 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-06-21 14:51
I wondered if anyone knows anymore about this person.
Today I received his critic in the American Record Guide and I have to say it was extremely scathing on the point of laughable. According to his biog details on the American Record Guide he has played in some orchestras etc. But his review is obviously drawn from his ignorance of clarinet players from the UK and clarinet playing in general.
He has come up on the BB search here:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=379817&t=379681
and
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=305407&t=305294
The review reads like he has a real chip on his shoulder about clarinet playing other than what he might be used to in his tiny little sphere. His review is one of contradiction. On the one hand he compliments my playing only to then offer a scathing statement of the sort that accuses me of using a soft reed for example. Well I don't and when I recorded the disc I was using Peter Leuthner Strong reeds (between 3.5/4) on a long facing Hite Model H mouthpiece. I don't think this guy really knows what he is listening to.
I'm happy to share it if people are interested, though I have to say that this is the only negative one I have received so far. The others have been very positive. If someone has any contact details please get in touch off the BB, I'd be interested in speaking to him.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-06-22 00:21
Peter,
As sfalexi pointed out in a thread that, for some inexplicable reason, doesn't seem to come up in searches, Patrick Hanudel has recently joined an Army band. If you really want to contact him, you should be able to reach him through his Facebook page.
Best regards,
jnk
Post Edited (2013-06-22 00:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-22 18:56
Peter -
I am almost always taken aback by Patrick Hanudel's very negative reviews (particularly of English players) in the American Record Guide. I made a query, here, which for some reason got on the oboe board http://test.woodwind.org/oboe/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=387043&t=387043. It drew interesting comments, including a strong defense by his wife. As far as I know, he hasn't appeared himself either here or on the Klarinet list.
This is not the place to discuss personalities. He's entitled to his opinion even if I disagree with it, and he's gotten and holds an influential position. I'll discuss it with you privately if you like.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2013-06-22 19:44
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the link, I remember that thread and I did write on it. I'd be in interested in your thoughts and the outcome of any discussion you had with him.
I'm over it and frankly it still makes me giggle. He is every right to write what ever likes however unintelligible it may be.
I look forward to your email.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2013-06-26 21:29
I’ve read this post and responses, and related posts and those responses.
Critiques are purposeful and a necessary part of life. Unfavorable critiques, however, can sometimes be leveled to express a feeling of superiority or perhaps to express an inflated sense of knowledge.
Without belaboring any issues, suffice it to say that sometimes one’s ‘traits’ can be projected / transferred onto another.
Simply, what we may not particularly like in another’s ‘playing’ can relate to what we really may not like in our own.
This could especially hold true to critiques.
Thoughts to ponder………...who critiques the ‘critiquer’ and how is a ‘critiquer’, critiqued?
That said and without diminishing one’s accomplishments, I’ve questions for Mr. Patrick Hanudel:
*under what circumstances did you, as a Principal Clarinetist, leave the position?
*Midway through the first season, was the Principal Clarinetist informed that tenure would not be given? If so, what were the circumstances?
*were there any issues surrounding the Principal Clarinetist’s communication skills or ability to work well with others, eg: blending / tuning within the Wind section or Wind Quintet.?
*were there any personality or authority conflicts with other orchestra members including, but not limited to, the Music Director?
*a still standing requirement for the new Principal Clarinetist is to perform K.622 with the Orchestra. What reviews did you receive; in print and from cohorts?
back about 60+ yrs ago, I recall learning something about glass houses and throwing stones
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-06-27 00:23
Reminds me of the Chicago Symphony years with conductor Rafael Kubelick and critic Claudia Cassidy at the Tribune. She is now not remembered very well, but he is.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-27 01:52
I wish that Patrick Hanudel had responded to my invitation to join this interested and expert forum to set forth his ideas, or that he had contacted me or Peter personally. He has not, and that's his decision.
So let's leave him to stew in his own juices. Like Claudia Cassidy, he can do a lot of present harm, but in the long term he'll be forgotten.
Even at the American Record Guide, he's a minor fool compared to Donald Vroon, the editor. The publication is a crazy quilt of true experts who write wonderfully perceptive reviews (such as the cello specialist D. Moore) and deaf men lashing out in the wilderness like Vroon and Hanudel.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Daniel Frazelle
Date: 2013-06-27 01:57
Why is it not enough to debate the merits of the review and leave it at that? Dennis's (hartt's) response is completely off-topic and an ad hominem attack at best. Hanudel has every right to write what he pleases in his reviews. You can disagree, but that strikes me as an attack that is completely unwarranted and not relevant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-27 02:52
Daniel -
I disagree. Dennis has every right to his opinion that Patrick Hanudel is an indifferent player and a poor critic whose personal and musical failures have embittered him against everyone who isn't 100% like him. In private communications with me, Dennis has given many examples. This is certainly not off-topic, because it explains what's going on with the ARG clarinet reviews. I hope you'll agree that this is a topic of great interest to members of this board. It certainly is to me.
Also, I'm the one who raised the issue. I started the discussion because I found almost all Hanudel reviews of clarinet recordings to be negative and dismissive. Moreover, I'm offended when he speculates about a player's embouchure, reeds and mouthpiece based on just hearing a recording.
I take ownership of my opinions and my queries. If you want to come after someone, come after me.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2013-06-27 07:34
Daniel;
Initially, I did not intend to go beyond questions. However, your response ignored the crux of those questions and went on to question my intent. Further, you openly afford another the freedom of ctitique speech but, question the relevance of my questions.
LOOK AT THE LARGER PICTURE
Perhaps this will clarify what's deemed off - topic and relevant.
Off topic , de hominen???. Oh contrare. I hold no prejudices . Regarding his contentions in reviews, perhaps they emanate from his character flaws exhibited in early formative ; pre thru post Tucson and surrounding days. Seemingly, you view what I expressed as an attack that is completely unwarranted and not relevant. Patrick wrote of a performance like fingernails screeching across a blackboard and what others described as scathing attacks ………Do you not deem those as attacks (perhaps because he is a reviewer and has entitlement, a schoolmate?) And, feel he has every right to write what he pleases in his reviews. But, my review, posed in the format of questions, is , as you describe, an intellectual attack.
His short lived stay in Tucson was viewed by cohorts as a failed clarinet player; personal and professional immaturity, constant tuning issues, a feeling that being Principal, the Woodwinds should tune to him......even verbalizing that to the Director.
Should such a player be writing reviews of players who are internationally respected and valued by colleagues? A player whom orch members felt it was a mistake to have not selected the runner-up? A player who, after a few months was informed that tenure would not be given at season’s end? A player who continuously argued with cohorts that it was they who play ‘flat’ and not he, playing ‘sharp’ ?. With such an attitude there was no need to try a differ barrel and/or mp as was suggested because that setup worked all along (so the wind section should adapt). All this to a point others stopped trying to assist him.
Combine the above…..is that what qualifies someone to be a critic of renowned international players? Is that the background and experience that qualifies one to be a critiquer for a renown publication?
Politics goes beyond Washington, D.C. and plays a very important role in the workforce and it is no different, perhaps more evident in the musical community. As an example…..assume there are 2 finalists for a Principal position…….M and F . Now, know that on an audition panel, the Director holds 2 votes and has the ultimate ‘say’. Suppose that the Orchestra’s Wind quintet (comprised of Principal Wind players) has, for several years been all one gender. Now, add a Director’s desire to have a mixed gender. F is deemed and received better than M but M fits the bill for what the Director desires.
Remember the power of the PEN? Know there is power of the BATON.
Only later do all involved parties realize a mistake was made.
BTW, F sulks and truly knows there should have been a different outcome, (received a warmer feeling, expressions of gratitude, genuine smiles). However, goes back to the Chicago Civic and ultimately lands a Symphony position. Is held in high regard and accepts tenure.
Although Snow White's Fairly Tale did not come true, someone else's ultimately, did.
Btw, F's teacher was thereafter made aware of the 'why' and passed it on.
Daniel…..if you feel that my aforementioned input was an ‘attack that is completely unwarranted and not relevant’…….Please, I strongly suggest you not go there. This is the professional aspect.
To comment on the personal aspect, which you’ve thought I’ve already done, would be wholly irrelevant and immature of me.
Trust me, that is an territory that you do not want to visit.
_______________________________________________________
Daniel, I’ve read your bio and I’m impressed. You’ve a good education and some accomplishments in the musical arena. I know some of your teachers and are in some instances, the sons and grandsons of my teachers: Leon Russianoff, kal Opperman, Peter Hadcock, Charlie Bay, Gene Zorro, Henry Larsen, Charles Aurand and, the one and only…. Mr. Clarinet, Pete Fountain.
I learned much from each. What teachings I valued I continue to do so today. They are what and how they taught me beyond music: about life, values, insights, how to work with people (and more importantly, why). Paramount was character and integrity.
If you really want to know how a Clarinet Master would critique, I suggest you get hold of the rare and long discontinued 2 vol set of Clarinet Method by Leon Russianoff.
Therein, read the instances of how he addressed/evaluated students or player’s performance of a piece (even during a lesson). You will, without doubt, be enlightened and educated. I and others were and still are.
My Playing now is at about a been there, done that and leave it to the younger generation. I offer my assistance whenever I can and in the same fashion and spirit as it was offered to me.
There are many, many other players out there of my generation who also were fortunate to have teachers who, between the lines of music, taught the ‘facts of life’.
Some I know personally, others I’ve met while still others, I’ve come to know. To name a few; Francois Kloc, Bob Sagar, Ken Shaw, GBK, Bruce Marking, Guy Chadash, Alex Laing, Dr. Charles Aurand,etc.
You may ask what my purpose is to have expressed the aforementioned in such a fashion. All these people/players/teachers have one ability in common…………to critique without belittling and demeaning and, maximize the positive while minimizing the less than positive. Leon and Henry stood a little above others at this.
That, Daniel, is a difficult concept to accomplish and is nourished with time, maturity, experience and respect.
Please do not respond as I am not looking for a dialogue,
'Let it go'
Post Edited (2013-06-27 17:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KS92784
Date: 2013-07-03 02:18
So because some of you didn't like a couple of reviews you feel this warrants slandering his character? Do not even try to analyze what happened in Tucson because what you posted Dennis is not remotely accurate. As I said in my last post, I agree with 90% of what he writes, and he is simply doing his job. It's really sad when students and orchestra colleagues of mine alike have to bring these posts to my attention and are truly stunned at what they are reading. I understand that people have differences of opinion regarding sound quality, equipment, interpretations, and so many other factors that go into the style of clarinet playing that one prefers. In an ideal world, do you want to read a favorable review even if one is not warranted? Is a critics job to say nice things about everybody, therefore lessening the accomplishments of the truly great artists of our time? What gets me is he praises quite a few clarinetists INCLUDING Michael Collins.
I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion, but calling someone a "failed musician" and denouncing his accomplishments is not the way to go about this. Patrick believes that due to his position at ARG it is not appropriate to discuss his reviews in a public forum. But I feel that because I actually get to hear these CD's and I am NOT employed by ARG it gives me great perspective into this debate. If something is truly bothering someone about Patrick's reviews, I am happy to have you contact me privately and I can always give you his e-mail.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: livengoodman87
Date: 2013-07-03 03:37
I would also be interested to read Patrick's review, which seems to have ruffled some feathers. I imagine this is so because he pointed out that --- much like we shouldn't excuse players who fake their way through pieces by citing their (purportedly) inspired musicality (e.g. Richard Stoltzman) --- we also shouldn't conflate poor control of an instrument with stylistic preferences.
If Patrick has, in fact, dared to characterize most English playing for what it is --- an impoverished concept of sound that masquerades as tonal/artistic license --- then he should be applauded, not accosted.
This discussion should be focused on the merits (or lack thereof) of particular approaches to playing. Players often disagree with what comprises a desirable, ideal sound. This subjectivity, however, cannot be used to shield oneself from legitimate concerns about the deficiencies (and not preferences) that may underlie one's playing. If a reviewer errs in his assessments of what specific equipment is used, he can be easily rebutted by the player being reviewed.
But speculation, insinuation, and character assassination all reek of the very sort of petty, personality-based, parochial discourse and culture that has (continuously) turned many players (myself included) away from pursuing music as a career, rather than a hobby.
Post Edited (2013-07-03 03:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-03 04:24
Dave -
American Record Guide reviews are not available on the Web, but only by subscription. http://www.americanrecordguide.com/ You must subscribe (not a small amount) to see reviews from the current issue. For earlier issues, you must buy the hard copy issue separately or know which review you want and buy a hard copy separately. This is certainly essential for the survival of an expensively-produced classical concert and record review magazine. They're coy about their circulation, but it surely is below five figures.
Thus, it's difficult to get an overview of the Hanudel reviews. A friend gives me his ARG magazines when he has read them, which is how I get to read the Hanudel reviews.
KS92784 -
It's natural and admirable for you to defend Patrick Hanudel. As his wife, you cannot do otherwise. However, it makes no sense to go through you as an intermediary, as you insist. He's the critic, not you.
I own several thousand clarinet recordings, from acoustic 78s to DVDs, MP3s and downloaded videos, and I constantly listen to live videos and classical concert broadcasts. I dislike many recordings, but after reading well over 100 Hanudel reviews of recordings I have bought and listened to myself, I can only say that I find his opinions to be waspish and ill-considered.
Please encourage him to come here in person. There are many serious people (myself included) who will welcome the chance to discuss the recordings and his reviews.
Short of that, I think there's nothing more to say.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KS92784
Date: 2013-07-03 04:49
I am not that easily dismissed, Ken. I am not just defending him as a spouse, I am defending him as a professional clarinetist, and from that, am capable of formulating my own opinions. If you have read over 100 of his reviews and find him "waspish" and "ill-considered" why do you continue to read?
Post Edited (2013-07-03 05:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2013-07-03 06:43
Kristen
please send me your email. Mine is available as a link on here.
You question what I posted as not even remotely accurate ?
Trust me, I do not shoot from the hip, nor do I shoot blanks.
I know more than you and some of what I would like to share, I do not think you want to 'hear'.
I did not state him as being a failed musician, I wrote failed clarinet player.
Please, do send me your contact info, I encourage you to do so.
thanks
dennis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2013-07-03 19:59
No way I'm willing to pay...
Any chance someone could just type a section out?
BTW, I met Hanudel about a year ago at an audition. He seemed like a nice guy. I did not get a chance to hear him play. He must be able to play well enough; only 4 of us were invited to the audition.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 02:56
Kristin -
You can email me by clicking on my name. So can Patrick.
However, as I said, it makes no sense to deal through you as an intermediary. Patrick is the critic with the important job, not you. For me, it's Patrick or nobody, and I tremendously prefer a public discussion here on the board. His reviews are of great interest to us all.
Also, I'm *really* careful about what I write here. I fight clean and pull my punches unless I get hit below the belt. If you doubt this, please read (or ask Patrick to read) some of the many messages I've posted here (5435 and counting). Better, go to the Keepers section and reading anything of mine there. I suggest beginning with what I wrote about the third movement of the Beethoven 8th http://www.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=768&t=768, which I think is my best work.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 09:54
Ken Shaw wrote:
>> Also, I'm *really* careful about what I write here. I fight clean and pull my punches unless I get hit below the belt. If you doubt this, please read (or ask Patrick to read) some of the many messages I've posted here (5435 and counting).>>
Don't forget to read this one; great integrity, willingness to substantiate accusations, etc, shown here, in my opinion:
http://test.woodwind.org/oboe/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=314914&t=314881&v=f
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 13:54
Tony -
As I said, when you deliver a low blow (which, in my humble opinion, you have done to me many times), I will not hesitate to hit you back (above the belt) just as hard as you hit me, and harder if I can.
An egregious Tonyism was when I wrote (giving an exact cite) about an article by the Prokofiev scholar David Denton http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000241.txt. Denton wrote that Prokofiev worked on his flute/violin sonata alongside his opera War and Peace. The sonata and W&P share much material, and listening to the opera is essential to understanding the vocal nature of the sonata phrasing, the word settings and where to breathe. I then tied the Denton article to the Kennan transcription of the sonata for clarinet.
Tony, you apparently did not realize that I was writing about the opera (rather than the Tolstoy novel), and you seemed not to have read my posting at all. Instead, you attacked me for writing as if I thought that the sonata and the novel were contemporaneous. I give you all credit for being a knowledgeable professional musician who had for a moment forgotten about the opera. In that case you were merely an ignoramus. If you remembered the opera but attacked me anyway, hoping that others would not know about it, I suggest that what you did was worse. You threw a little tantrum and went out of your way to misinterpret what I said, or maybe even did so intentionally.
I heard the minx remark,
She'd meet him after dark,
Inside St James's Park,
And give him one!
You low-down alligator,
You know dat soon or later
Gonna catch you wit' yo britches down.
It's your choice. By your own words, you've proved that you're either an ignoramus or a person of no capacity whatever and a low-down alligator. (In case you've forgotten, or don't know, those are quotes from Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe and Ma Rainey.) I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and choose the first possibility.
For anyone interested in my moral and scholarly position, I suggest reading Richard Altick's famous essay "The Case of the Curious Bibliographers." Google "curious bibliographers" and "Browning" and go to what is today the second link, at Ohio State University. There, you can download the PDF without charge. (I read it about 50 years ago and remember it as if it were yesterday.)
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2013-07-04 14:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hartt
Date: 2013-07-04 17:42
points of the initial tread, as well as replies, have seemingly have been presented, addressed, debated, circumvented and/or denied.
Arms have been extended upward, singular index fingers have been pointed but none in the spirit of the Churchillian ' V '.
Irrelevant Bios have been presented herein and in private em's.
Fortunately, no shoes have been removed and banged on the lectern.
Plaintiffs and Defendants have plead their respective cases. Witnesses have been called upon, evidence presented and, exhibits have been presented to a sleep deprived jury and gallery.
Can we please close this thread , even if by mistrial ??
dennis
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-04 18:09
Dennis -
I agree. Tony isn't nearly important enough to merit further rebuttal. Neither am I.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-07-05 01:17
I know this is not on-topic for this thread, but it seemed more appropriate here than over on the other Arnold Jacobs one.
Ken Shaw wrote:
Quote:
An egregious Tonyism was when I wrote (giving an exact cite) about an article by the Prokofiev scholar David Denton.
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000241.txt.
Denton wrote that Prokofiev worked on his flute/violin sonata alongside his opera War and Peace. The sonata and W&P share much material, and listening to the opera is essential to understanding the vocal nature of the sonata phrasing, the word settings and where to breathe. I then tied the Denton article to the Kennan transcription of the sonata for clarinet.
Tony, you apparently did not realize that I was writing about the opera (rather than the Tolstoy novel), and you seemed not to have read my posting at all. Instead, you attacked me for writing as if I thought that the sonata and the novel were contemporaneous.
This is simply not true. I replied to the email you cite above as follows:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000244.txt
...and elaborated in response to Vann Joe Turner:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000251.txt
It was Keith Bowen who mentioned Tolstoy, clearly in error, but certainly not in any way to attack you:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000242.txt
You then wrote, conflating Keith and myself:
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2011/03/000249.txt
Quote:
I give you all credit for being a knowledgeable professional musician who had for a moment forgotten about the opera. In that case you were merely an ignoramus. If you remembered the opera but attacked me anyway, hoping that others would not know about it, I suggest that what you did was worse. You threw a little tantrum and went out of your way to misinterpret what I said, or maybe even did so intentionally.
[snip of G&S etc]
It's your choice. By your own words, you've proved that you're either an ignoramus or a person of no capacity whatever and a low-down alligator.
For anyone interested in my moral and scholarly position, I suggest reading Richard Altick's famous essay "The Case of the Curious Bibliographers." Google "curious bibliographers" and "Browning" and go to what is today the second link, at Ohio State University. There, you can download the PDF without
charge. (I read it about 50 years ago and remember it as if it were yesterday.)
Well, I'll do so; it looks interesting.
But for yourself, before all that scholarly jockeying, I suggest that a useful move might have been to read your source emails carefully in order to determine who said what.
I actually pointed that out to you later in my second example in the following post:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=350149&t=350065&v=t
-- after turning on 'threaded view' -- but you failed to notice this time around too. (That post also states yet again WHY I have trouble with you.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-05 02:11
Dear Tony -
You may be right, though not about Denton, Iolanthe or Ma Rainey (or Chris Hitchens).
I'm going to bed.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-07-05 23:27
By the way, Patrick Hanudel, since I might be argued to have hijacked this thread:
You're a bloody old towser-faced, po-faced, totem pole on a crap reservation.
Doubtless your lady wife will pass this message on to you.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2013-07-07 16:28
For those of you who would like to have a discussion with Patrick Hanudel, please email me and I will put you in touch with him. He has contacted me and is willing to have private discussions with our members. He feels his position with the ARG makes it difficult to post publicly, and I tend to agree with that position.
I am going to assume that anyone wishing to be put in contact with Patrick will be civil in any discussions, arguments, or whatever you have with him, and if any information contrary to what you've posted comes to light, that you will post the correction. It's only fair.
I'd like to think that you are representing the BBoard in the best way in all your communications with Patrick ...
Mark Charette
charette@woodwind.org
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2013-07-07 18:31
Mark Charette wrote:
>> For those of you who would like to have a discussion with Patrick Hanudel, please email me and I will put you in touch with him.>>
For myself, count me out.
My default position with critics is to discount them. Quite rarely, a critic says something useful, so I except those occasions.
My own silly contribution to the thread was to post a cod insult, due to Kingsley Amis, directed at Hanudel. My thought was: critics can say anything stupid they like about us, without our option to reply. So I said something stupid about him.
(Of course, I missed seeing that that allowed Ken Shaw to take advantage of the 'news cycle' to diminish the power of my rebuttal of his own insulting attack on me.
But, there you go.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-07-08 03:00
Dear Tony -
You may be right. I apologize for not catching the Amis quote. I'm the ignoramus this time. It's not the first time I've missed a quote, and it will certainly not be the last.
Mark -
I decline to begin a private discussion with Patrick Hanudel. His reviews are presented to the public. Members of the public, and of this board in particular, are entitled to discuss his reviews in public.
I do not understand why he chooses not to respond in public. That is, in my opinion, when he makes a public statement of opinion and receives public disagreement, he cannot now claim that it is somehow "difficult" for him to say anything further. He seeks to turn a shield into a sword, and I think I'm entitled to call him on it. Among lawyers, this is called estoppel. Also chutzpah.
In my opinion, Patrick Hanudel's ARG reviews are waspish and misguided, and I see no reason why I may not say so in public.
My email address is public. Anyone may write to me by clicking on my name at the top of this message. Up the string, I invited Mr. Hanudel and his wife to do so, but they have chosen not to take me up on the offer.
I can understand why Mr. Hanudel prefers to pontificate behind the ARG curtain. I can also understand why he prefers to avoid public engagement with those who disagree with him publicly, myself included. Please accept my assurance (and pass it on to Mr. Hanudel) that, unless I get fouled by a deliberate low blow, I will always be civil. I will always do my best, in public and in private, to represent the BBoard in the best possible way.
Mr. Hanudel -
I find unspoken assumptions in your ARG reviews -- for example that you dislike the tone of British players. I've been reading your reviews for a number of years, and I cannot recall a single one for a British player in which you failed to criticize the player's tone as spread and center-less, particularly in the high register. You often diagnose poor reeds, poor embouchure, poor breath support and damaged mouthpieces.
Many British players (Reginald Kell, Jack Brymer, Gervase de Peyer, Emma Johnson) have deliberately chosen a "floating" tone. I grew up listening to their playing and like it very much. I find your reviews of British players much like Donald Vroon's reviews of Historically Informed Performance recordings. His (and your) response is made seemingly without thought and gives me no hint of whether a recording is otherwise worth listening to.
I therefore ask you to discuss whether any clarinetist can or should enjoy recordings by British players. This is certainly a subject larger than you can address in your ARG reviews. It can cause you no "difficulties" at ARG, because nothing you write on this larger subject can interfere with ARG's profitability.
I wonder whether you could write a feature article for ARG on the state of 21st century clarinet playing. If not, I earnestly request you do do so here. I will be your most interested reader.
Ken Shaw
Post Edited (2013-07-08 03:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: voiceofreason
Date: 2013-07-08 12:56
It seems that the key issue here is the question of inherent bias. In spite of the ARG's statement about them being "independent critics", these writers are, by definition, not independent.
Take real journalism - that sadly dying art form. To be a "critic", you must remove yourself from the field as a performer. It is an inherent conflict of interests to be simultaneously performing and writing.
Why? Aside from loyalties, favors, etc., it is impossible not to favor ones own style if they are actively working on that style. As a critic, you might have a certain aesthetic, but you are able to see beyond that aesthetic and can (hopefully) impartially judge other approaches. Yet, to be an active performer, you work day in and day out - you have solidified your interpretation of pieces/styles/techniques/etc. and it becomes much more difficult to be impartial.
This does really seem to be a moot point. ARG dying faster than real journalism (they kfetch that big retailers won't distribute their materials - haven't they ever heard of an e-mag... It now requires only a cursory knowledge of computers to create a digital publication). They have an inherently flawed perspective. So why worry about the nay sayers?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
