The decline and fall of classical music at the New York Times
NewsA couple of years before Covid, the NY Times stopped reviewing all the classical music that’s fit to print. After a century or so of covering the musical waterfront, the paper scrapped smaller venues and confined itself to big nights at the Met, the Philharmonic and Carnegie Hall. No more town-hall debuts, no more feelgood symphonies.
Since Covid, things got worse. Not only do visiting ensembles and recitalists hardly ever get reviews, some really news-making events slip through the editorial net. Two eyepopping recent omissions were failures to review Gurrelieder at Carnegie Hall and Kathleen Battle’s sold-out recital at the Metropolitan Opera (which gave the Wall Street Journal a free hit).
This is more than just an executive decision to withdraw from an artform. It’s a failure of journalism at newsstand level if the Times cannot be trusted to tell news from PR-shmooze. And, right now, it can’t.
Recent puff-pieces on the Boston and San Francisco symphonies showed Times reporters to be skewed and ill-informed. A fly-in feature on Vienna’s two opera houses ignored stagnancy at the Staatsoper and a rapid turnaround of music directors at the Volksoper. The depth of knowledge that prevailed at the Times when its critics included John Rockwell, Tim Page, Anne Midgette and Allan Kozinn has dissipated into a journo-school haze of he-said, she-said. Zachary Woolfe, the chief music critic since 2022, is conspicuous by his low visibility.
The impact on classical music in New York is widely felt. Promoters say a piece in the Times is no longer worth the effort. Performers feel abandoned by a paper they once used first for puff-quotes. Reader comments about the loss of reviews are censored out by moderators. There is a growing sense that the Times no longer speaks to the opera and concertgoing community.
Go ahead, contradict me.
This is a public conversation that needs to happen. If the Times won’t permit it, let’s start the ball rolling here.
There are still occasional sites on the internet reviewing other New York concerts in addition to the ‘main’ ones. Concertonet.com’s main critic, Harry Rolnick, writes knowledgeably and interestingly on all manner of concerts and recitals, although only reviews.
Fair, but who in the general population is seeking that out, versus something coming across a write-up in a publication with the massive reach and readership of the Times?
The “general population” is not seeking out reviews, period. The alleged power of mass media is much better utilized for pre-performance listings. Reviews serve a niche population and independent music sites are perfect for that. However, if you replace “the general population” with “the boards”, then your statement would be correct — one more reason we will all be better off if corporate music journalism dies, since its quality is so low that it only serves to mislead these important but often ill-informed people and leads to real, negative outcomes.
The on line social media world’s dominance today may mean the NYTimes will have to morph into a tabloid to survive just to keep from becoming defunct.
It’s also worth noting that Jay Nordlinger regularly reviews NYC concerts, big and small, for the New Criterion website.
High quality journalism is in decline, interest in classical music is in sharp decline (in the US particularly)- so what should we expect?
But isn’t that a chicken v. the egg type of thing? Which came first or was the cause: the dearth of interest in classical music or the failure to cover classical concerts and thus spur/nurture interest?
Most or all classical music buffs I know developed their interest long before they started reading newspapers.
Absolutely true from 1-3 reviews a day to maybe now 1 a week. Not only that the most recent team pushed and pushed new music as the savior of orchestras everywhere and that has just not panned out anywhere except San Fran and it too lost money.
It’s worked pretty well in Los Angeles.
Yes, the Los Angeles Philharmonic has long served new music well — by segregating it.
Ernest Fleischmann, who launched LA’s new-music Green Umbrella series, kept to repertory on his main series and retained a HUGE subscriber base. Nothing is new and a classic.
Those who force-feed need to go, while funders demanding this should be skipped: they do more harm than good.
The championing of contemporary music has been going on for at least two decades, and is not unique to the NYTimes.
My only gripe here is with the frequent omission of the present perfect tense which distinguishes between finished and unfinished time. It should have been ‘Since Covid, things have got worse’, as the period of which you speak continues to this day.
Another example: ‘Recent puff-pieces…have shown Times reporters to be skewed and ill-informed’ – for the same reason as above. There is no reason to believe the paltry journalistic offerings will stop any time soon.
To prove the point, the sentence ‘The depth of knowledge…has dissipated into a journo-school etc’ would make no sense if you used the simple past. The rot you claim at the NYT is ongoing, so requires this wonderfully subtle tense.
American English too frequently dispenses with it and undermines what is left of our language’s grammar.
Good for you for noticing the slow erosion of our language
Norman Lebrecht doesn’t write in American English, so that’s not the problem.
I read and write in American English every day, and I see, and use, the present perfect every day.
NL’s use of the simple past where the present perfect should have been is, sadly, very American. Maybe we notice it more as so much internet data comes from the US.
At least he still uses adverbs.
Or to put that in modern terms, At least he does adverbs.
I would suggest that a case for the past tense over the present perfect can be made here. Norman is observing and reporting on something that started in the past. As a reporter, it is presumptuous and reckless to assume some conditionn will continue into the future, and it is fair and conservative to not imply it is continuing to happen now, since he is reporting on conditions observed in the past.
When did William Safire pass the baton to Mr. Sayer on language? It’s why I turn to this website for lifelong learning.
I also lament the death of the subjunctive voice, especially notable in British English — a strange situation where American English retains more subtlety than its senior linguistic partner.
Bravo, bravissimo!
One of my pet peeves also. Glad to see it noted by someone else.
“have gotten,” I think.
“things have gotten worse”; not “things have got worse”
Yes, true, but only part of its steep overall decline. In its current state much of it, with its trendiness, NYC insularity, and psychobabble reminds me of a shallow high school “newspaper.” Not much of an alternative in the U.S. though.
You’ve nailed it.
This is what happens when a newspaper cuts funding to the arts then rails against the government doing the same thing. It is a different world with a declining set of standards and values in the press. There are no statues to reviewers.
Is it bad that this poeple have less influence? I’am not sure
The bane of classical music reviewing in my lifetime has been that people read it to find out what they thought of something they just heard. In the same way, next-day reviews often seem pre-written, or at least pre-determined. I don’t miss ‘this was good, this was not-so-good’ approach, nor ‘Bernstein did it better’. And now we have ‘young maestros I hate’, along with ‘orchestra vs management’ writing, almost none of it enlightening.
I think we need more of the pre-performance listings such as appear at the front of the New Yorker. These paragraph-length blurbs have to be informative, and may actually inspire people to go to things. (The New Yorker’s listings are rarely written by the chief classical critic, who doesn’t seem to spend much time in New York.)
New Yorker music listings are not written by the classical critic (who BTW no longer lives in NY). It’s a separate job.
The New Yorker has largely killed its front-of-book preview listings. Just one or two pages now, down from several. But I agree with your point – that if helping spur ticket sales is the goal (though journalistically, it’s not), then a preview holds more value.
The New Yorker pre-performance listings are a shell of what they once were, particularly for classical music and cinema.
Hard to argue with you here, as much as I’d like to, because I admire the NYT in so many other realms.
I pay for a UK Guardian subscription. I think they call opera and classical music ‘Culture’.
It’s difficult to find reviews – probably they will stop soon
“Culture” is there at The Grauniad as a carapace to disguise its socialist workers party manque.
If you would open up the Culture section you would see it is broken into subsects, including “Classical.” There are many reviews of live and recorded classical music there, as well as features and news from the classical music scene.
I wish I could contradict you. As a daily reader of the NYT, I have noticed this since about 2015. We saw three unbelievably fabulous visiting orchestras at Carnegie. One conducted by Mehta, a celebrity in NYC. Not one was reviewed. Recitals are almost never reviewed unless they play the small room at the armory. No, and I mean no, chamber music conerts are reviewed. And to read the Times, one would think that there are no small opera companies in the city.
That sums it up nicely.
The demise of quality print media in the US is deplorable and terribly sad. It’s not just the NYT; it’s everywhere. Newspapers across the country have cut staff drastically and arts critic of any kind are a thing of the past. Our newspaper of record at one time listed the classical FM station listings, had frequent LP and CD reviews, reviews and interviews of classical and opera concerts and much more. All of that’s gone. The sports section does well and the paper likely lives off of the Legal Notices section. In addtion, to save money they cut out at least half of the comics and most recently letters to the editor are gone. As a result, subscriptions are a fraction of what they were a generation ago. Twenty years ago on my morning walk I could see the paper delivered to almost every house on the block; nowadays it’s just one and it’s not mine.
I realize that not everyone who took the paper was a classical fan, but for those of us who are the paper kept us informed about what’s going on: how’s the finances of the symphony? who are the upcoming candidates for music director position? No one was alerted to fine local choral group making an award winning CD of Rachmaninoff. Only insiders knew that former LSO hornist David Cripps had died right in our midst. They never knew that we’ve had a lot of world-class classical musicians around us: James DePriest and Stephen Staryk, for example.
The real icing on the cake came when the paper (which was a good, solid paper with real reporting for generations) was sold to the conglomerate Gannett corp. The paper then took a severe left turn; the current editorial writing and reporting is decidedly far-left liberal. Who wants to read that crap?
“Twenty years ago on my morning walk I could see the paper delivered to almost every house on the block; nowadays it’s just one and it’s not mine.”
I am sure that fewer people read newspapers today. We can’t judge, however, by print paper deliveries. Many of us, however, read online. I never stopped reading newspapers, but stop buying paper copies in 2000.
Don’t forget that puff piece about Marin Alsop that could have been written by her publicist
Very likely, the content was spoon-fed to the writer.
Who was too lazy to do independent research.
I remember Birgit Nilsson’s Met debut as Isolde in 1959 when the review was on the lower right hand side of page 1! of the NYT & the headline read something like “New Wagnerian Star Soars Across the Firmament”.
Those were the days! I used to get so enthused at the high quality, of operatic talent, in the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s! Seemingly, these last few years, since COVID, interest in opera, in particular, and classical music, in general, has been in decline, overall, in the USA! It would help if news media organizations, would cover more classical music, and opera reviews, instead of cutting back, on their reporting!
I am shocked and saddened that the New York Times is neglecting classical music in New York! I thought that this was one of the countries greatest newspapers! I was going to start a subscription with the “Times” because I am coming to the Boston/New York areas for an extended time period…but I will just stay with The Los Angeles Times where I have been a reader for sixty years…
Norman you are wasting your time. The NYT has devolved into a leftist propagandist woke rag that likely retains reviews of western art music more out of inertia than due to any real commitment. I subscribed to that newspaper for more than 25 years and looked forward to the music, art, and science coverage. I put up with the news bias to get to these well written and interesting sections. And there was a modicum of fairness. Not true anymore. As the Stanford University Law Dean said about allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus, “the juice is not worth the squeeze’ The staff of the paper is dominated by radicals including anti-Semites who advocate the elimination of Israel. The NYT coverage of both international and domestic events reflects those views. I will note that the British Guardian Newspaper which has a similar worldview as the NYT still publishes superb classical music criticism. The difference is that as a member of the proletariat I can free ride those reviews on the internet!
Interesting, since so many other readers think the paper is far too accommodating to Trump. Truly all things to all critics.
And what does “woke” mean besides acknowledging that the United States has done bad things to Black people?
Your rant is in dire need of a fact checker. And The Guardian’s editorial position politically is quite similar to The Times. Finally, I also read The Guardian and instead of getting a “free ride” I occasionally will send them a few dollars.
Perhaps the NY Times heard how the CBSO fight criticisn, and opted for covering less dangerous subjects.
I hate acronyms.
You’re right and I’ve written to them about it (like they care what I think.). Other papers in the US have continued to review concerts in Boston, Philly, Chicago and so on. Unfortunately the online NewYorkClassical Review which does review many events has a very mixed bag of reviewers, some good, some not so good (putting it nicely).
Relax everyone. Things are not as bad as they might seem.
Papers will soon send a robot equipped with AI to review the concert and give an honest opinion.
The robot lowers labor costs, doesn’t need to suck up to the MD with soft questions, and avoids the wine bar at intermission.
And can play Rachy 3 better than any of you.
Couldnt agree more. It is now all splash and lights, not serious and wide coverage. Being “relevant” goes beyond the immediate popular grabs.
NYT doesn’t have time to cover classical music concerts; it is too busy bashing Israel.
Good.
NYT is fully invested in woke. I’ve always enjoyed the classical reviews at WSJ.
Concerts are posted online, so there’s plenty of opportunity for encore on demand. Reviewers will increasingly be thought of as “boomer roles” in our current times.
The Tommasini approach to improving diversity in orchestras brought the NYT’s reputation to a new low.
Also did you see the one about Alsop? It almost looked like an advertisement for her to get a Music Director-ship. Are they being paid off?
the last great music critic who thoroughly knew his stuff, wrote beautifully, and covered almost all events was Andrew Porter of the New Yorker. Before Porter there was the occasionally cranky and cantankerous George Bernard Shaw…
Totally agree with @a colleague. Andrew Porter at the New Yorker was a giant among reviewers. But then he came to America in his mid-40s having been a stellar reviewer in London for two decades with The Times and especially The Financial Times. He certainly knew his craft, always writing with elegance and a depth of knowledge few later critics exhibited. After all, he had translated not merely The Ring cycle but more than 30 other operas. As Opera News wrote of him, if he was reviewing operas unfamiliar to him, he would often attend three performances before feeling qualified to write a review.
Also, Andrew Porter would get a copy of the score of a new work and study it thoroughly before attending the performance. Next to Ernest Newman, he was the finest music critic who came from UK.
For me, Anne Midgette, and before that, Tim Page, were the critical standard-bearers in the U.S. A shame that Anne left the Post. She had the megaphone and following to drive the conversation in interesting ways. The NY Times boys don’t have that same ability.
You are correct about the quantity of writing on the subject in the NYT, wrong about its quality.
Absolutely true, been this way for a while.
The NYT spent more time bowing to the Woke Gelb by giving The Met a pass on really dismal productions. Good riddance to this rag.
Could it be that events in the ever-shrinking bubble of classical music just aren’t that newsworthy?
In old America, classical music journalism was highly detailed and entertaining. Take this fascinating historical document from The Sunday Oregonian (29 July, 1906), on Puccini’s U.S. tour of “Madama Butterfly” by the Savage Opera Company (and a third revision of the opera):
“Ransacks World for Opera Stars
Henry W. Savage Gathers Brilliant Company for Production of “Madame
Butterfly” English Grand Opera Company Tour Has Been Abandoned.
PUCCINI. THE COMPOSER, AND ELSA SZAMOSY. THE BEST
IN EUROPE.
NEW YORK, July 23. (Special Corre
spondence.) One of the most im
portant events in musical or in the
atrical circles was the return on Friday
of Henry W. Savage, after a trip which
cost him and his able force almost super
human labor. Mr. Savage is so intensely
in earnest about anything that he does
that it is small wonder he went from one
city to another, from one country to an
other and from one theater and opera
house to another, until he assembled a
company which satisfied him for the pro
duction of “Madame Butterfly.”
Nor could he stop in the gathering of
one organization, because he has in real
ity to assemble three, in order to carry
out his lavish plans in producing the great
Puccini work.
There will be eight performances week
ly, and It may be readily understood that
the strain would fall too heavily upon
the singers. As a matter of fact, he has
three stars for the title role and two sub
stitutes able to meet the “indisposition”
situation any minute. These are the noted
Hungarian singer, Elsa Szamosy, ac
knowledged the best “Butterfly” in Eu
rope: Adelaide Norwood, formerly well
known in, English grand opera, but who
has been studying and singing in Europe
during all the time that she has not been
before the public here, and Miss Eloise
Janssen,. a Norwegian of great charm.
All of these have their individualities,
OF THE LYRIC STOCK CO.
Adelaide Power.
but no audience will feel aggrieved at
getting one or the other, as they have
been selected with this in mind. In se
lecting most of the singers, Mr. Savage
was accompanied all over Europe by
Walter Rothwell, the conductor, who
made such a reputation for himself as
conductor of the “Parsifal” given such a
sumptuous production ‘ by Mr. Savage,
and who knows every corner of the artis
tlc world of Europe. It was according
esprit. .jsS-‘-‘aBrfcv
THERE IS NOTHING SO UNCERTAIN AS LIFE
There. Is Nothing So Uncertain in Portland as the,
Summer Season It Therefore Behooves You to Visit
WHILE
EXCLUSIVE OF. THE PRESENT WONDERFUL
ATTRACTIVE FEATURES THERE ARE
MORE SURPRISES
1. Every Wednesday Evening, Prize
Waltzing.
2. . Every Thursday Evening, Grand Fire-
works Display. v
3. Every Saturday Evening, Costly Door
Prizes at Pavilion.
CPFPI A I Tuesday Eve’g, July 31, Grand Prize
Ji LlIAL Masquerade in the SKATING RINK
to his – Judgment that Mr. Savage en
gaged Szamosy.
Mr. Savage has also engaged three ten
ors, of which Joseph Sheehan will be
first. Nor will Mr. Rothwell be able to
stand the strain alone, in consequence of
which two assistants have been engaged,
one of whom is Alfred Feith. well known
in Germany.
Puccini is so interested in the forth
coming production of his opera that
he took Mr. Rothwell with him when
he went to superintend the production
in Budapest, and it was he who rec
ommended to Mr. Rothwell Ellsa Sza
mosy, whom he considered ideal in the
role. v
Rehearsals are now In progress in
London and there is no doubt that Puc
cini will pass upon- the production be
fore it goes on the boards in this coun
try. This will be the first great operatic
event, as October 15 the season will
open at the Columbia in Washington,
D. C, after which the company will
have a week in Baltimore and’trto
weeks in Boston, arriving in. New York
Just ahead of the other openings.
There is no doubt in anybody’s mind
that the production which Mr. Savage
will give will be far ahead of any
thing he saw in Europe; that is the way
he does everything, and the great talent
of this manager is t6 bring into his
productions the indefinable atmosphere
which belongs to them. This was dis
tinctly missing in the Covent Garden
presentation, and the lack of it accen
tuated the desire in Mr. Savage to sup
ply it. Walter Burridge, the most noted
scene artist in this country, is work
ing on tiie scenery and has the first
setting completed, the second and third
will be ready by the time the company
arrives for the rehearsals in this coun
try. One of the most important feat
ures of the staging is, of course, the
costuming, and for this Mr. Savage has
engaged the French artist, Louis Neld
hardt, who lived four years in Japan
and is recognized as one of the greatr
est authorities on Japanese art.
There will be a ‘ widespread disap
pointment in the announcement that
this season Mr. Savage will not take
out the English Grand Opera Company
in rejjertoire, because the entire coun
try came to look to this as one of ‘its
greatest attractions. Mr.’ Savage has
not by any means abandoned it and
next season he will put forth a greater
organization than’ ever upon which he
has already begun work.
His plans for next season include a
production of the entire “Ring” cycle,
and the work of translation and ar
rangement is already under way.
An important thing accomplished by
Mr. Savage in the direction of light
opera or rather such musical comedies
as “The Yankee Consul,” “Prince of
PilsenJ and works of that class, which
have “become such “furores” in America,
is to have concluded negotiations with
Marcel YVer to produce “The Yankee
Consul” at the Marigny Theater in
Paris in October and afterwards
“Woodlands” will go ‘ on. Mr. Savage
also arranged with Victor de Cottens,
of the Circ Nouveau, to produce “The
Prince of Pilsen” around the holidays
and later “The Sultan of Sulu.”
The preliminary announcement that
come from the Metropolitan Opera-House
enlighten us upon the fact that Mr. Con
ried will give four Puccini operas during
the visit of that great composer who, by
THE SEASON LASTS THINK
the way, Is not a conductor, and it is
probably a mistake that he is to handle
the baton. He will no doubt supervise
the production, but it Is known In Europe
that he seldom touches the stick, as it is
a rather dangerous operation, unless one
lives in the atmosphere’ rather steadily.
Puccini receives $8009, -however, to be
present upon this ocacsion. Other works
by the same composer will Include “Ma
non Lescaut,” and, of course, the ever
popular “Tosca” and “La Boheme.” The
great novelty, however, since Savage will
take the edge off “Madame Butterfly,”
will be the production of “Salpme,” by
Richard Strauss, with the composer at
the baton. ‘
The Conrled revivals include Wagner’s
“Flying Dutchman” and Meyerbeer’s
“L’Africaiijj.” There will be other an
nouncements later, ‘ .but for the present
this demonstrates that Mr. Conrled has
not been wasting the time abroad. A
cable from Mr. Conrled on Friday an
nounced that Kn’ote will not be able tb
come this season, owing to ill health of
his wife, but that he would rejoin the
company the year following and give
double the number of appearances.- Mr.
Conrled has succeeded in replacing him
with Carl Burrlan, of the Royal Opera
of Dresden, who is Tegarded as a great
artist in Germany. ‘ It will be his first
appearance In this country.
New Hammerstein announcements tell
of the coming of Georgiana ‘ Rugs, a
dramatic soprano famous in Italy. Her
first appearance will be In the opera of
“Alda.” Hammerstein is also negotiat
ing for the appearance of Camllle Saint
Saens to conduct his own opera, “Sam
son et Delila.” The title roles will be
played by Dalmores, -the French tenor,
and Mme. Cisneros (Eleanore Broadfoct).
Leoncavallo also will conduct one or
more of his workg at the New Manhat
tan. If nothing prevents, Hammerstein
will produce Leoncavallo’s new opera.
“Fedora,” and he will certainly give
“I Pagllacci” with Bond and Melba.
We are nearing the end of chaos, and,
although it is not hot, hotter, superlative
ly hot! most of the “stars” will get back
into the harness and the hardest har
ness at that. Rehearsal days ! Hoil sy
nonymous they are with broiling sun
and hard study. And for the choruses
little can any one imagine the torture
of learning new dances and new poses,
new conditions and -of being huddled to
gether in some stuffy, musty smelling
room. It is a fact that in all New York
there are not enough small halls, lodge
rooms and places of that . description
which are called Into use by the hordes
of rehearsing companies. It must not
be supposed that all those who are as
yet not engaged will have no chance this
season. On the contrary it is a custom
with many not to sign early, knowing
that some of the best parts will be
opened again In a hurry, through this one
or that one being unable to fill it satis
factorily or to chances of every kind from
sudden deaths to elopements.”
Your mention of the names of former NY Times music critics reminds me that once Allan Kozinn wrote a review in the New York Times of an organ recital in which he discussed the usage of certain stops in that work. I can’t imagine any of their current critics doing the same much less knowing the difference between a reed and a flue.
The Times has gone woke. That’s all you need to know.
You look to the NYT for objective journalism? That was your first mistake.
This is just a symptom of what’s going on all over. In Chicago, there are hardly any reviews at all and there is no music critic on staff at the Tribune. Reviews that do appear are by a freelance critic. A sorry state indeed.
Yes, but the freelance critic at the Chicago Tribune, Hannah Edgar, is excellent in all respects. No one has picked up the baton at the Chicago Sun-Times since the untimely passing of Andrew Patner.
It all started with dropping the Calendar . The Calendar showed all events , concerts and operas during the week and gave you an overview over all concerts in small and big venues . It was fabulous to keep informed . People protested , when it happened , but in vain .
Oh the irony that click-bait slipped disc bemoans the diminishing of serious criticism in the NYT. The lowering of critical standards is apparent across the board, something to which SD has been a willing contributor and beneficiary.
Spot on … you get four stars!
Same thing with the LA Times!
Dear Norman
Looking at this decline by noting the lack of reviews in the Times is lie the blind men trying to identify the nature of an elephant. It’s larger than ability of many of us to analyze easily.
One of the factors that has kicked in is the absence of teaching any the Arts in the schools. The kids lacking such cure when grown up don’t know the Arts exist. My prublic school featured Percy Grainger Adelbert Nevins, and Edward McDowell. My Junior High school had a prams in which we sang Gilbert and Sullivan choruses. My high school, Erasmus Hall, had musical cantatas offered by a stalwart staff of music teachers. When I went to college at Michigan I heard thousands of kids in marching bands. Cutting these programs made all of the Arts unreal, not just a banishing to the shadows of classical music.
Another factor is the disinclination of some composers to write music that’s at once tuneful in an accessible way yet filled with profundity. They were often professors who had bought into German ideas that complexity and expressive dissonance were the inevitable directions of classical music. In fact it’s one of them but not the only one. It did chase the crowd for classical music out of the concert halls. Indirectly it might have created a young public for rock music and musicians who could produce masterpieces of brevity and transparency that lasted three minutes.
A third factor is the indifference of the Times itself to the value of a kind of Tory existence over which they claim to be presiding. I heard from Ross Parmenter, one who reviwed classical music for them, that he was a sports commentator who knew nothing abut music but when asked to write reviews of it by the Times found he liked it. The Bang On a Can folks who tried to write accessible but deep music were not reviewed by the Times over decades. They certainly given their marathon free concerts at the Financial center over decades were at the least aesthetic news.
A fourth factor is the firing and humiliation at worst, ignoring at best , some the flaming advocates for classic muss like James Levine or Placido Domingo or quietly silencing draws like Lauren Flanagan.
Lastly there might be some resonance with the monumentality of some German notions of Art and social inequity which is distasteful to Americas.
This dismissal of the Arts generally in the Times was always in place even in the 1950s. They wanted something much more mild, narrow and dull than they were getting and responded to it by not noting its existence.
Since we live in a time when many people get their notions of reality from media, not personal observation, the power of any media organ becomes enormous and Orwellian to the point of making some enterprises a secret or even unreal. In its excesses it becomes ever more imploded in its perceptions and almost mechanically excludes more candidates to be in a circle of light than many an overt tyranny,
yours,
Matthew Paris
Hey, Matthew Paris,
I’m also a grad of Erasmus Hall H.S.,class of 1950, and heard some of my first classical music in Mrs. Dukakis’s Music Appreciation class.
The NY Times is a hollow shell of what it once was. Just take a look at their wedding announcements to see how debased that paper is. The NY Times’ classical coverage declined under Anthony Tommasini.
This is all part of part of The Decline and Fall of . . . the New York Times – & journalism in general. For those who believe the NYT is ‘woke’ – well, I suspect, as with most these days, your definition of ‘woke’ must be whatever you happen to dislike.
Jazz coverage has declined far more dramatically in the NY Times than has classical music coverage.
The NY times has lost their vision in supporting the Arts. I have disagreed with so many reviews in the past 5 years. I don’t bother reading their reviews any longer. They need to reinvigorate their vision.
Norman: Would you please attempt an interview with Tommasini? He is a free agent
The review by David Weininger of the George Crumb complete edition suggests that quality writing about classical music is not yet dead at the NYT. Dying, quite likely, and definitely so when it comes to reviewing live performances or professional matters in the classical music world — but not quite dead.
There are so many issues to unpack here, but I’d focus on three in response.
1) The general tenor of comments is that PR is a new horrible dragon arising to taint a pure art form. PR has ALWAYS influenced public perception of classical music. Claques are PR. Courting royal favor and commissions and citing honors is PR. The savvy of Beverly Sills in engaging a PR rep when she was at La Scala (much to the displeasure and disadvantage of Marilyn Horne as has been well documented) was at the heart of her elevation into American consciousness as a national sweetheart. PR as an influence is a given—and journalism has never been immune. (Remember Sills on the cover of all those magazines?)
2) Much of this vitriol may just reflect real and sincere differences of opinion—and may be reliant on subjective judgment that stokes personal bias. To call someone “high handed” in a past work environment is really not helpful without a fuller understanding. Did an executive call a discussion to an end because it had dragged on too long? Was someone critical of a performance in a less than diplomatic way? Was this just a case—especially in the current moment— an Executive who was charged with making a decision—often a hard decision—actually MADE a decision but simply didn’t solicit opinions from everyone that felt they should have been consulted? Executive leadership especially in this moment is HARD, is not a decide by committee function and often requires making the unpopular choice. (And really, you think Rudolph Bing and von Karajan ad infintum of the people extolled on this very blog weren’t high handed in those ways? )
3) It may be a sign of how out of step we as classical music lovers are with the times in which we live. The key theme of these posts is that we still look to print media to be the crucial gathering place for critical opinion. Vibrant communities—the video gaming community, the Hip Hop community, even the sports community (and let’s not overlook the Times elimination of the Sports section)— don’t receive significant ongoing coverage from the Times. AND THEY DON’T CARE! They have created their own vibrant gathering places to critique and share and opine—and especially if we care about the ongoing viability of classical music for young people who DON’T read hard print news, shouldn’t we do the same?
I was so disappointed with the Nyt. Battle returned to the Met for a recital not one mention. I thought it was shameful.
Per Norman: “Promoters say a piece in the Times is no longer worth the effort. Performers feel abandoned by a paper they once used first for puff-quotes. Reader comments about the loss of reviews are censored out by moderators.” Sources? Or just Norman’s opinion? No attribution means these comments can be disregarded.
Taking a swipe at NYT journalism requires practicing good journalism oneself.
Sad as this may sound (for an already declining Classical Music), it should be even more concerning in the first place that a review from NY Times (written by “critics” who if they’re smart enough will stay within the area of their limited knowledge) can make or damage an artist’s career! May this be an incentive to music lovers to gain more of their own awareness on who/what they listen to out there…
There are no more reviewers like Allan Kozinn, Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim, and in SF, Robert Commanday. There haven’t been in years. This has been in the making for a long time.
I’m certainly not going to contradict you, Norman! But I do want to mention that the trend you describe is also noticeable in Australia. In Canberra, the national capital, all the arts, especially the performing arts, are severely underfunded, and a similar malaise affects much of the rest of the country. There are “flagship” companies, adequately, though not generously funded, in the big cities, but still the effects are of a kind of slow strangulation, especially of new/brilliant/challenging work or artists, and a decline in standards. The most inspired era in Australia since 1945 is definitely the period of the Whitlam government (1972-1975), when good policy, including in the arts, made many of us feel as though we were experiencing a renaissance.
There is no “decline” at The NY Times; it has in recent years become a hugely profitable enterprise. The simple fact is that it has chosen to abandon classical music, for its own corrupt set of reasons.
The observation is certainly correct.
However, I would rather blame the artistic side than the newspapers.
It also reflects my personal experience that I’m more exited about new movies and TV series than about a new opera premiere or classical album release.
There are no great singers anymore that can really carry an opera. Everything is very solid, but nothing inspiring.
And every Friday when I browse through the classical releases on my streaming service, I think by myself. Is this really the best, classical music can offer? The next recording of standard repertoire, hardly distinquishable of the dozen before. And very well made academic contemporary music that you have forgotten two hours later.
What’s lacking is fresh ideas instead of solid craftmenship, personalities instead of very good students. Something that gets me exited and curious again.
Another major writer for the NYT was Paul Griffiths from 1997 to 2005 writing on Xenakis, Berio, and Boulez and others of the avant-garde. Shame to see such an august publication neglect classical music, but competition with online platforms has an impact. We can also see it in the UK: the Guardian has seen a decline in its coverage of classical music.
Woolfe continues to be an embarassment to the Times. He still doesn’t get it. After his disastrous review of the BSO a few months back, the Times brought forth a puff piece trying to protect him. The Times claims they want more edgy, modern criticism, but that’s not what the readers want. They want to hear about the performance and the music, that’s it. No human interest, no criticism for idiots. That’s what they are delivering today…..when they decide to deliver it. Lots of music around town and it’s not be reported. Time to replace Woolfe and let him blog elsewhere.
I’ve been a Times subscriber for as long as I can remember. And yes, you are absolutely correct. In the classical music capital of the world (go ahead, contradict me), this is just a sin. And it’s not just the NYT. I long for the days of Andrew Porter writing in the New Yorker. Alex Ross is probably the keenest mind in classical music writing, in my opinion, but even his thoughts don’t appear regularly, but rather every other week, or even longer.
I used to think that NYC was the classical music capital of the world until I visited London. However, NY is #1 in the US
Keep in mind NYT was part of the mainstream biased dishonest media that supported Bush and Rumsfeld’s false WMD claims in the illegal Iraq War.
Has nothing to do with the subject being discussed
As if great musicians and great performances ever needed critics- or their reviews…..
I hate music critics. I know many great artists who had an off night and were traumatized by bad reviews. One such artist was the great Polish mezzo Stefania Toczyska she’s prone to frayed nerves from reading her reviews, I told her not to read them but she just couldn’t help herself.
If you want to get news coverage, MAKE NEWS. The problem is that classical music is over-institutionalized and lacks imagination. You can’t reinvigorate a genre by telling the public what they should like. You need to be creative and make an impact. ASO performing Schoenberg’s Gurrelieder isn’t news, but Park Ave Armory’s Stockhausen project, Inside Light is. Note the differences and you’ll see why.
I wish you would also talk about the despicable relationship the NY Times has formed with the Metropolitan Opera leadership, specifically Peter Gelb. This paper has done very little to magnify his many recent failures (for example, draining the endowment due to gambles on expensive new productions not paying off). Instead, all we get is puff pieces about his latest pet projects. Peter Gelb has done everything in his power to try and destroy the modern day opera star. The Times latest hit piece on the failures of Gelb and Yannick’s latest delusion was one of the only honest things that has been written about that disaster institution recently.
I think that musicians, composers, and the people who put on the concerts that are probably wrongly to determined not to be a level. Would disagree that the Times review scheme was better than no reviews at all. A few of the names on your list were notorious for only reviewing things that friendly publicists promoted directly to them.. and there will always hushed whispers of Payola. Some publicists only existed for the sole purpose of facilitating such reviews.
If in fact the Times neglect of reviews in favor of coddling wealthy advertisers and supporters / friends of the paper (that should have been mentioned here), it might end up being a net gain in stripping the Times of a gatekeeper role they abused and forcing people who actually need to see thoughtful reviews to find them in places that will actually give them.
The NYTimes needs to change their motto to:
All the sponsored content they can charge for which can fit on a page.
Only sad that it took you this long to recognize the corruption and mendacity long known at NYT. Politicized long ago, mean-spirited and ignorant. NYT is not a newspaper, just a fluff elite silly liberal rag.