WHY I'M A MAC

posted by James Reel

This has nothing to do with the blog’s usual subjects, except perhaps its broadcasting connection, but this article from that most indispensable publication, The Onion, reports that Microsoft’s notorious bugginess is reaching ever farther:

WASHINGTON—According to an FCC report released Monday, a new $300 million Microsoft ad campaign is responsible for causing televisions all across the country to unexpectedly crash. Enlarge Image Microsoft Ad Users have reported a number of failures resulting from the defective commercials, ranging from inability to change channels to "couldn't finish Heroes." The Microsoft ads, which began airing earlier this week, are being blamed for generating critical system errors in more than 70 million televisions. In addition, thousands of frustrated Americans said that the ads have caused their TVs to become unresponsive, their screens to turn blue, and a small box with the message "terminal application error" to suddenly appear. "I was in the middle of watching Monday Night Football when, all of a sudden, that stupid ad comes on and my TV freezes up," said Scottsdale, AZ resident Michael Chaplin, adding that he never wanted to see the commercial in the first place. "The next thing I know, all these numbers and symbols show up and I get an error message saying 'invalid file format' or something. Now my TV is ruined."

You’ll find the full article here. Perhaps I should point out to the uninitiated that The Onion is satirical.

NEGATIVE REVIEWS

posted by James Reel

The proprietor of Vineography, a wine blog I read, has explained why he rarely writes negative reviews. The world of wine criticism is rather different from that of performing-arts criticism, but there are times when I elect not to review something if the evaluation is going to be negative.

First, can the subject of the review, by its very nature, withstand critical scrutiny? Any professional performance is fair game, but student and amateur efforts can’t be held to the same standards. If I review an amateur performance favorably, I try to make it clear that I’m working on a sliding scale, and an impressive performance by a community orchestra wouldn’t be so impressive from the Tucson Symphony (unless the amateur performers really outdo themselves). But if the amateur performance doesn’t cut it, what’s the point of calling attention to this fact, rather than passing over the performance in silence? Amateur orchestras and theatrical troupes exist to give non-professionals a creative outlet; unless the artistic director is overly ambitious and misrepresents the company, these people aren’t trying to compete with the professional and semi-pro groups—they’re simply performing for their own amusement, for an audience dominated by their families and friends. If it’s clear that’s what the group is, and it isn’t putting itself forward as a real alternative to the pros, what’s the point of damning the results? Best to let them go about their worthy business without worrying about public criticism.

The case against negative reviews of books and CDs is quite different. There are a great many books and CDs coming out every week, and fewer and fewer venues for reviews. Space is limited, so why not focus on calling people’s attention to the best that’s out there, rather than condemning crap that they wouldn’t want to buy? In this instance, the focus is on the good of cultural consumer, not that of the producer. Of course, a book or recording by a high-profile artist deserves attention even if it’s bad, because of the heightened public interest. Otherwise, if space is limited, we should focus on the criticism that will do the public the most good.

NED ROREM LIVES!

posted by James Reel

Last week, embroiled in radio fundraising, I didn’t have a chance to note the 85th birthday of Ned Rorem, one of America’s finest composers but a fellow perhaps better known as a sometimes disturbingly frank diarist. It’s Elliott Carter who’s getting all the attention these days because he’s turning 100, and because he’s long been the American poster boy for the Modernist establishment. But frankly, Rorem’s music is the more attractive and, yes, meaningful, if you go to the trouble to hear it. (It does require some effort; I’m not aware of any Tucson performances of Rorem’s music this season, and we have precious little of his music in the KUAT-FM library.)

Frank Oteri wrote a good overview of Rorem’s chamber music for the latest issue of Chamber Music America’s magazine, but that is not yet online. Right now, you can read a good interview with Rorem here, courtesy of the South Florida Classical Review. The author is Lawrence A. Johnson, a fellow I tried to hire as my successor as classical music critic at the Arizona Daily Star more than 10 years ago. Larry had other fish to fry, though. Turns out he got fried by his Florida newspaper not long ago—he is one of the latest of many classical critics to get dumped by America’s increasingly irrelevant daily newspapers. I’m glad he has an online outlet for his work.

LOVE'S LABOURS

posted by James Reel

Last week, I teased you with a positive comment about the new Arizona Repertory Theatre production. Now here’s the review, from this week’s Tucson Weekly:

It just doesn't make sense: Four bright young men want to live forever--at least in other people's memories--by giving up all a young man's pleasures in life. They want to form a renowned academy, and in the process they forswear women, freedom of movement and partying down. The project is sure to fail, especially once four young women show up to distract the guys from their endeavors. Other things don't make sense in this story, which is Shakespeare's _Love's Labours Lost_. The dialog is full of fancy wordplay and obscure topical references that nobody can understand anymore. If a joke needs a footnote, can it possibly be funny? Well, sometimes, yes, for the UA's Arizona Repertory Theatre has managed to mount an utterly hilarious production of this, one of Shakespeare's most peculiar comedies.

The full review lurks here. While you’re at the TW site, take a look at my preview of a one-night performance slated for this weekend:

Harry Clark is a cellist, not a visual artist, but he does create portraits: performances that draw together musicians and actors to tell the story of some remarkable arts figure. Almost (but not quite) all of Clark's subjects have been composers, and those portraits are the backbone of every Chamber Music Plus Southwest season. A new season is about to begin, but with something unusual: a portrait not of a musician, but a painter. Western artist Maynard Dixon is Clark's latest subject. Clark, as cellist, will perform a new score by Tucson guitarist-composer Brad Richter, and he's assembled a script drawn mainly from Dixon's writings, to be read by actor John Schuck. Schuck has most recently made sporadic appearances on _Law and Order: Special Victims Unit_, but he's probably best remembered as Rock Hudson's police sidekick in the 1970s TV series _McMillan & Wife_. He's also been spending a lot of time in revivals and tours of such musicals as _Annie, 1776_ and _Annie Get Your Gun_. Schuck won't be singing, just speaking in the Maynard Dixon show, which is titled _Go Ask the Little Horned Toad_. It's being presented in conjunction with an exhibition of Dixon's work at the Tucson Museum of Art, the organization that commissioned the performance.

The whole story is here.

THESE FLATS DON'T RUN

posted by James Reel

Pianist Jeremy Denk seems to have been too busy to blog recently, but now he’s back with mandatory reading: he imagines that he can interview Sarah Palin about Beethoven’s “Hammerklavier” Sonata.

LOIN GIRDING

posted by James Reel

When I was writing material for a yet-unpublished issue of Fanfare, a few weeks ago, I concluded a review of Cameron Carpenter’s new organ CD with the expression “gird your loins.” Coincidentally, Joe Biden dredged up that archaic turn of phrase in a speech this past weekend. In case you’re curious about the mechanics of loin girding, this article will explain it all to you.