Wouldn't have thought my first post would be about classical music — sorry, Susan Haig, "concert music" — because frankly I don't think about classical/concert music much except to turn off the radio after Morning Edition (when WUSF, in an apparent effort to caffeinate its audience, plays music from the "unbearably perky" section of the classical catalogue). But last night I switched to WUSF and found, pleasantly enough, the wise-owl voice of the late Karl Haas — explaining, in his familiar avuncular style, the differences between three different performances of the same symphony. It was fascinating — a crystal-clear demonstration of why conductors matter.
It made me reflect on arts writing — how the best reporting takes subject matter too often described in abstruse, you-gotta-be-a-member-of-the-club-to-understand-this-stuff language, and conveys not only the visceral impact of the artwork, but the nuts and bolts of why it works or why it doesn't. And it reminded me of something I'd just read: John Fleming's story in Sunday's St. Pete Times about the three performances in the Florida Orchestra's last weekend series. The premise — attend all three concerts, and compare — was one of those great wish-I'd-thought-of-that ideas, one that allowed Fleming to ask some obvious but rarely asked questions.
Here's another thing I didn't think I'd be doing in my first post — complimenting the Times.
This article appears in Mar 1-7, 2006.