A Note from Alex Ross

Cover of Alex Ross's first book, The Rest is Noise

Black block type, all caps, with details in red-orange

The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century

I woke up early on Monday and found that Alex Ross had posted a note on his blog with the momentous news that after 30 years as the music critic of The New Yorker, he would be stepping down from that position. His note is characteristically modest in tone, but for this longtime reader of his work, it landed like a quiet thunderbolt.

I know that there was a time when I wasn't reading him; I remember his predecessor Andrew Porter's tenure at TNY, and my outrage when the magazine let him go. There were breaks in my subscription over the years and they might have included 1996, the year Ross joined.

Porter was a prolific writer; a look at The New Yorker's archive suggested that he typically wrote two or three columns a month, almost all reviews, though they were not your typical 600 to 800 word newspaper review by any means. They were longer and brought in all manner of detail and history that an overnight review simply cannot accommodate.

Ross's cadence was different; somewhat slower (in his note, he states that wrote nearly 400 Musical Events columns and another 80 longer pieces) and often scholarly without being academic, owing to his lapidary prose. A recent article, "In Northern Scotland, the Neolithic Age Never Ended," was accompanied by a blog post that included his preparatory reading and many photos, for example.

His interests have been catholic in the best possible way, ranging from early music through to the newest of the new, and they weren't limited to musical interests. He's written about – and will continue, as a New Yorker staff writer, to write about –"literature, philosophy, film, émigré stories, California stories, ancient landscapes, and new regions," to use his own words. He's been eloquent about gay life and his own family. He'll occasionally write on musical topics.

In his own memorial to Andrew Porter, Ross said "Porter was the most formidable classical-music critic of the late twentieth century, and, pace George Bernard Shaw and Virgil Thomson, may have been the finest practitioner of this unsystematic art in the history of the English language." I'm not going to disagree with that, but I am more than comfortable asserting that Ross is the finest music critic of his generation and of the entire post-Porter generation. (I see that Joshua Kosman considers Ross to be greater than Porter and makes a case for this opinion. I wouldn't argue with him.)

There is simply no one writing the kind and quality of criticism he's been writing. To some extent, it's because of the freedom and space that The New Yorker has been able to offer; I can't think of anyone else who has had that kind of space and time. There are always more concerts to review, and Ross has been lucky enough to be able step outside the pressures of daily reviewing to have a magisterial, considered perspective on everything he writes about. Would that more of us might have that opportunity, but it will not happen in this time and place.

Newspapers that used to have two or three classical reviewers now have none. Many have only freelancers providing classical reviews. Last year, the NY Times reassigned its chief classical critic to the obits desk, and while they advertised for a new chief critic, they don't appear to have hired anyone for the position. 

Ross's news is as momentous as it is not only because of the impact of his own withdrawal from the profession, but because of this general collapse of music criticism. His post at The New Yorker is evidently the last full-time classical music criticism job in the country. I hope, and I am sure that others hope, that TNY will not allow the post to remain vacant.

More personally, I started this blog in October, 2004, not long after I discovered that Alex Ross had a blog, which he'd started in April, 2004. I'd started reviewing for SFCV in February that year, and realized there might be some value to having a blog of my own. That turned out to be the case; I have made many friends and gotten some work through this blog (it's useful to have a large, unedited body of work publicly available). So it's not that he's to blame, but yes, he's sort of to blame, which I mean in the most affectionate way. He is among he friends I've made, and I'm grateful for his friendship and for many kindnesses over the years.

Even in 2004, before he'd published three books, Ross was a lodestar in the critical world, writing brilliantly on so many subjects. It's a gift to know when it's time to close out a chapter of your life. I'll miss reading Ross on music on a regular basis, but I'm looking forward to the pieces he mentions are in process and to the eventual publication of his current book project.

Elsewhere:

• Joshua Kosman
• Will Robin

 

More on the NY Times Bad News

Hat tip to Steve Smith for pointing me to Hell Gate's reporting on the NY Times arts criticism news. Hell Gate reports the following:

According to Lachlan Cartwright, the new roles offered to the four were as follows: culture section correspondent roles for [Jon] Pareles and [Jesse] Green, an editing role for [Margaret] Lyons if she relocates from Chicago to New York, and an option to join the obituary desk for [Zachary] Woolfe. 

Read the whole Hell Gate article, really. 

Bad News from the New York Times

The New York Times has decided to "reassign" several members of its arts criticism staff to what they are calling "new roles." This news was published yesterday in the Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

The critics in question are:

• Margaret Lyons, television critic
• Jon Pareles, pop/rock music critic
• Jesse Green, theater critic 
• Zachary Woolfe, classical music critic

No specifics have yet been announced, beyond stating that the four will be "taking on new roles, and we will be conducting a search for critics on their beats in the weeks to come," according to Variety's quotation of the memo that has circulated at the Times.

Jon Pareles, who has been on this beat since 1988, is a legend in music journalism. Zachary Woolfe has been an extremely able chief classical music critic, a sharp-eared reviewer and graceful writer about all things opera and classical music. Will Robin, who has written for the Times over the last decade or so, writes in his newsletter about Woolfe and what he's done for classical music criticism at the Times.

It is extremely difficult to imagine who might replace Woolfe and what skills they might bring to the table that he doesn't have. What is the problem that the Times is trying to solve, here?

My best guess is that it's a combination of money and clicks: analytics programs tell the paper how many views, presumably corresponding to readers, each article has. If classical music reviews, features, and interviews aren't meeting some unknown standard, well, do they need this coverage in its current format? Do they need a classical music staff at all? (Again, what person or presentation of journalism about classical music do they think will better what Woolfe is doing?)

As far as reassignment goes, classical music critics have specific knowledge about music and musical institutions that is hard earned, through education and experience, besides being good journalists. For the Times to move a writer off the classical beat is to lose that knowledge and experience. And I can't help but think of the San Jose Mercury News reassigning Richard Scheinin, an expert writer on both classical music and jazz, to real estate.

Elsewhere:

• Alex Ross

Music Reviewer Waking Nightmare

So there I was a week ago, out running errands, when suddenly I realized that I was reviewing a performance of Mahler's Symphony No. 3 the next day, and...I was unprepared, in that I hadn't heard it in a couple of years, hadn't looked at the score, hadn't thought about it at all. PANIC.

....until I realized that I was reviewing a completely different program the following day and had no idea yet whether I would be reviewing the Mahler on June 28 or not.

Critical Opinion

Jonas Kaufmann is on a recital tour of the United States, with his usual pianist, Helmut Deutsch. Kaufmann is famous, cute, and rarely seen in this country, where he hasn't appeared much in opera west of the Hudson River, if ever, and hasn't done a concert tour in about a decade. He has many fans. It turns out that two of the critics who've seen him aren't among them.

• Alex Ross, The New Yorker
• Joshua Kosman, S.F. Chronicle

Both of these reviews are well-reasoned and make similar points about where Kaufmann's strengths and weaknesses are. The two reviewers are by no means in accord at all times when they've reviewed the same performances.

Joshua got some heated blowback and wrote a commentary about it, which you can read here.

I'm genuinely shocked at his mention that "a fellow music critic asserted that I should never be allowed to review anything at all." There is no other reviewer I agree with all the time and it would not be a good thing if there were. Suggesting that someone shouldn't be "allowed" to review over a single disagreement is ridiculous and wildly unprofessional for someone in the business. (I'm not sure whether to read Joshua's Twitter timeline and FB feed to see who said this, out of concern that it might be someone I respect...and would respect a little less.)

As for me, I missed this recital, but both of the reviews I link to are in accord with what I heard at Kaufmann's 2011 recital and in a couple of opera broadcasts, including the Met HD of Die Walküre. I didn't blog the earlier recital, which was mostly Lieder with a couple of light classics thrown in for fun. I recall wondering what all the fuss was about. I found Deutsch a recessed and anonymous player, much more of an accompanist than a partner, which is unfortunate. The right pianist can make an enormous difference.

Kaufmann's interpretations seemed generalized and worked best with the most operatic of the songs, where a good line and dynamic control can take you a long way. I did not find his interpretations particularly insightful or detailed. I did note in email to a friend that "Die Rose, die Lilie" from Dichterliebe was not very successful, because it didn't have the requisite light touch.

I found Kaufmann similarly generalized in opera. I'm sorry to have missed him in the Met Parsifal, in a role that's a real dramatic test for the tenor.

It's not, by the way, that I haven't read ludicrous reviews and reviews that I disagree strongly with. I have blogged about a fair number of eye-rolling reviews or specific remarks from reviewers. Bernard Holland criticizing an amateur group for having the nerve to sing a challenging work at Carnegie Hall comes to mind. And back in 2017, the year that Mason Bates premiered a better opera than John Adams, there was a fair amount of disagreement among critics about both The (R)evolution of Steve Jobs and Girls of the Golden West. You could look it up! Reasonable people can, and do, disagree all the time.

"Job" Opening at Baltimore Sun

Well, here's a job that I'm not sure I could recommend: working a as freelance music critic for the Baltimore Sun.

Copied and pasted from the web page I linked to:

Description:

The Baltimore Sun seeks a freelance critic to review the broad array of classical performances in the Baltimore region. These can include, but are not limited to, the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, the Shriver Hall Concert Series, Baltimore Choral Arts Society, Baltimore Concert Opera and the Peabody Institute. We are keen to reflect the diversity of the classical community in the Baltimore area. 

Responsibilities

Plan, in concert with an editor, a schedule of reviews that encompasses the variety within the Baltimore region’s classical scene Write with accuracy, knowledge, speed, flair and an accessible voiceMeet deadlinesEngage with and grow a network of followers on social media. Qualifications 

Three years of critical experience at a journalistic organizationExcellent writing skills Proven ability to build an audience via social mediaFamiliarity with and interest in Baltimore-area classical organizationsThe Baltimore Sun is committed to building a diverse correspondent network that reflects the people it covers and the audience it serves. Candidates are encouraged to highlight new perspectives they can bring to our team.

This is apparently a full-time music critic's job and requires three years of experience at a critic; however, you'll be paid as a freelancer, presumably by the article, and you'll get benefits just like a freelancer, which is to say, none. I have no idea how many freelancers there are who live close enough to Baltimore to be familiar with the scene - and who have either employment that takes care of health insurance or a spouse whose health insurance will keep them covered.

I'm also disturbed by that bit about "Proven ability to build an audience via social media." I mean, I suppose I could sorta demonstrate this, given my 1500 Twitter followers, but I'm not Alex Ross and neither is any other working critic: Alex has north of 100,000 followers, Anne Midgette of the Washington Post has 22,500, Anthony Tommasini of the NY Times has 7262, Zachary Woolfe, the most visible Times critic, has 9683, and James Jorden of Parterre Box has 3,197 (that was a shock; I figured he'd turn up in the 25,000 or higher range).

Honestly, I think that this part of the job is the job of the Sun's social media department. I certainly wouldn't make it a job requirement or expect any freelancer to have a huge following.

This is all related to something Tim Mangan, former critic of the Orange County Register, formerly in-house writer for the Pacific Sympony, wrote about last year: the hobbification of criticism, where it's something done on the side rather than a full-time profession, owing to the decline of print and on-line newspapers willing to pay for criticism. It is a real shame that the Sun is going down this path.

Donal Henahan

Donal Henahan, former chief music critic of the Times, has died at 91. He joined the paper in 1967, succeeded Harold C. Schonberg as chief music critic in 1980, and retired from the Times in 1991.

I certainly read plenty of his reviews and articles, but darned if I remember much about them. Anyone else?

Personal to AT

Found in the Times:

A novelty was the Andante movement from Glière’s Concerto for Coloratura Soprano and Orchestra (1943), a piece I did not even know about. Ms. Dessay brought such lovely nuances and intensity to her singing that actual words would have seemed superfluous.

Joan Sutherland recorded the work in the 1960s; I heard it on LP in the 1970s, paired with the composer's Concerto for Harp, thanks to my friend David Urrows, who also introduced me to Isaak Dinesen. Sutherland's recording is still available through ArkivMusic; MDT has two subsequent recordings by less illustrious sopranos (you'll have to search; use the terms Gliere coloratura).

Congratulations on the New View, Alex!

Condé Nast will be the anchor tenant at World Trade Center 1.

Now Just Wait a Minute

Anthony Tommasini has a feature in today's Times about prompting and the tenor Peter Seiffert's use of an earpiece to which his own prompters sends prompts electronically. Overall, the article makes a mountain out of a molehill, but Tommasini does a lousy job of supporting his crashing final conclusion:

The basic issue with this performance of "Tristan und Isolde" was pretty elementary: Mr. Seiffert, it seemed, did not know the role well enough to sing it. Neither an old-fashioned prompter nor a newfangled earpiece can compensate for that."

Tommasini musters essentially no evidence in support of this conclusion, expressed in the closing sentences of the story. He writes endlessly about the role of assistant conductors (he must surely know that they're responsible for quite a lot of musical preparation with soloists, as well as sitting in the prompter's box), about the earpiece, about prompting at other theaters, and about what a solo vocal recital would be like if the singer had a prompter. He says that Seiffert looked at the prompter's box a lot anyway and said this in his review of Tristan as well. Nowhere does he say that Seiffert got lost or sang incorrect phrases or trampled the soprano or...well, he offers no direct evidence that Seiffert was insufficiently prepared, only the indirect evidence of the tenor's reliance on his own prompter and the earpiece. 

Tommasini also underemphasizes or doesn't even address some of the circumstances of this Tristan revival. 

• He doesn't say how much rehearsal time was allotted; this was the fourth go-round of the production since 1999, and Met revivals don't always get a lot of stage time. 
• The cast was largely new, as well, which presumably complicated the rehearsal period. 
• Seiffert has been ill or on the verge of it since the start of the run. Goodness knows, I get foggy-headed when I have a cold. I have never had to sing a Wagnerian role in that condition, for which I'm thankful. I can't guarantee I'd sing every note correctly. 
• Lastly, how available was conductor Daniel Barenboim during the rehearsal period? As the Times has reported, he must have spent some time in Boston over the last few weeks rehearsing and performing Elliott Carter's Interventions. 
  

All of these issues would affect how well any singer performed in a given revival. Tommasini does not make the case that Seiffer does not know the role well enough to sing it.

More on Rosenberg

Alex Ross points to Russell Platt's September article on Rosenberg's plight. Note the phrase "widely shared." And today Platt has kindly posted Rosenberg's complaint, which I will attempt to read over the weekend or next week.

(Personal to Alex: Nice posting title.)

Foot in Mouth

Here's the Times story on Don Rosenberg's lawsuit agains the Plain Dealer and Cleveland Orchestra. I especially love the part where the orchestra's mouthpiecelawyer puts his foot in his mouth:

“It’s a funny grievance coming from a lifetime reporter, that the people that he writes about have an obligation to stay silent,” said Robert Duvin, a lawyer for the orchestra. “We don’t have the same platform, so what we have to do is write letters or have meetings. You guys get to publish every day, and bring the hammer down as often as you want to on anybody you want to.”

Mr. Duvin said he could not address the specifics of Mr. Rosenberg’s lawsuit. But assuming it were true that orchestra officials had urged his dismissal, he said, “So what?”

“I consider what he wrote to be the equivalent of urging the removal of the music director of the Cleveland Orchestra,” Mr. Duvin said. “There are many people who considered his relentless negative assessment, when contrasted with worldwide praise, to be personal, petty and vindictive.”

The lawyer said it was natural for orchestra management to react strongly to such an assessment from its hometown paper. “He doesn’t like what happened,” Mr. Duvin said. “That’s too bad. We didn’t like it either, for years.”

Pulling Up a Lawn Chair

I'm the last blogger in the world to discuss the situation of Don Rosenberg, longtime music critic for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, who was reassigned to an "arts & music" beat, and away from covering the Cleveland Orchestra, after, it seems, being too critical of Franz Welser-Most, music director of the Cleveland. Lots of critics here and in Europe agreed with Rosenberg about FW-M's interpretive skills, and were astounded by the recent extension of his contract.

Well, Rosenberg is now suing the Plain Dealer (for age discrimination) and the orchestra (for defamation and interference with his career). Age discrimination? He knows better than me, but I'm doubtful that was the proximate cause of his reassignment. 

(Via Opera Chic!)

The Underappreciated Critic

Joshua Kosman, fellow blogger and classical music critic of the San Francisco Chronicle, comes in for a lot of stick from his readers, as do all critics. Goodness knows, I disagree with him often enough (he was wrong wrong wrong about Die tote Stadt and The Bonesetter's Daughter, for example, just going back a couple of months, and apparently he was immune to the luminous beauty of the last Runnicles Tristan).

One criticism I've heard is that he's burned out, and this I really do not get. His reviews are consistently enthusiastic, perceptive, and often very funny, regardless of whether he loved or hated the music and performances. I read a Kosman review, I wish I'd been there.

Take, for example, his review of this past weekend's Elliott Carter Centenary Celebration concerts, which I'd consider a model: there's enthusiasm for the performers and respect for the composer and what he inspires, even as Joshua ruefully admits that the music itself leaves him in "a state of bewildered incomprehension." (I, a Carter fan, must admit that if you've been grappling with the music for a couple of decades and still don't get it, you probably won't.)

I wish critics' jobs gave them more opportunities to write about music beyond concert reviews. Joshua's extremely good at this, at taking a moment of music and explicating its meanings. See, for example, his remarks on Mahler in the comments section of this Detritus Review posting. Or the series of postings he calls This Magic Moment on his own blog. Give us more!!