music

Obviously not at the Same Concert: More from Donald Rosenberg

By David Budin

The July issue of Northern Ohio Live featured contributing writer David Budin’s interview with Donald Rosenberg, classical music critic for the Plain Dealer. In that story, Budin touched on Rosenberg’s critique of the Cleveland Orchestra and music director Franz Welser-Möst – criticism that has sparked controversy for orchestra lovers and earned Rosenberg some critiques of his own. Here are more excerpts from Budin’s interview with Rosenberg.

David Budin: So, do people write or call you directly to complain when they disagree with you? Do you hear from them?

Donald Rosenberg: Yes, I get e-mails from people. They don’t call too much, some people leave voice mails anonymously, which I think is cowardly. I get all kinds of responses, pro and con, and if it’s a rational e-mail, I will answer it. If it’s not rational, I might just spike it because there is no use answering someone who’s not willing to listen to another viewpoint. Complaints also go to the editor of the paper, who fields some of them or directs them to my direct editor. But complaints are all part of the business. If you are a critic, someone is going to disagree with you either way, whether you appreciate what an artist has done or whether you deplore what an artist has done. It goes both ways; it’s just part of the business.

DB: When I was the editor of two different magazines, I noticed that people don’t write very often to agree with you.

DR: No, they don’t. Unless they are so passionate about it that they are relieved that you concur with them. People usually want to have their views corroborated rather than the other way around, and if you don’t confirm what they believe, they take exception. But isn’t that human nature?

DB: I would think so. But I think most people really understand that a critic is expressing his or her opinions – though usually informed opinions – but people do get emotional about it.

DR: Absolutely, very emotional. And in some ways it’s good, too, because they really care. Critics really care, because it’s what we love, and many of us are trained in the medium that we are writing about and so it’s not an arbitrary opinion. It’s based on years of experience, practice, research, constant study – it’s a conglomeration of all your experience. And, no, it’s not easy, because you have to strike a balance in criticism between historical information, the basic facts of the event and whether it was a success or not, and describe in the most specific language possible what the characteristics of that artist and performance were that made it work, made it not work, made it special, made it more daring, what worked.

But sometimes I learn from them, sometimes someone has something very astute to say and I’ll start a conversation. I’ve made some friends that way over the years from people who have disagreed.

DB: I don’t do a fraction of the amount of reviewing that you do, but I have started conversations with some people who have e-mailed me about my reviews, and got into some pretty interesting discussions.

DR: Yeah, it’s possible. That’s what it’s really about; criticism is really about starting conversation on the subject that you’ve written about. Nothing bad comes of generating interest and passion in the art. Whether someone agrees or disagrees is not the point. The point is that they are starting to think about it and they are starting to learn about it and if they do then you have accomplished something.

DB: I’ve written things for publications – reviews and essays – for which I expected some strong opinions, and the editors have called and said “Are you sure you want to run this? People are going to get mad.” And I’ve said, “That’s fine; this about the arts and I’m posing some questions here, I want to start the discussion, and I don’t care which side they’re on.”

DR: That’s right. I mean – critics have their own opinion. If you’re a reporter, what you are doing is delivering facts. But a critic has to balance the facts with some kind of viewpoint and, believe me, people want to read a viewpoint. Whether they agree with it or not is neither here or there. What they want to know is how you felt about that subject, what your ideas are and whether what you heard or saw you believe was valid or not.

DB: When you are going to review a piece that you are not that familiar with, do you listen to recordings of it first, if they are available?

DR: It depends. The best thing is just to look at a score. Listening to a recording can be dangerous because you don’t always know if the recording is an accurate reflection of the score. I think it could be, but it’s best to look at the score along within a recording; or if you have a score and go to rehearsal. Sometimes I do that. In other cases, when you can’t do that with a brand new piece, you have to go into the hall and listen carefully and use your training to absorb the information and figure out a way to write about it that’s clear to the reader.

Pick up a copy of Northern Ohio Live at your favorite newsstand or subscribe online now. No credit card required. We’ll bill you later.