Article Title

Your Ad Here!
Send Email to: publisher@newmusicon.org

CONGRATULATIONS TO . . ., 3
RECENT DEATHS; CORRECTIONS; LEGATO NOTES: 4

LIVE EVENTS
(May 18 to October 24, 2003)

I Hear Museum Art (B.L.C./Greenfest) <> Mad Dreams and Brits (Hickey), 6
The Score's the Thing (David Cleary) <> Recitalists & Rappers (Greenfest), 7
Music for Aldous Huxley (Cleary), 8
In Sarah's Wake (Cleary), 9
Down to the C in Chips (B.L.C.), 10
Exploring the Keys (Cleary), 11
A Rave for "Vera" (Kraft), 12
At the Temple of Drama (B.L.C.), 13
This Macbeth Struts and Frets Not (Kroll), <> A Powerful Woman (Paulk), 14
A Warrior for Us All (Paulk) <> Is There a Dr. T in the House? (McDonagh), 15
Turning the World of Sound Upside-down (Liechty/de Clef Piñeiro), 16
A Classic Ascends (de Clef Piñeiro) <> Broken by Fate (Kroll), 18
An Ancient Instrument, A New Voice (de Clef Piñeiro), 19
Pushing Strings (Kroll) <> Of A Love For Music (Patella), 20
A Night with Wolfe, Ethel and Friends (Hickey) <> Grist for the Opera Mill (Lynn), 21

DOTTED NOTES
from … Kroll, BLC, 22

INTERVIEW
A recent interview by broadcaster Bruce Duffie with Ruth Schonthal

SPEAKING OUT!
"Not Just Another Concert" <>
More on the "Pullet's Surprise," 24
"… a decidedly poor second choice," 25

THE PRINTED WORD
It's Who You Know (Barry Drogin), 25

RECORDINGS

À outrance à la Anderson (de Clef Piñeiro) <>
"Beauty to the Limits" (Galganski) <>
He Never Sat Back (BLC), 27
Gi'me Moe Time (Cleary) <>
Monk's "mercy" (Kaye), 29
Readying the "Unready," (BLC), 30

RECENT RELEASES, 31

THE PUZZLE CORNER:
Another outstanding winner, 32

COMPOSER INDEX, 34

BULLETIN BOARD, 35

WEB SUPPLEMENT

Speaking Out!

More on the “Pullet’s Surprise”

(as discussed at length in NMC, V11, #2)

In our last issue, we reprinted and commented on a “report” written by NY Times critic Anne Midgette, “Dissonant Thoughts on the Pulitzer Prize.” In that piece, she quoted John Adams and John Corigliano, both winners of the award, as challenging the Pulitzer Prize’s reputation for its passing over “genuinely creative spirits” and for being “by composers for composers,” etc., etc. Just now we read with interest an editorial that had appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune written by composer Roger Reynolds, another Pulitzer winner and a teacher at UCSD. Since there was not enough time for a request for reprint permission, we can only quote extensively from his remarks. Essentially, Mr. Reynolds, surely reviewing the same article we saw (the title appears to have been changed to “Composers Put Down Pulitzer”), takes Ms. Midgette to task for what he calls her “circular thinking.” He writes “many of her facts are hearsay, but the thrust of the article is clear: The Pulitzer is not always won by the most well-known artists, and if they (the already famous) were more frequently included, the reputation of the Pulitzer itself would be ‘restored.’” This viewpoint, he says, is not “uncharacteristic of American society: the ever-more-inevitable link between fame, media attention and reward.”

Reading on, we see that Mr. Reynolds, displays a feeling of being discredited by some “off-handed slurring,” i.e., the mention of his name, along with Wayne Peterson’s, as “less-known artists,” in receipt of the prize.

And Mr. Reynolds goes on to make other points: that one’s life choice [e.g., art vs. entertainment] ought not be raised above another; that the mavericks among us [meaning he and others] may not be the most popular figures, but try to be “connected to deeper or long-lasting value;” that he recognizes some changes have been made in Pulitzer policy, but fears they might only lead to Grammys and Academy Awards.” (Brackets are ours.)

Well, much of his commentary is well put, and we can certainly support him on the “slur” he feels was embedded in the “less well-known artists” remark. That was an egregious mistake by the reporter; it is both bad criticism and bad journalism, because it is a judgment, even if only by inference (which we don’t know, as Ms. Midgette has not made it clear whether that was hers or a thought drawn from Mr. Adams’ remarks). Mr. Reynolds is also right in stating that her article is dotted with hearsay.

Nonetheless, we note that the person who started the whole thing was John Adams, not Anne Midgette. Perhaps, his remarks were taken out of context or simply presented in an exaggerated way. Mr. Reynolds does not challenge John Adams for dissing the prize. Reynolds has put Adams squarely on his side. So where’s the beef?

When we expressed the opinion last time that the Pulitzer committee should not be made up mostly of composers, we based that on the notion that the bringing together of people with the same interest will tend toward judgmental incestuousness. Were we off base? Maybe. But here’s what we see as a possibly damning example of composers sticking together on a controversial issue and attributing all of the regrettable stuff being said about it to the critics. In other words, they just blame the messenger. We have always taken the position that there are not enough critics around these days with the kind of standing that would give their words weight. It’s a critical shortage that needs to be addressed, we feel. It is, in fact, part of our mission statement. Our second New Music Champion award ceremony was entitled “Whence Tomorrow’s Raves!” Shortage or not, let’s try to be fair to the critics we do have around today.

Since Mr. Adams has not publicly disclaimed the statements attributed to him, this writer believes the onus should be taken off the back of Ms. Midgette, who, as a critic and music reporter, did ostensibly present Mr. Adams’ remarks fairly and squarely. He has had every opportunity to challenge the critic’s report, if he felt he was misquoted or that his words were taken out of context. And if Mr. Reynolds is in agreement with Mr. Adams on the issues the latter raises, one must conclude Reynolds is upset mainly about the putdown.

But he also has a beef with John Corigliano. Reynolds mentions that he [RR] was one of the three persons on the 1992 jury that recommended Ralph Shapey [a pronounced maverick] to the Board to get the prize. The Board [all journalists] decided in favor of Wayne Peterson. [Note that this oft invoked procedure was mentioned by us in our last-issue.] Reynolds writes, “Corigliano … was also a contender that year. Perhaps Peterson and I were then numbered among the targets for Corigliano’s ‘rage’ (the article emphasizes his capacity for anger). And it appears that he was able to use the Times reporter to satisfy himself.” (Quotes and parentheses are Reynolds,’ brackets ours.)

Well, that seems like a stretch to us, particularly since everyone after 1992 (including the writer whose remarks follow these) has seen the Ralph Shapey slap in the face as the big news of that 1992 judging. Maybe in California John Corigliano has a different image. In New York he is seen as a soft-spoken and intelligent guy who once showed them out there in Oscarland how to make a calm, low-key and just plain winning acceptance speech upon getting an Academy Award. Mr. Reynolds’ remarks are so full of inferences (which he cites as Anne Midgette’s problem) that we, too, are tempted to play the game and assume that there must be a war going on between California and New York composers.

At the risk of sounding grouchy, we think if this goes on any further someone may have to change the name of the award to the “Pullet’s Surprise.” There are just too many chickens out there clucking away over some prize feed.

B.L.C.

CONTENTS

RECORDINGS

WEB SUPPLEMENT

Live Events

CD Reviews

Obituaries

Speaking Out!

More on the “Pullet’s Surprise”