Deryk Barker wrote (anent that shocking Kronos Quartet):

>a) Concentrate on style rather than substance

I think that a lot of what Kronos-phobes have against them stems from their
"attytood" (as folks in South Philadelphia would call it).  They just
aren't respectful enough of the august tone and manner which many CM fans
think proper performers should have.

>b) wreck the only currently in print recording of Charles Ives (singing
>and playing They are There!) with their own, unecessary, pointlessles
>pretentious accompaniment

Haven't heard that recording, so can't comment.  Did they dub their
accompaniment on an Ives recording? If so, it sounds like an experiment
that may not have come off well, but that doesn't bother me much; I think
that the best art is always experimental, and you can't expect to succeed
every time out.

>c) when they do wander into something like standard repertoire (Bartok and
>Shostakovich) they turn in such devastatingly bad performances that I know
>nobody who will say a kind word for them.

I don't know that their readings are bad, as such, but I would concede
that there are other quartets who are much more distinguished in this
repertoire.  But then no one can do everything equally well.  That's not
what we turn to the Kronos for; it's for the far-out stuff that no one else
would dare try.  (And again, I would be the first to admit that sometimes
they fall flat on their faces, but I don't see why that should earn them
the blazing enmity that often comes their way.) Actually, I don't quite
understand why they even try stuff like Bartok and Shostakovich, but I
suppose they feel they have to earn a rep in the conventional repertoire
too.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]