Jeff Dunn writes: >A whopper from a shallow and unspecific fulmination by Paul Griffiths in >the NY Times Sunday: > >"... in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of >history, tonality has again become unavoidable." > >An incomprehensible statement from the master of the incomprehensible, the >libretto to "Marco Polo." To think that here is yet another example, in a major newspaper, of the shameless abuse of the English language gives pause for concern. Mr. Griffith's naive pronouncement is indeed puzzling, and could itself have been avoided with a single stroke of the pen. Certainly, it would have been far more prudent (and accurate) to say: "...in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of history, tonality has again become the preferred means, among composers whose principle interest is to pay lip service to the status quo, of compositional procedure". Now that would have summed up the situation neatly, and without misleading anyone. The only thing that I see is unavoidable is the ludicrous suggestion from ill-informed quarters that tonality has some kind of monopoly on truth content. Indeed, I have noticed in recent years this trend at the NY Times; its prose is becoming increasingly sloppy, and the thoughts behind it even sloppier. Just recently, in my critique of William Kapell's discs, I scolded Michael Kimmelman, an art critic and wannabe pianist turned music critic (well, in fairness, he's jumped back and forth over his career - is that what Yale does to you?), for bringing in the "w" word - "it made me Weep". - in his own review of those recordings. Well, that's just the kind of adolescent arts writing that gives criticism a bad name. That it found its way into the New York Times is as stunning as it is sad. For the right price, I'd be delighted to offer myself up as an arts editor at the Times. Of course, given the current state of affairs, it's even more likely that I'll just take over someone's job there anyway. John Bell Young