A classic New York Times correction

To a reporter’s account of the Palmyra concert: 

Correction: May 9, 2016

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of a composer whose work was performed in Palmyra by Russian musicians. He was Johann Sebastian Bach, not Johan. And a picture with this article was published in error. It showed a concert in Palmyra on Friday — not the concert by the Russian musicians, who played on Thursday.

Expect Roldugin to send in a correction that he never missed a single note. 

sergei roldugin palmyra

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • No publication or blog is without its negative sides. We can count on Slipped Disc for reporting the negatives of the New York Times. For the positives, we have to see for ourselves. I do, as a happily paying online subscriber.

  • I saw this too. Few things:
    1) The NY Times DOES have to correct everything wrong from first print, even if it was a mistaken extra N or lack there of
    2) You’re taking this article, not written by any arts writer, as mistakes akin to what an arts writer would do. that’s not exactly fair.

  • Post scriptum: In a world where we deplore the decrease in media coverage of the performaing arts, particularly classical music, why snipe at typos in otherwise reasonable coverage? If the NYT had not issued a correction of these two rather inconsequential errors, then there might be something to actually complain about. In the big scheme of things, this is a good story: Music as an instrument of peace. Can we celebrate that, instead of excoriating a rushed journalist or an overworked copy editor or proofreader?

    Sheesh!

    I realize that my two comments are, ironically, as curmudgeonly as Mr. Lebrecht’s peevish observations. The internet is an equal-opportunity field for ironists.

    Which brings to mind a favorite riddle of my now-adult daughter, which I will leave here as a sort of peace offering: What’s the opposite of irony? Wrinkly, of course.

  • >