Tim Smith of The Baltimore Sun has the story. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has decided that its respected music critic, Don Rosenberg, can no longer review conductor Franz Welser-Möst and the Cleveland Orchestra. His crime? He was a Welser-Möst naysayer. Note to the Plain Dealer powers: A lot of us are. Welser-Möst is at best, an uneven musician. He can, at times, turn in weirdly dull performances, almost as if he weren’t even there. He didn’t get the nickname Worse-Than-Möst for no reason.
But, right or wrong, Rosenberg was only doing his job. To state the obvious: A critic is not supposed to be a cheerleader, or to help the local orchestra sell tickets. (The Cleveland Orchestra is doing poorly in that department, by the way, and has had to resort to an extended annual residency in Miami to help support itself. You think that’s Rosenberg’s fault?)
No, a critic’s job is to go to a concert and report on what he heard and how he felt about it. Period. In doing so, he helps others form their own opinions, some of which may be in opposition to his, but that’s a healthy thing.
It almost happened to me once. Back when I was a freelancer for the L.A. Times, I dared to write a negative review of a local orchestra. It was in the process of auditioning conductors for the music director job, and a leading candidate (and big name) was on the podium. I didn’t happen to like what I heard, and said so in strong terms, or at least as strong as I could muster back then.
The president of that local orchestra wrote a letter of complaint to my boss, questioning my ears, qualifications and manhood, and suggesting my dismissal. My boss at the time was one Martin Bernheimer. He showed the letter to me and said (if I remember correctly) not to worry. The next time that local orchestra gave a concert Martin was in the audience. He wrote an even more negative review. End of protests from the local orchestra. I was back on duty reviewing the local orchestra in the next concert after that.
As a critic, you need to feel that your newspaper is behind you, will defend you. It’s difficult to do your job, otherwise. Editors can help by occasionally pulling you back, or at least asking questions, about especially blunt or sweeping opinions, but otherwise it’s usually best to leave a critic alone and trust him. Protesting readers will play a part. Even if a critic feels that he is completely in the right, the words of protesting readers (at least the reasonable ones) will have an effect on him the next time he writes, even if it’s just in his choice of words. (Arguing with a critic is like arguing with an umpire. You may not win, but you may get the next call. We’re only human.)
Be sure to read the comments to Smith’s article. In them you will see such typical and tired objections to criticism as this:
“A famous musician here in town once told me he thinks that music critics are whores and leaches. They feed off of his work and cannot do what he does.
I think that the deposed critic was biased and that his head should roll.”
Samuel Johnson had a famous riposte to this: “You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables.”
Pauline Kael had this to say about critics: “The critic is the only independent source of information. The rest is advertising.”
Am I the only one getting the feeling that a vast conspiracy to silence classical music critics is now firmly underway? Seems like the last year has been particularly brutal. I guess it’s too late to unionize …
And the great Manny Farber had this to say about critics: “I get a great laugh from artists who ridicule the critics as parasites and artists manqués — such a horrible joke. I can’t imagine a more perfect art form, a more perfect career than criticism. I can’t imagine anything more valuable to do.”
But didn’t Manny Farber just pass away? Maybe someone did him in??
Was that in today’s Union-Trib? Disturbing development …
Oh, now I see the link, thanks.
As a native Clevelander, I’m sorry to hear about what happened to Don Rosenberg. But, still, I think some of what this column offers up in defense of the critic’s trade is a bit thin, especially the Pauline Kael. Film and theater critics are indeed the “Consumer Reports” types of their fields, advising prospective customers on the merits of the product. But the classical critic so often operates in an after-the-fact capacity; even if reviewing the first of a concert pair, how much will the critic’s perspective affect the likelihood of a not-previously-planned purchase of a concert ticket?
And, of course, much of what Kael’s peers provide isn’t “information”–it’s subjective judgments, something entirely different. It was a wise person who noted, “so much can be said about music, so little can be proven.”
Perhaps there should be a new business model: independent, unsalaried critic, underwriting her/his own criticism via either subscription or with advertising support……..?
And Martin Bernheimer used to say, on this subject: ‘I don’t need to be a chicken to know when I’ve been served a rotten egg.’
Alex Ross wins a MacArthur. Was Tim Mangan on the secret selection committee??
Dear FormerClevelander,
I’m glad you feel bad about Donald Rosenberg, because he is a first rate critic and Cleveland was lucky to have him. Orchestras unhappy with the reviews by newspaper critics and the pressure brought to bear on editors is as old as dirt; what’s new is the flabby and dessicated spine within said editors today when faced with a little whining by local CEOs and remote-orbit music directors. As for Pauline Kael, her New Yorker reviews appeared long after the movies had opened, yet they illuminated new dimensions for those who had seen them, or would see them in the future. As for the business model, I think we’ll be hard pressed to find a better one than the model that is now in great jeopardy.
Glad I am not in Cleveland. The paper and the orchestra should be ashamed of themselves. Better to be here where we have a lively classical music scene and a top notch critic living among us.
Kudos to Alex Ross.
It is obvious that criticism serves no purpose if critics are not allowed to express their opinions and are required to become cheerleaders instead.
The problem with Welser-Most, however, is puzzling to me.
When he conducted the LA Phil several times in the past (mostly in the 1990s), he was never less than outstanding in the Central European repertoire from Haydn to Berg and at least very good in several other things that he has done here. He rehearsed well and he was inspiring in concerts too. He also was always a true gentleman and a very pleasant maestro to deal with.
Why is he so apparently inconsistent in Cleveland, i don’t know, and find it hard to explain. Is it about the wrong kind of chemistry between him and the musicians of the orchestra? Or is it something in him that changed when he became their music director?
Just wondering…
I remember those mid-90s concerts with Welser-Most and the LA Phil. They were incandescent. But from reports I read, he can be erratic.
I heard him conduct the LA Phil in the “Unfinished” Symphony a few years ago — the dullest reading of the work I’ve ever heard. He brought the Clevelanders to OC and to Ojai a couple of seasons ago, too, and plenty of what I heard was empty. The orchestra still seems to be in exceptional shape, though, so that’s something.
Removing Donald Rosenberg merely for expressing his opinions was inexcusable. His reviews, while negative were not vicious, and he at least gave Welser- Most SOME good notices.
I have experienced the controversial Austrian conductor with the Clevelanders only on a couple of PBS telecasts, and there was nothing bad about them; in fact, I found them quite enjoyable. I have a few CDs with him conducting Bruckner, Franz Schmidt and Korngold on EMI, and these are also excellent.
But unfortunately, music critics are not always fair and balanced.
They can be downright vicious at times, such as in their treatment of vastly underrated and unjustly maligned Zubin Mehta. Many of the reviews he got when he was music director of the New York Philharmonic some years ago went beyond viciousness and were nothing short of slanderous.
It’s one thing for critics to give a conductor a negative review if they happen to dislike his or her conducting, but the treatment Mehta received in New York was disgraceful and a blot on the history of music criticism.
Can anyone name a Welser-Most recording they have that they truly value? (This is not — entirely — a facetious question.)
Whoops, I see that Mr. Berger has named at least three …
I have to support MarK in his recollection of Franz Welser-Möst and the LA Phil, specifically the “Eroica,” Schubert 6, and Brahms 4, along with related works. Cleveland, in fact, has had plenty of experience with controversial Music Directors. Lorin Maazel may have set the standard for willful and downright dull performances, and even the revered Christoph von Dohnányi seems to have had his off weeks, if the recorded Beethoven symphonies are any evidence.
Good luck to us all! Even our beloved Gustavo is starting to get nasty reviews in Europe…
As someone who worked for The Cleveland Orchestra (doing Marketing none-the-less) for 3 years… I have a bit more insight into what all happened between Franz, Don, The Plain Dealer and the orchestra.
For several years the orchestra felt that Don’s reviews were off base. There would be performances raved about by every other reviewer but Don’s piece would lambaste Franz and the musicians. For almost 2 years every review that he wrote was picked apart word by word and compared to other reviews of the same concerts. They were broken down into positive comments, neutral comments and negative comments. His reviews of Franz were then compared to his reviews of Jahja Ling and Christoph von Dohnanyi. He would give fair reviews of Jahja and Christoph but in the case of Franz, there were far more negative comments than positive comments.
His editors were told several years ago that his view was biased when Franz was on the podium and he was issued a stern warning that he needed to be less biased. For a short while he was writing fair reviews and then he started in on the negativity again.
While I don’t work for the orchestra anymore and I certainly don’t agree with their bullying tactics to get rid of Don… they weren’t attempting to get rid of him because he wasn’t giving them glowing reviews all the time. They were trying to get a fair review off of someone who is a well respected critic who was showing an obvious bias.
The orchestra has enough trouble as is without having the critic in their own backyard causing anymore. Don is a first rate critic most of the time and he will assuredly find another job soon, but he crossed the line a few too many times in Cleveland and he knew what would happen if he kept doing it. I don’t feel badly for him.
I wonder if the new Cleveland Orchestra critic will now be writing on eggshells. If he writes a few negative opinions of concerts, will his job be in jeopardy? This sets up such a bad precedent.
But it also raises the interesting question of how one determines when a critic has “lost it” and/or whose job it is to let him or her know he’s gone irretrievably beyond the pale. Clearly, it’s not the orchestra’s. It seems like the critic has to have strong, fair, qualified leadership above him or her at the paper …
As a professional musician in Cleveland, I have to say that there is *great* discontent amongst the musicians of the Cleveland Orchestra, due to the lack of meaningful artistic communication between the podium and the players at Severance Hall.
It’s always difficult for concertgoers to understand the role that a conductor plays in the performances they’re hearing, but the board members and supporters of the Cleveland Orchestra need to ponder why so many of the orchestra’s musicians, including principal players, have resigned in the last 2 years. Musicians are deeply frustrated at having to perform concerts that lack any compelling interpretive force.
It was clear to me from FWM’s first concert here as Music Director that he would be an excellent Opera conductor, and belongs in the pit. Conducting orchestral concerts onstage is about motivating and empowering the players to reflect the conductor’s shaping and characterization of every phrase - indeed, every note. If the conductor is unable to communicate to the musicians what emotional character he feels for each phrase, then the musicians have nothing to reflect. The result is notes on the page, and nothing more.
FWM is a fine and thoughtful musician, but his completely abstract and intellectual rehearsal style is not effective in communicating with this American orchestra.
The supporters and board members who pressured the Plain Dealer to take the scandalous action of removing their nationally respected music critic think they are helping their beloved orchestra. They are mistaken. An orchestra whose finest musicians are leaving, and whose audience at home is dwindling, and whose success lies in invitations to the Music Director’s home country, is not on a healthy path.
Don Rosenberg is not only an extraordinarily insightful musician but also a journalist of the highest integrity. Apparently journalistic integrity is no longer allowed at the Plain Dealer. So what the Cleveland Orchestra’s emissaries to Ms. Goldberg’s office have actually accomplished is merely to ruin the reputation of Cleveland’s newspaper.
UNION!
Ironic that classical music critics are unimportant enough to be let go–this year’s bloodletting has been particularly gory–yet so important that they must be reassigned lest they do more damage.
Cembalista del fuoco hit the nail on the head. A good opera conductor doesn’t make for an effective symphonic conductor. The orchestra members are fleeing like rats from a sinking ship - for a REASON. Ellie and Dan didn’t leave to pursue other musical endeavors - they (and others) left because of the cruel, uncompromising egotism of the baton-wielder.
I didn’t always concur with Don’s reviews, but the fact remains - FWM is a horrifyingly mediocre conductor who found himself trying to fill impossibly big shoes. Once you get past the fact that there was little to no communication between FWM and the orch members, Cleveland audiences, musicians, and yes, the REVIEWER knew that the orchestra’s quality of music making had diminished since CvD’s departure.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Zachary Lewis feels similarly. You cannot give an orchestra a glowing review if the musicmaking is bland, run-of-the-mill, and morbid - all traits of FWM. The incredible talent (putting it mildly) in the Cleveland Orchestra deserves better.
Anyone stop to think why Masur, Blomstedt and Steinberg keep coming back with such regularity?
Don Rosenberg’s comments have always rung thoughtful, intelligent, and anything-but-nasty. Of course a critic should be able to say what he thinks, but we seem to be fighting an ever-lowering common denominator and the current trend of Follow the Leader or You’re Out. Good luck, Zach! Don Rosenberg has been one of the very few bright lights that made a corner of the P. Dealer worth reading. Having had occasion to meet Don just this summer, I was struck by the extent of his musical knowledge way beyond the orchestral repertoire, his desire to get facts right, and his upbeat and down-to-earth personality. Speaking of conductors, my lament is still — and this goes back a ways — that the Powers That Be chose not to appoint Istvan Kertesz. If we had his ilk, things would be very different, including Don’s reviews. SIGN ME: Fiora M.