What’s the alternative? Ignore the piece as if it didn’t happen? Set aside what he thinks of the composition and simply evaluate whether the soloist was inspired or deeply committed? How does he disrespect people who may like the piece by comparing it to a painful movie experience? I am not familiar with torture porn or Gaspard Noe. I have come out of a few concerts comparing some piece I’d just heard to the more depressing works of Sarah Kane or other playwrights of the ‘in-yer-face’ school only to be told in the morning review that it was all brilliant and wasn’t I lucky to have been a part of it.

On the rare occasion that my local paper publishes an even slightly less than glowing review, there will be angry commenters asking why the critic didn’t mention that everybody else had loved it and given it a standing ovation.

I read a few other reviews by that critic – he’s not uniformly condescending as the original post indicated.

http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2120:gerhaher-gustav-mahler-jugendorchester-blomstedt-rah&Itemid=27
“Yet again I leave a Herbert Blomstedt concert with a sense of wonderment and bemusement. Wonderment at the extraordinary music-making that this man is capable of. Bemusement as to why he is not better known, his talents not more widely recognised,…”

http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2099:shaham-minnesota-orchestra-v%C3%A4nsk%C3%A4-rah&Itemid=27
“One could go through every marking and moment in this way, explaining why Vänskä is a cut above the rest:”

etc.

“RN, you’ll notice that I didn’t say anything about the critic’s description of the Bruckner”
…
“If you re-read the post, you’ll see that my objection to this review wasn’t about anything written about Osmo or the orchestra, but about the author’s decision to completely dismiss everything but the Bruckner…”

I reread the review and the critic gave a mixed notice to the overall performance including a technical analysis and a lot of context. I don’t know the Shostakovitch cello concerto but it is nails on a chalkboard to him. ( I found some recordings online including Han-Na Chang at the 2006 Proms and it didn’t do much for me.) What if he had simply not commented on it?

“…rants about composers long since welcomed into the canon …”

He disliked the cello concerto. I didn’t see anything there about hating Shostakovitch on general principles. Besides, does it mean that anything that gets into the standard repertoire for whatever reason has to be at minimum liked and evaluated only on execution? I try hard to switch out of any concert with Salonen or Adams pieces on the program – they’re fairly common nowadays and very popular with some people. I can’t always do it and when I fail, the evenings have been compromised if not entirely shot-to-hell. Regarding the Barber quip, ‘juvenilia’ refers to something created in one’s youth and applies, backhand and all, to his having written the piece at the age of 23.

“By pretty much all other accounts, Alisa Weilerstein gave an inspired and deeply committed performance, ”

‘inspired’ and ‘deeply committed’ leave me scratching my head. I see them all the time in reviews and have no idea what they mean. There’s also an appeal to authority there, ‘Well, the other critics liked it, why didn’t you?’

In summary – one critic disliked a part of the program and you’ve summarily dismissed him as a condescending hack.

If you re-read the post, you’ll see that my objection to this review wasn’t about anything written about Osmo or the orchestra, but about the author’s decision to completely dismiss everything but the Bruckner on the grounds that the Barber was “juvenilia” (which it isn’t) and the Shostakovich is “torture porn” (which is patently offensive.) By pretty much all other accounts, Alisa Weilerstein gave an inspired and deeply committed performance, and this guy decided that was irrelevant because he wanted to rant about the piece. Alisa deserved better, and childish rants about composers long since welcomed into the canon are beneath a serious critic – that’s all I’m saying.

i was disappointed that none of the critics really took the measure of Vanska’s Bruckner, which really seems very different from any one else’s. I am still making my mind up about it. The rather magisterial Time’s critic noted that the orchestra’s playing was not as free as with the Beethoven and that the Andante lagged, which were not unreasonable comments, but he didn’t address the concept of the interpretation.

I am really tired of critics who complain simply that a performance is different from some other standard (Karajan, Ormandy, etc.). Or make factual errors. Or who lack the culture to put things into context.

With all of that, there was plenty of blurb material for promotions. Other big orchestras (Berlin, Concertgebouw, Cleveland) also took some lumps in the UK, so it goes with the territory.

You protest too much.

I read the Arts Desk review to which you pointed. The author had a lot to say about the performance. Classy, boogie[ful], conductor looking beyond the score and “going for it” in the fourth movement unlike just about any other. He didn’t care for some fraction of the performance and/or the repertoire. It happens. I did get a feel for what was on his mind, a sense that he had looked at the score, and I have no idea whether the bad comments were due to him having a bad day or not. We had a critic in Los Angeles, respected by many, who hated Brahms and Sibelius, yet went on assignment to hear them.

Your writing and blogging have been some of the best I’ve read over the past several years but you have blind spots, especially with respect to Osmo V. A lot of us in LA like Dudamel and the LA Phil but they got individually and jointly lit up on their recent U.S. tour. It happens.

Here’s what you could do… MN. Orchestra plays Elgar’s Enigma, and you have a google search for the users old names and IDs and seek blog comments that could be flashed up in syncopation to the music.