Spreading Joy from Heaven Above--The Lower the Better

Seriously, how low can you go?

Hmmm. How low CAN you go? Well, how’s this? Click here.

*Edit [Empiricus]: It's best to open the Youtube link in another window and let it play while you read on.

That’s pretty low. But I was thinking a little lower.

Then, how about this? The Detritus Review will, for the first time, criticize a criticism of a criticism. “Come again,” you say? Today, the Detritus Review insults an opinion sent to the Washington Post that takes issue with an Anne Midgette review. “Now that’s low!” I assure you, dear reader, it is, generally.

“That’s totally unfair. The poor, undefended opinion holder doesn’t deserve to be ridiculed by your snarky little meta-blog,” you say.

Well (said in a smug manner)! Even lower—which technically, or so I thought, couldn’t be done—the Washington Post actually published this opinion. “But publishing the public’s responses is a sign of humility, and ethical rigor,” you say. “There’s nothing wrong with that!” Again, my dear reader, this is a new kind of low for the Detritus, I assure you.

“Honestly, what could be so bad that you nobodies have such a ravenous disregard for someone else’s entitled opinion?”

Read on.

-

Anne Midgette recently reviewed a production of Verdi’s Rigoletto by the Washington National Opera, directed by noted soprano Catherine Malfitano. All in all, it was a lukewarm review, saying that

[...] what Malfitano did not manage to do -- in part because of the cast she had to work with -- was give the characters, particularly Rigoletto and the Duke, a sense of inner motivation. The whole thing came across as a kind of detailed pantomime, in which many of the singers went very well through all the requisite "Rigoletto" motions (not to say shtick) while pumping out great quantities of loud operatic sound. Not everybody will see this as a bad thing; in fact, it might be exactly what many opera-goers want.

She goes on.

You're left with glorious music, a cast able to sing the notes, and all the trappings of Mantua. What more do you want, and what more can interpretation do? Well, conceivably, it can elevate opera from pantomime to a kind of drama that can move us.

Of course opera is mainly about the music, and about the voice. But that music, those voices, are ideally about the expression of human feeling -- not just about getting through the score's hurdles, making an impact and collecting applause.

What I take from her review, is that Anne wasn’t terribly impressed with the production—it wasn’t the best Rigoletto, but it wasn’t the worst. I think that’s a fair assessment. I also think that it’s a fine review, nothing worth getting hot and bothered about.

-

In comes Selwa Roosevelt, a dissenting opinion holder.

I usually think it counterproductive to complain to a newspaper about a particular review.

You're talking to the wrong blog. But. BUT, I still understand your apprehensiveness.

And being on the board of trustees of the Washington National Opera makes me even more hesitant.

It should.

But I cannot let Anne Midgette's outrageous March 31 review of "Rigoletto" pass without comment [...].

Outrageous? Even we at the Detritus have to take critics’ opinions with a grain of salt. Why was it outrageous? I don’t understand.

I have seen dozens of performances of "Rigoletto" around the world, and I can honestly say that the WNO's production is the best I have ever seen.

Holy Hitler on a unicycle, juggling frozen fish! Among other problems, by qualifying your remark with “honestly,” I have to assume that your other statements were disingenuous. Or, if I were crafty, I could interpret “honestly” as subterfuge. But to what end?

All the principals were superb, and, contrary to your reviewer's assessment, everyone I have talked with was thrilled with the performance of Carlos Alvarez as Rigoletto.

People with whom Roosevelt talked: Harry Truman, Josie Packard, Maddy Ferguson, Leland Palmer, Cathrine Martell, Bobby Briggs, Benjamin Horne, Dr. Lawrence Jacoby, the Giant and the Venus de Milo in the Red Room.

By referencing others, this opinion seems to be on behalf of others. Sneaky.

He has a sensational, big voice that was far more nuanced than what Midgette reported.

You heard it here, from the expert’s mouth. Still, it’s only a contrary opinion. Go on.

But my opinions are beside the point.

They are? Isn’t this a place designed specifically for opinions? What, then, is the point?

The sad part is that Washingtonians, who get to see precious little opera as it is, would certainly be put off by her review and would miss the final two wonderful performances tonight and tomorrow.

A FUCKING ADVERTISEMENT, written by a member of the board of trustees of the Washington National Opera! PUBLISHED AS AN OPINION!

-

My dear reader,

Who reached the lowest depths, today? The Detritus? The Washington National Opera? Or the Washington Post for not realizing that it was a cheap PR stunt?

Yours truly,

Empiricus

-

Exciting Economic Report

Before I get going, I need to apologize for two things. One, I try to make it a policy to only go after music critics who write reviews (or, as in the previous post, critics who make “liberal” use of the word review)—those who write for major daily newspapers. Unfortunately, I stumbled across this clunker, which is from an opinion blog associated with the L.A. Times. However, its author, Tim Cavanaugh, is widely respected for his political blog and opinions; so I don’t feel that bad. And this time, he says some strange things about music. Second, I don’t like going after the blogs of bloggers. But, I can’t resist. So I’m forgoing ethics, just this once, hopefully. Sorry.

I’m sure that it goes without saying that music, especially “classical” music, is not terribly profitable, which forces or, more likely, directs composers to seek financial stability in academia. Tim Cavanaugh has a problem with this, as I do. But not for the same reasons.

Sound of money: free-market economies and long-hair music

Longhair does not need to be hyphenated. But I don’t care about that, this time. What’s important is that we’re going to discuss the free-market. Is it good for “classical” music? Is it bad? Something along those lines, anyway.

KUSC ran a richest-classical-composer feature a few days ago, which drew its top-10 list from a 2005 survey by a U.K. radio station.

There’s a link to this in Tim’s blog. In it, the survey adjusts composers’ salaries and commissions for inflation. Its purpose, to simply compare financial success among composers across different eras. And to Tim’s surprise some names were absent.

It's unlikely the numbers — which were apparently calculated in adjusted currencies — have changed much since then, so here's the list:

1. George Gershwin
2. Johann Strauss II
3. Giuseppe Verdi
4. Gioachino Rossini
5. George Frideric Handel
6. Joseph Haydn
7. Sergei Rachmaninoff
8. Giacomo Puccini
9. Niccolò Paganini
10. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Why is this interesting (to me at any rate)? Because longhair music is pretty much universally recognized as an art form that can't compete in an open market and must be supported through royal or (these days) public patronage. Yet this list is remarkable for the lack of patronage its members enjoyed.

A thesis! Financially successful composers were antithetical to general economic knowledge.

All but two of the composers on the list date to the industrial revolution or afterward, and the two who came earlier than that — Haydn and Handel — did plenty of lucrative for-profit work in Britain, which boasted the most liberal economy in Europe. Verdi, Rossini and Puccini were all piece-work producers who were less interested in pleasing the royal ear than in filling up the house with paying customers. Paganini and "Waltz King" Strauss were expert self-promoters and brand builders, Rachmaninoff made much of his fortune on recordings and performances, and Gershwin made it to the top of the list strictly by producing music for a large popular audience. I'm not sure he ever got a dime of public support.

For the most part, I agree with the above analysis. Those composers were, and still are, financially successful. These guys filled seats; in some cases, to do so, they pandered.

By comparison, Richard Wagner, another 19th-century rock star with a long list of patrons and supporters including a king who built the composer his own mansion and theme-park/mini-city, didn't make the list. That's a special irony given how massively popular Wagner was and still is, not just in opera houses but throughout the popular culture.

He is still popular, to a degree. What are we supposed to learn from this?

You could counter that money earned is no indication of musical achievement,

Yes. I could counter with that. But, then again, we weren’t talking about musical achievement. We were talking about how financially successful composers did not require patronage, thus bucking common knowledge off its horse.

and that wastrels like Wolfgang Mozart and Franz Schubert, or humble workers like J.S. Bach, would top a list of actual composing value.

They would. (I think “wastrel” is a little archaic. Don’t you?) So give some counterpoint, buddy boy.

True enough, but hardship and poverty are the default positions of human existence.

Like Jeb and his comatose brother.

It's success that's the unusual thing,

“Financial” success, not success, which we already knew, and agreed upon.

and the numbers here indicate [financial] success becomes a little more likely in a profit-centered environment.

In other words, in order to make a lot of money, i.e. be “financially” successful, you should focus on making a profit. Those words of wisdom would moisten Benjamin Graham’s eyes.

Interestingly, Gershwin and Rachmaninoff, who both died before the middle of the 20th century, are the most recent names on the list. Audience indifference has since encouraged classical composers to avoid the uncertainty of the marketplace;

There have always been only a few composers who wee able to make a living solely by composing—the lucky ones, like John Adams. Hell, even Beethoven taught piano lessons.

but maybe all those composers with academic sits would have been better off trying to make a bigger buck.

Again, his point: if you want to make a bigger buck, try to make a bigger buck. Foolproof! How come no one ever thought of this before?

What I find funny, though, is that many of the composers on the list wouldn’t necessarily be financially successful today, much less “in the canon,” without the exploitation of their music in commercials, television shows or movies.

So, I’d like to try an experiment. Guess the piece that I have linked with the composer. Are you correct? Have you it heard before? If so, where?

1. George Gershwin
2. Johann Strauss II
3. Guiseppe Verdi
4. Gioachino Rossini
5. George Frideric Handel
6. Joseph Haydn
7. Sergei Rachmaninoff
8. Giacomo Puccini
9. Niccolò Paganini
10. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Were you right? Okay, I admit that the Haydn is tough, and I could have found a better Rachmaninoff (but Shine crossed your mind, didn’t it?). Either way, can you think of a second melody by these guys? In some cases, I’m very hard pressed to do so. Now how about Beethoven, the financially crippled piano teacher? Of course you can.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm saying, except that the free-market influences the canon. And one hit wonders like Rachmaninoff, Leoncavallo and Pachabell benefit.
-