One list member privately took me to task for posting the section of the
Kansas City Star's notice on the playing of the Orpheus chamber orchestra
which dealt with Susan Botti's "Within Darkness".  I was accused of
insensitivity, and that "I of all people should know better".

First, the criticism was inaccurate, by giving both the quote, its author,
and its context, the list members are free to judge for themselves whehter
the piece is as crass as the reviewer accuses it of being - and that is
the accusation - or whether the reviewer has just submitted an entry for
a future edition of "Dictionary of Musical Invective".  Time will tell
whether the composer or the critic is correct.

But further, let us remember some of the nature of the critical game.
Trashing something is a fairly safe bet, because most new pieces are
rehashes of sounds that the composer likes, ideas the composer likes, and
paterns the composer likes.  He is just trying to "say something".  And he
writes the musical equivalent of most writing - dominated by his or her
concerns to the point of being worth very little.  Honestly - if judged by
the same criterion we judge music, most writing is filler on its way from
forest to landfill with barely a peep.  The unknown critic gets few joys,
and taking a paragraph to inflict pain on the person who caused him pain
in the line of duty is one of the few joys, malicious joy it might be.

It is alwo well to remember that if you dislike something as a critic,
you must be careful to leave not a word which could be taken as praise
out of context.  I once read a scathing review from Rolling Stone about
an album, the writer had little positive to say, at one point calling
it "overly ambitious" etc.  The next week ads for the album featured
"Ambitious!" - Rolling Stone.  In large letters.  In otherwords - to pan
the dross as you pan for gold is serious business.

At least this critic described what he felt was the sound world of the
work in no uncertain terms.  I don't think there is anyone in the reading
audience who has much doubt as to what the work sounds like.  If he is
correct - how is it much different from the gallops that Wagner turned out
when starving in Paris - or the acres of other routine fare?

In one respect only.  And it is the respect which Wells pointed out in his
article on the Nazi state.  Something which is needlessly ugly is a sign of
power.  He was talking about the goose step.  Its very nature is the image
of a foot smashing down on the face.

And if having someone smash your face, simply because they can, isn't
enough to put someone in a foul mood...

Stirling S Newberry
Mp3s: http://www.mp3.com/ssn
War and Romance Radio: http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/8/war_and_romance.html