tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3371351138596055444.post836969349823035096..comments2024-01-20T23:55:26.269-08:00Comments on The Detritus Review: Phoning It In, AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3371351138596055444.post-68565219024934430092008-06-19T11:53:00.000-07:002008-06-19T11:53:00.000-07:00Awesome comments--just what the doctor prescribed,...Awesome comments--just what the doctor prescribed, I suppose. I do have to qualify myself a little, however. <BR/><BR/>RE: Mark<BR/><BR/>A) I concede this point whole-heartedly. Good dig, Aaron.<BR/><BR/>B) Previously, I have listened to the whole piece numerous times via CD. What I was trying to convey was that there was only one available four-minute clip that didn't sound out of the ordinary concerning texture, while hopefully stressing the fact that I found the clip within the fifteen minutes of tooling around the internet. Basing my judgment on that one clip would be foolish, indeed, but I thought that it was, more or less, a good representation of the piece on the whole. Therefore I stand behind my assessment of Jeremy's "unusual texture" assertion, though I could have been clearer, as you've pointed out. Again, good dig.<BR/><BR/>C) I understand that the "pertinent/fun" information, according to you, is at the top, about the concert series. I, on the other hand, am not convinced of this, manly because this fun information didn't require Jeremy's presence at the concert; that stuff could have literally been phoned in. Whereas the descriptions of the performance did require a warm body, as well as the descriptions of the pieces, which also would benefit greatly from some research, like Jeremy usually does so well. This,I think, is why it was a treat to finally put him in our "sloppy" little pantheon (we've never criticized him before, because we like his writing very much). This leads me to<BR/><BR/>D)I thought the piece's background was very interesting. I could have researched the other two on the program and the results would have been the same, for the most part. But yes, it is difficult writing for a non-specialist audience. And yes, I would probably have a tough time boiling all that background down to five words. This is why, if I may reiterate our pseudo-mission statement--this is why we like your comments, even if you take us to task for being lazy or whatever. All we ask for is dialog. That said, this is why this particular post exists; you nailed it on the head. It is my perception that, often enough, pandering to a non-specialist audience (whatever the definition of that may be) is not necessary, especially to this high of a degree. The audience is willing to understand, but gets watered-down and sometimes meaningless information. For instance, I can't count the number of times when I've introduced myself to a "non-specialist" as a composer. And they shoot back blank stares. Or my favorite, an uncle of mine who is genuinely interested in opera, bought a recording of Wozzeck, liked it, then asked "what was twelve-tone about that," as if the method precludes enjoyability. But, this is what he knows because he reads his local concert reviews. <BR/><BR/>So Mark, your criticisms of me aren't off the (ugh) mark. We, in no way, claim to be professional critics. But, I think that we can, at the very least, bring up issues that might engender discussions toward a good. So I humbly thank you for your two cents.Empiricushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11629835829400843701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3371351138596055444.post-24805600364835838002008-06-19T10:47:00.000-07:002008-06-19T10:47:00.000-07:00A) What Aaron said. It's the world described that ...A) What Aaron said. It's the world described that had disappeared, not the tradition, and<BR/><BR/>B) You listen to four minutes and decide that's enough to dispense judgement? You're sloppier than those you criticize, and<BR/><BR/>C) The "pertinent, fun" information you are looking for is at the top of the review, not the bottom, about the concert series the work appeared on, and<BR/><BR/>D) Boil down your background paragraphs on the work to five words, and you'll have a better understanding of what is required when writing for a non-specialist audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3371351138596055444.post-78205835800519893802008-06-19T08:30:00.000-07:002008-06-19T08:30:00.000-07:00Not to pick nits, but I think in the last bit you ...Not to pick nits, but I think in the last bit you quoted it's the pre-War world that had "already disappeared." The tradition(s) that described that world (admittedly a weird phrasing - I don't usually think of traditions as having a descriptive function, although I suppose if I think about it I can how they might) might still be in vigorous health after that world was destroyed.<BR/><BR/>Just my two cents, there.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16371363571092946834noreply@blogger.com