Martin Anderson wrote:

>The music industry is a corrupt and sordid business, and NL is the only
>person who has had the guts to stand up and say so. OK, so he sometimes
>gets the odd fact wrong, but he's wrong in the right direction.

And thus, wrong, inexcusably wrong.  To use half-truths puts this so-called
journalist in the same category as a crooked politician.  If Mr.  Lebrecht
chooses to expose corruption, then he must do it in an objective manner
with all of his facts in line.  If he does not, he is little better than
those he criticizes and cannot be called anything other than a tabloid
muck-raker.

>He is, I
>admit, a journalist, not a musicologist, and my scholarly instincts some
>times regret that he goes straight from A to C without respecting the
>niceties of B. But ask anyone honest in the trade and they'll confirm that
>NL has it pretty well accurate.

Let him be accurate, but also let him be objective.  He is not, and he
simply likes to capitalize on the sordid.  It's cheap and unworthy.

>Kevin wrote in an earlier posting that NL centres everything on the sexual
>escapades of his subjects. A) that's not true: Kevin is dishing his own
>exaggerated dirt here;

But it is true.  Even in his most recent book, the International Record
Review books columnist points out Lebrecht's penchant for doing this very
thing.  It's cheap.  Have I said that before?

>B) when a prominent personality uses his clout as
>a musician to obtain sexual gratification (from young boys in the instance
>NL leads with the "The Maestro Myth" and we all know whom he means),

Do we? I don't.  Are you not strong enough to level this criticism about
whomever it is you are slandering and mention him by name? Was this person
ever convicted of molestation? Was he ever charged? Or was this cheap
rumour that Lebrecht foisted upon a scandal hungry readership.

>said musician deserves all the bad publicity he gets -- there are some
>self-serving bastards out there, and just because they can waggle a stick
>or hit a piano doesn't entitle them to be judged by a moral code looser
>than that which serves the rest of us.

How does this code serve the rest of us and what does one's personal
life and sexuality have to do with his ability to make music? Absolutely
nothing.  You are using the same failed arguments that were used against
President Clinton.  They didn't hold then and they don't hold now.  As long
as this person you condemn did nothing that hampered the careers of nor
physically, emotionally or financially harmed another person, your moral
sermonizing is moot.

>Kevin is thus wrong to categorise NL as a "nay-sayer"; nor does he
>attack the art form but the people who exploit it for their personal
>aggrandisement. "When the Music Stops" examines (inter alia) the
>disgraceful use of taxpayers' money to line the pockets of musicians whose
>pockets are already bulging. That kind of "nay" needs saying very loudly.
>Those of us with some experience of the inside of the music industry know
>the kinds of abuse that go on there, and we could do with all the Norman
>Lebrechts we can get.

You imply that I know nothing of the music industry.  You are here wrong.
If Mr. Lebrecht wishes to expose corruption, then he should do it with
indisputable facts and in a manner and wording which reeks of tabloidism.
This is not the way to stamp out corruption.  Rather it is a way for a hack
journalist to line HIS own pockets by selling garbage at $29.99 a pop.
It's a big a crime as those he supposedly is trying to expose.  We don't
need him or anyone like him.

Kevin Sutton