My question would be...why do you continue to read NY Times reviews if they
infuriate you so much?

First of all, critics have been an important part of classical music since
its inception.  By suggesting getting rid of all critics, we would have
lost such voices as Schumann, Hofmann, Nietzsche, Busoni, Andrew Porter,
Paul Griffiths...etc.  Even if I don't agree with all of their writings,
I find them interesting to read.  It seems to me that if the NY Times got
rid of their classical music critics, what would be left to write about
classical music? Would you suggest abolishing the entire Living Arts
section from this paper? I find Tommasini a bit recidivistic also, but
the fact of the matter is, he is giving exposure to classical music and
musicians.

>First we need to kill all the critics.

Are you going to commit suicide then? How is your banter any less of a
critique than Tommasini's?

>but the fact is that people like Anthony have been running classical
>music, and determining what is and is not written about it, for years.

Only in one paper in one country.  I'm certain there are MANY influential
musicians who don't give a damn about Mr. Tommasini.

>It hasn't, I assure you, been people like me, because people like me have
>only one decision - do we cut the check for people like him and kiss his
>ass, or do we just cut the check, or do we do something else.

Can't someone as creative of yourself come up with some other options?

>He complains about snoozers during a NYP performance.  Well of course,
>their conductor, while he is a disciplined orchestra builder and engaging
>speaker - is a dull conductor.  Dull is bad, for those who aren't
>following.

You seem to be simply reenforcing Tommasini's point.  Dull, or "business
as usual" is how he described the NYP's performance.  Also, you were just
blaming everything on Tommasini....now the blame has shifted to Masur? How
do you expect anyone to be 'following' such a rambling argument? Focus!

>OK - so first he supports composers who want to shrink classical music
>down, and then he wonders where everyone is - and sounds a call to arms.
>To pursue a goal, and then complain because you have attained it is called
>either insanity - or marriage.

Or perhaps he's giving an objective assessment of Martino's music without
regard to his stance as a person or proponent of any type of music.

>I know I really shouldn't write yet another post on how stupid, greedy,
>contradictory and unpleasant the New York Times critical staff is - as a
>target for invective they rate slightly easier than college cafeteria food
>- but they do keep repeating themselves, and *somebody* keeps cutting them
>checks.

I, for one, look forward to the articles.  They are obviously provocative
to both of us, which, I think, is a good thing.

>Well, actually, yes it is his fault, and the fault of which every group of
>geniuses were *so* afraid that some post 1950 music might find its way on
>to the NYPO's programs that they were willing to appoint the most boring
>celebrity conductor this side of "read it through once and the collectors
>will lap it up" Jaarvi.

Contemporary music has always been a part of their programming, and Masur
is no exception.  You seem to be lumping together all post-1950 music.

>Discussion of art and what used to be called "the humanities" is, simply
>put, at a stage of laughable degeneracy.

Funny you should mention that.  Posts like yours seem to be exacerbating
the very problem you're complaining about rather than doing anything
constructive to solve it.

>what do I mean by this? If people ripped off Metallica the way they rip
>off Brahms and Beethoven and Mahler - and yes Schoenberg and Webern and
>Stockhausen - their would be hell, and several law firms, to pay.

THERE are people who rip of Metallica.  In fact, one could easily point to
many contemporary bands that Metallica themselves have 'ripped off'.  Your
lack of knowledge in the realm of pop music makes your comparison vapid.

Marcus Maroney
[log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/marcus.maroney