly full house to a 2,700-seat concert hall is a triumph
   of a kind."

   "But ideally chamber music should be performed in intimate spaces.
   Even Alice Tully Hall, which was built for chamber music, is not
   intimate enough.  Avery Fisher Hall, with its huge auditorium, is
   far too vast."

Now, this from the pen of a critic who is among the forefront of
bewailing the death of classical music, among the forefront of screaming
and chanting that we need to throw out all of the old repertory and
institute new rep.  And yet when that old rep proves itself able - in
the hands of able practioners - to attract a large crowd, it becomes and
embarassment.  How dare the public like Beethoven.  And yet, if 2500 people
showed up for some piece of chamber music that Tommasini likes, I rather
dout he would complain "Well this hall is just too large for this piece by
Thompson" Instead he would be raving "This proves the power of this work
and why it should be played over and over again!"

The truth of the matter is simple, the New York Times employs a group
of writers who areslightly less biased than those who were employeed
by Pravda.  And a large part of the problem with classical music in our
society can be placed at their feet.  They waste thousands of words of
public space a year pushing their own stupid agendas, from a collection
of minds whose insight into music is limited to the understanding of the
average carbonated 14 year old "My stuff rocks!  everything else sucks!"

The counter argument is so simple and obvious that merely having to state
it indicates that no *discussion* is going on:  there are often public
performances of works under less than ideal conditions.  Conditions which
have as much to do with support of the work and a creation of a sense of
common purpose as with the particular performance.  These would include
performances on public occasions, out of doors for most concert music,
large hall performances of chamber music and premieres of new works.
Tommasini is willing to endlessly press for such performances that
support his ideals.  But not those that do not support his ideals.

As long as our public discourse about music is dominated by the dishonesty
which reigns - and rains - from those publications of national reach, as
long as the entirety of large scale writing on classical music is written
by individuals of such low intellectual and artistic honest as this - there
is very little hope for classical music.  A system which is rotten to its
core and which is immune from any criticism or reform.  What do words mean
when one man reaches millions and the other mere hundreds? Nothing.

Stirling S Newberry
[log in to unmask]