Essays - Dear OPUS

OPUS - Faculty of Music Student Journal

(Vol. 12 No. 7, March 1977, p. 7)

Some time ago a group of our professors wrote a letter to the local newspaper in regard to the embarrassment caused to the entire musical community by the incompetent critism to which artists were submitted to in our city. It was therefore a source of still greater embarrassment to see that you have allowed our student newspaper (in the January issue) to become a breeding ground for the same depressing activity. My letter is not directed to the student involved, but for all those reasons condensed in what Epictetus said eighteen centuries ago; namely that "it is impossible for anyone to learn that which he thinks he already knows". It is not the Kraglunds, the Wetsteins, and others, who are responsible for that tragic situation which results in a Tom Vickers, a Sviatoslav Richter or even a Rich Little refusing to perform in Toronto. …The cause is found, rather, in the sacred, democratic right of every Johnny's ear with the power of hearing all and not just what it can or what it wants to hear, and who waits to 'receive' Johnny's opinion before buying a ticket. Above all, the cause is the ignorance with which the editors do the hiring.
Now, even in small ventures such as a student paper, one could hope of the possibility to change things, by showing how it could be done. Why do you want to confirm what is being blamed on educationalists; that they perpetuate the climate which will nullify their professional purposes? Aren't we all trying to learn and to instil in our students those artistic principals and criteria on which evaluation is to be based? Why is critism, then, only a negative game? As it exists, especially in North America, it is indeed a form of oppression. You may not perceive it as such, and take it as a form of reality instead, because of the all-prevading horserace mentality with which the art world is polluted, the black/white elements one breathes as if they were air: praise and condemption, I like it - I don't like it' good/bad and even things called "juries"…The real tragedy is that North American artists seem so affected by it. It is not so, ot less so in older cultures, where Johnny's opinions are not important enough to influence a more enlightened public, nor does it have it the power to affect ticket sales.
Even within the scope of your paper could much goodbe done by helping your readers realize that the important thing is WHOSE opinion is being expressed. For Johnny to have any credibility at all his own work must also be of the calibre that can come under public scrutiny (think of Shaw, of Hein, of the critic's personal achievements, the reader can judge his judgement and, accordingly, form his own. But alas, the selection of music critics nowadays is not given the same care as that of a sport caster. Anyone is allowed to proclaim to the world his superiority in artistic taste and discernment over Toscanini's performance, or Bartok's, or in your case Bernardi's … Your critic was not in a position to recognize what was being played and admitted to having to ask what it was, but "judged" it's performance anyway. It was reassuring to be told that our first-year theory students have the style of late eighteenth century operettas at their fingertips; it is to be hoped that some of them may develop their taste buds sufficiently to be able to recognize the difference between 'garbage' (as it was defined) and a 'mousse' offered as an hors d'oeuvre.
You may say that I do not understand democracy, as I have been told already; that I know. But don't you think that the glory of our freedom of expression (Voltaire's "I disapprove of
what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it", and all that) is being rather misplaced and misused? Remembering Epictetus, one may resign oneself to the fact that nothing will change even if Johnny is told that his opinion is worthless and harmful. He can't learn, can't yet understand, but boy, does he know! Yet, if he is not told at least to keep quiet, then truly our civilization and we in it, deserve to perish.

Yours,
Damiana Bratuz

Dear Dr. Bratuz:
In regard to your letter on [the student's] review of the National Arts Centre Orchestra concert: it is reflection of our society that people take what they have read in print as truth. When OPUS printed Ms. Brown's review, it was not with the intent of perpetuating her opinions into true facts, but rather, as a springboard to discussion. (It is clearly stated in each OPUS that the opinions expressed within do not necessarily reflect those of the editor).
It is certainly true that a newspaper, (whether a small-scale student journal or an international paper) has a responsibility to his readership to provide quality journalism. We will not deny that OPUS might be at fault in allowing Ms. Brown's critique to be published. However, it is precisely the code of Voltaire, which you quoted, that provides the basis of any defence OPUS might offer. Everyone has the right to express their own opinion: but it is also the right of anyone to reply to that opinion, to disagree and to debate it. The fact that there was no response by the so-called musicians of our readership indicates a sad apathy on their part.
If a "democratic journalism" is to exist, it cannot be credible unless both sides are presented. With every hope and opportunity for rebuttal.
In the future, OPUS will make every attempt to present balanced critiques. The job of criticizing others is difficult enough - for who is anyone to say that another is wrong? - But perhaps opposing views on a subject will give an equalizing effect on 'gullible' public.

Sincerely,
K. H., Editor of OPUS

[Add comment]