In a message dated 4/5/01 12:50:49, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< Mr Idling might be interested to know that Bernheimer's review has been
edited. The reference to Domingo's age has gone.
Since this is the second time in the last few minutes I've read my name
(misspelled though it may be <gr>) referencing a point not mine, I'd like
to clarify my position. My objection to Bernheimer's review wasn't with
his appraisal of the singers, the production or the disappearing/forged
reference to Domingo's age (although I found referencing the transpositions
in OTELLO churlish and irrelevant to a review of a non-transposed
I felt the article's tone was overtly condescending with regard to the work
itself and also it's fans. I'm referring to the following quotes from the
"Richard Wagner's PARSIFAL is back at the Metropolitan Opera in all its
swollen sacrosanct glory. The devout are ecstatic."
"On Monday, when all was almost prayed and sung, some clod out front
interrupted Wagner's benediction with a premature "bravo". We hope the
righteous mob didn't lynch the infidel."
"The tireless Met chorus survived its mystical mumbo-jumbo rituals with
"endless droning of Gurnemanz"
Does anyone read these quotes as anything other than fairly extreme dislike
for the work and it's significance to many people?
Obviously there are number of people who may share his views. But is it
appropriate for any music critic who is so negatively biased toward a work
that most acknowledge as a true masterpiece, to agree to review it?
Surely someone in Bernheimer's position had a choice?so why did he even
bother? The review doesn't strike me as anything other than a self-serving
opportunity to rattle some chains and pontificate in print. If he thinks
PARSIFAL is an inferior work then write an article based on that premise
and say why. This review is just schoolyard name-calling.
As to the Domingo age quote, I think the person who originated that post
needs to speak up or off with his head! <gr>
Regards to all,
[log in to unmask]