parterre box

26 comments

• browser says:

  I think recorder is stretching it for homophones; but this I do find it very strange how worked up people have become over something as simple as this. I wonder if the person who lost out on the NY Post gig is venting a bit of steam (and perhaps posting under different names)>,,,

  Oh and BTW, it is quite possible to mistake a soprano or alto sax for clarinet or oboe. They don’t just honk, ye know….

  on August 18, 2009 at 4:26 AM
• javier says:

  Wow. I looks like someone really hates JJ. Well, look on the bright side: it’s getting an article that I would have skipped some attention.

  on August 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
• Alto says:

  Brooklynpunk: I think you are very unjust. Hearing a bass clarinet in the texture of an Adams opera and — with your mind on perhaps several other things occurring at the same time — then remembering it as a saxophone is a very forgivable mistake.

  Our doyenne has pilloried critics for mistakes in her cum blog, ’tis true. But I think they were always of the species of mistake that was either willful, truly ignorant, or had high comedic value.

  Does not some twinge within you, besides, suggest to you that it might be some sort of violation of hospitality to attack her integrity unfairly here, in her own home? At least if you intend to continue to benefit from what she offers us here?

  on August 18, 2009 at 11:45 AM
• Alto says:

  P.S. We finally get a competent commentator on opera in the metropolitan dailies, and people who supposedly care about the art come out of the woodwork to attack?

  Fie.

  on August 18, 2009 at 11:47 AM
• m. p. arazza says:

  “Hearing a bass clarinet in the texture of an Adams opera and — with your mind on perhaps several other things occurring at the same time — then remembering it as a saxophone is a very forgivable mistake.” (#13)

  To which it should be added that Adams HAS featured saxophones in other works, so it would not be unreasonable to extrapolate here and assume the same.

  on August 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM
• brooklynpunk says:

  ALTO:

  “Does not some twinge within you, besides, suggest to you that it might be some sort of violation of hospitality to attack her integrity unfairly here, in her own home? At least if you intend to continue to benefit from what she offers us here?”

  ..CALM DOWN..!!

  ..and NOPE..NOT A “TWINGE”, on my part…SORRY..!

  As for our doyenne..Cieca is quite strong and sophisticated, enough, I have no doubt, to weather a weak objection to one particular issue that I mentioned..( why it has your panties in such a bunch is the real mystery…)..”Personal attack”?–I DON’T THINK SO, not in the slightest…but then again, no-one gave me a copy of the ground-rules here, saying that we all had to be in perfect agreement with dear La C, at all times..

  on August 18, 2009 at 12:02 PM
• aristotleincarnate says:

  @ $14, I don’t think you can tell whether or not JJ is a quality reviewer from these Post reviews. They’re way too short and are geared to an audience only willing to put up with a certain amount (both quantity and quality wise). @ alto, #13, sure, it’s possible to confuse x for y when you’re focused on other things, but if you only choose to mention certain aspects of the opera in a review, make sure you were totally focused on them and didn’t choose ones you weren’t sure about!

  on August 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM
• kashania says:

  @17:

  I don’t think you can tell whether or not JJ is a quality reviewer from these Post reviews. They’re way too short and are geared to an audience only willing to put up with a certain amount

  Sure you can. In fact, the contstraints of such limited space probably show what a reviewer is really all about. Some reviewers use the limited space as an excuse to write some filler and make passing references to the performance. That JJ is able to still give an informative review in a few small paragraphs is the strongest testament to his abilities.

  on August 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
• Cocky Kurwenal says:

  “Some reviewers use the limited space as an excuse to write some filler and make passing references to the performance.”

  Like the recent Meyerbeer review, which was mostly a big lecture on the piece, with limited actual commentary on the performance.

  I like JJ’s reviews a great deal usually, but since this has come up and universal fawning is the norm on this site when it comes to JJ’s writing, that did strike me as a piece where the writer wasn’t really doing his job.

  on August 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM
• La Cieca says:

  Cocky: I think a reviewer make take a different slant when the important news angle is the piece rather than the performance. This was particularly true, I think, of the “Huguenots,” which was positioned by the presenters as an examination of why an opera that was once so popular has falled into disuse. I thought Tommasini’s review in the Times, for example, though a little on the long-winded side, dealt with this issue very well and struck a fine balance between a discussion of the “Huguenots question” and a review of the individual performance.

  Now, if the opera in question is Trovatore, the reader of a major New York daily should not have to put up with paragraph after paragraph detailing the plot twists, listing the hummable tunes, etc. etc. Really that sort of review should as much as possible concentrate on the elements specific to that particular performance.

  This is how La Cieca feels, anyway.

  on August 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM