This Sucks Dick

I'm not sure what to make of this. Philip Glass, scheduled to perform some of his piano music for the University of Miami, received an injury causing him to cancel the performance (Miami Herald).

“One of my kids jumped into my arms... and he bent my finger back.”

He actually told this to a reporter.


But this is also very disturbing.

You most certainly have entertained my dislike of interchangeable/vague-and-meaningless adjectives. And, to a degree, I acknowledge that it may be overly nitpicky. But why waste words, when it can be said in a clear coherent manner? So far, the only answer I have goes something like this:

(speaking as a critic)

The writer of classical music reviews has an obligation to compete, along with the other writers of other subjects and advertisements, for column space and, thus, readership. And the only way to do so is to mimic those “extreme” cultural norms, i.e., over-inflate the language, to give it some Gestalt, to make it sound bigger, to sound more important, than it really is.

My problem is that this kind of writing further confuses the music critic’s readership, alienating them from the possibility of understanding something about unfamiliar music. I do understand that music is ephemeral—it is an art, if you will, of memory—and that adjectives are often necessary to best describe, in word form, what happened. I also accept minor ambiguities, like:

...relentless momentum...

But even there, I find a problem. Does the author intend to suggest that there is a kind of “driving towards a goal,” or “snowballing growth,” momentum? Or does the author mean, instead of momentum, motion? Granted, either interpretation may be relevant to a particular work. However, we’re talking about Philip Glass, whose musical ideas (motifs, phrases, etc.) often meander (minimalism), but the motion is continuous (e.g., fast and continuous eighth-notes).

It is difficult to screw up an interview, or at least in the transcribing of one. And in many respects, this is a very insightful interview. The only problem I have is when Lawrence A. Johnson, the interviewer, interjects, adding his own “insightful” quips. Often, they are fine, or neutral. But this particular segue way, about Glass’s Violin Concerto, just sucks dick.

But first, I’ll give it to you in Mad Lib form.

In many ways the concerto seems to represent Glass at his most approachable and characteristic, imbuing a traditional form with his brand of (adj.) energy, (adj.) riffs and a (adj.), (adj.) lyricism that is distinctive in its (adj.), (adj.) sensibility.

Just remove the adjectives and this sounds pretty good. I get it. But I can still reword it so it’s even more clear:

“The Violin Concerto represents the quintessential Glass: a traditional form infused with his own distinctive brand of energy, riffs and lyricism.”

Personally, I think that sounds very good. But, obviously, this is not what was written. So we continue.

Now, just for fun, try to match the following adjectives with their appropriate placement within the actual sentence.

Sad
Urgent
Rock-like
Urban
Modern
Wistful

In many ways the concerto seems to represent Glass at his most approachable and characteristic, imbuing a traditional form with his brand of (adj.) energy, (adj.) riffs and a (adj.), (adj.) lyricism that is distinctive in its (adj.), (adj.) sensibility.

If you’re like me, the only one that really seems obvious is “rock-like.” Rock-like riffs. Correct! Even if all that comes to mind is “Iron Man,” which is probably not particularly an indicative Glass-ism. That leaves us with these:

Sad
Urgent
Urban
Modern
Wistful

And this:

In many ways the concerto seems to represent Glass at his most approachable and characteristic, imbuing a traditional form with his brand of (adj.) energy, rock-like riffs and a (adj.), (adj.) lyricism that is distinctive in its (adj.), (adj.) sensibility.

Aside from “rock-like,” I don’t feel confident assigning an adjective to the other blanks. I could make a case for and against every adjective in every space.

This is my problem with over-abundant adjectives. If you merely gloss over the sentence (in it’s original form) I can kind of get a sense of what Glass is about (or what Larry Johnson thinks about Glass), in which case the adjectives did their jobs. However, if I really think about the appropriateness of each one, I get confused. Very confused. Is it really “modern energy?” Or “urban energy?” Or “urgent energy?” I don’t know. Each one sort of makes sense. But, because “urgent energy” is not a thing, nor is it sufficiently differentiated from “traditional form,” I would have guessed that the correct pairing is “urban energy.”

Here’s the actual sentence:

In many ways the concerto seems to represent Glass at his most approachable and characteristic, imbuing a traditional form with his brand of urgent energy, rock-like riffs and a sad, wistful lyricism that is distinctive in its modern, urban sensibility.

Just sad.

That said, and to hedge a little, this was a very interesting interview. It was mostly, well-written. But, this one sentence, this one confusing, misleading, over-inflated excuse of a sentence, chaps my hide. There were so few opportunities to really F this up.

Like I’ve said before, this is not an isolated case of Color Me Badd journalism, it’s rampant, almost to a point where it’s the standard. This is one of the reasons why The Detritus exists. I just happened to catch Lawrence Johnson on a bad day. One on which Glass outs his son for sabotaging a concert.