While searching Google News for reviews of Charles Wuorinen's Symphony No. 8, premiered by the Boston Symphony on Thursday night (and mentioned in my post immediately below), I stumbled upon an intriguing essay on Jason Gross's Crazed by the Music blog at PopMatters. In a February 4 entry titled " Navel-gazing as journo trend?" Gross -- a colleague, friend and founder of the pioneering, influential avant-music web zine Perfect Sound Forever -- mulls over a certain self-referentiality that he has noted lately in two high-profile publications: Salon and The New York Times.
Given the gargantuan checklists of outstanding arts journalism that Gross compiles at the end of each year, I have no doubt that he reads more widely than most, which provides an advantageous perspective from which to examine trends. He opens with this:
As much as you might admire the New York Times or Salon, you have to wonder if some dictate from above is now steering their content to mention themselves as much as possible now.
A Salon essay on the Internet's effect on journalism, by Gary Kamiya, is taken to task first. Gross's criticism here strikes me as off-base to a degree: Salon is indeed referred to many, many times in Kamiya's essay, but that's because the essay is fundamentally inspired by the writer observing the results of Salon's decision to allow virtually all of its readers' comments to be viewed on the site, rather than sifting through e-mails and choosing only the best and brightest. One fascinating quote in the article illustrates the risk inherent in that policy: "Several Salon contributors and staffers have complained to me that our open letters policy leaves the impression that our readership is much stupider and coarser than it really is."
The experience of other publications is mentioned, but most of the quotes come from Salon insiders. Still, as a reader I don't have a problem with this, because I understand it to be a sort of meta-reported think piece: Salon on Salon, as an illustrative example of a larger trend. One can't precisely apply the same measure that one would bring to bear if a similar self-referentiality had littered a review of a Pynchon novel, an Adams opera or the new season of Lost.
Gross's other example is my own recent New York Times feature on the symbiosis that has developed between Wuorinen and James Levine. After making some very kind statements about me and my work, he takes issue with the fact that my article opens by referring to an earlier Times article on Wuorinen, and cites another Times piece further on. "Is that where Wuorinen’s whole rep lies?" Gross asks. "No, but you wouldn’t know it from the piece."
I don't think that's an accurate representation, but that's not my point. Rather, it's Gross's conclusion that I want to address with regard to my article:
One reason this might be happening is branding. When you’re holding a newspaper or magazine in your hands, you’re committing yourself to that specific pub for at least a while and you’re aware of that. When you’re surfing online, you’re hopping around a bunch of links, maybe not always realizing where you’re going or where you’ve gone. As such, is madly pointing to the publication one way to remind us of what we’re reading online?
Gross's conclusion, as well as the introductory speculation at the beginning of his post (quoted earlier), proposes some kind of editorial edict that effected these pieces. Speaking for myself -- and only for myself -- I'd like to put this notion to rest.
I opened my Wuorinen article with a reference to one of the most often-cited previous pieces ever published about him -- "Wuorinen's Bleak View of the Future" by Joan Peyser, published by the Times on June 5, 1988 -- specifically to make the point that Peyser's grim projections of Wuorinen's future prospects, and those of modernism in general, had not come to pass in quite the way her article predicted, even if several of the problems she outlined have persisted.
My intention was not to correct or debunk Peyser's thoughtful piece, which accurately depicted the tenor of its day. Rather, what I wanted to point out was that times have changed, and in Wuorinen's case, largely due to the arrival of a powerful advocate. In a larger sense -- although perhaps I failed to make this point clearly -- what I wanted to convey was a sense that we have finally reached a point where a composer's success has less to do with any dogma or "-ism" than with the excellence of his or her music. Today, one can easy find new-music concerts in which Wuorinen's music sits comfortably alongside works by Jacob Druckman and John Adams, or Steve Reich and Nico Muhly. (Those are both actual past programs by the ACME Ensemble, incidentally.) Had Peyser's article appeared in Gramophone, the National Review or, I daresay, Perfect Sound Forever, it would still have formed my thesis.
The second Times citation in my piece, a passage quoted from Tony Tommasini's review of Wuorinen's Theologoumenon in its Met Orchestra premiere, was a matter of self-imposed deference. True, I attended that concert, and could certainly have described the piece myself. But in trying to tell this story objectively, I found it useful to cite the opinion of another observer. Given that the chief critic of the Times had reviewed the concert, and that his description was so accurate and lucidly stated, it seemed proper to quote Tony rather than offering a second opinion that would have done little more than echo the first. (Interestingly enough, David Mermelstein's profile of pianist Till Fellner, which appeared in the same issue as my Wuorinen piece, also cited an earlier Tommasini review.)
I realize that in expending so many words to address Gross's essay, I run the risk of seeming thin-skinned. I don't think he's wrong to ponder the question that he raises, but with my motivations laid clear, my article doesn't provide an especially effective means by which to further his argument.
In my contributions to the Times, I've never once considered (nor been burdened with) any demand to reinforce a brand identity. What does cross my mind is that when I write there, I speak my mind but I also take part in a larger corporate continuity. I don't have to make my opinion conform to anyone else's. But I do find it useful to be aware of the big picture -- and yes, on occasion, to refer to it.
=====
As for reviews of the BSO's Wuorinen premiere, you can read Jeremy Eichler in the Boston Globe here, and Keith Powers in the Boston Herald here. Listening to the WGBH broadcast online yesterday afternoon, I found the Symphony No. 8 to be a powerful, elegantly crafted extension of themes and ideas from Theologoumenon. I also thought it was far too much information to absorb in one sitting, and wished for a second chance.
Which goes to prove that you should be careful what you wish for. As I write this, I am supposed to be in Richmond, VA for a four-day stretch with Dr. LP, not staring out the window of my apartment in Queens. Unfortunately, I'd booked my flight with JetBlue; had I checked their website before setting out to JFK at 6am this morning, I'd have learned that they'd cancelled all flights to Richmond this weekend. One brutally expensive round-trip sedan excursion later, I've rebooked for tomorrow. From La Guardia. On another airline.
Guess I'll be tuning in to the WCRB webcast tonight, after all.
Playlist:
Joseph Haydn - Symphony No. 22, "The Philosopher"; Charles Wuorinen - Symphony No. 8, "Theologoumena"; Johannes Brahms - Symphony No. 4 - Boston Symphony Orchestra/James Levine (WGBH webcast)
Tony Oxley - Ichnos (RCA)
Fred Frith - The Happy End Problem and Impur (Fred/ReR)
Grateful Dead - View from the Vault II (Monterey Video)
Tobias Picker - Thérèse Raquin - Diana Soviero, Sara Fulgoni, Gordon Gietz, Richard Bernstein, Dallas Opera Orchestra/Graeme Jenkins (Chandos)
Comments