Does the NY Times know that 300-year old Bernard Holland still writes for them?

In the 18th century the piano danced. In the 19th it sang.

What a beginning. Where could we be going next? I’m already bored.

The 20th century liked to use the piano as an assault weapon.

Of course. I didn’t expect anything otherwise.

This lovely review is about one concert of three produced by composer-pianist Joseph Rubenstein.

The choices may represent the tastes of the composer-pianist Joseph Rubenstein, curator of the event, but it may also tell us about current events in musical politics.

We know. Assault weapons, etc., etc.

It was interesting how so many of these items ended on simple Mozartian triads.

As his ears perked up in a way they haven’t since 1791.

I may have been imagining a collective sigh of relief,

It's called Alzheimers.

... but something seemed to be whispering in my ear that the Dark Ages of postwar atonality were over and tentative reconnections to the past were under way.

I had a conversation with co-conspirator Sator Arepo a few days ago where we discussed our blogger-tone. And well, sorry SA.

What the FUCK??! Seriously, does the NY Fucking Times know that 500-year old Bernard “Alzheimer” Holland, the fervent musical bigot, still writes for them? Why would THE leading daily give a 600-year old music hater free reign of a music column? Are they stupid? Do they edit? Do they suggest changes? Do they have fucking brains? Are their ethic sacks located in the politics department, instead? Apparently, no. They don't have ethic sacks, anywhere.

I hold the NY Times entirely responsible for this hateful dreck. Screw the crossword puzzles.

Give me Jerry Cantrell any day of the week.

By the way, what the fuck about “musical politics?” Huh? You don't have anything else to say about that? Nevermind, then.


Sator Arepo said...

Wow. Yeah. Since when did Mozart invent triads? What makes these particular triads Mozartian? What's that? NOTHING? Oh, right.

Reactionary critics drive me mad. If only I had some kind of outlet for my...oh, right. Yay!

Aaron said...

I don't know, guys. I really like Bernard Holland, except when I read something like this.

Or anything else I've read of his.

Sator Arepo said...

@ Aaron:


Empiricus said...

Wow. Only a few hours later, and I'm still steaming.

I wanted to comment about his use of "items." I even had a good, sizable five paragraphs. But, better judgment reigned--too many "#*&^@%s" and "$#*&s," with a few "assholes" peppered in.

Anonymous said...

Just to put this in perspective...

"His great qualities are often alloyed by a morbid desire for novelty, by extravagance, and by a disdain of rule. The effect his writings have had on the art must, I fear, be considered as injurous... as much harshness, as much extravegance, as much obscurity, with little or none of the beauty or grandeur. Thus music is no longer intended to soothe, to delight.. it is absorbed into one principle-- to astonish"

--Quarterly Musical Magazine, London, 1827

About Beethoven.

Put that in your wooden shoe and smoke it.

Murderface said...

Bernard Holland: The David Brooks of music criticism.

And: Nice find, AnthonyS!

Empiricus said...

I'm glad David Brooks has been mentioned. Thank you, dear murderface.

Murderface said...

Happy to oblige my Detrereans.

Anonymous said...

It's "free rein," Empiricus. Free to move about, not free to rule.

Sator Arepo said...

Oh, snap.

Good catch, marc.

Empiricus said...

So grease my knees and fleece my bees I've found my...

Thanks for pointing out that one, Mr. geelhoed.

In my brain's defense, however, my fingers have been convicted of several serious homonym felonies, one resulting in the deaths of two jung Os with missing pieces.

So krease ny meas an bleez ny drees uf frown

Good catch.