I don't know anything about Wright and have not read his writing (except for the article about Barnett) and so can't evaluate your indictment of his judgement and scholarship, which may for all I know be merited or even represent some consensus. I was only suggesting that making such a case doesn't necessarily invalidate his critique of Barnett, which ought to be addressed on its own terms and which no one has done here (all I've read are generalized expressions of support and commendations of Rob without reference to Wright's specific points).
OK - then in order to apprise yourself of the facts that are relevant to this case, you need to visit Wright's website and check some of his writings for yourself rather than taking my word or indeed anyone else's word for what I have written above; I am somewhat surprised that you have made no apparent effort to do this before writing as you have; Wright's website is, after all, available to all who have internet access.
Wright's critique of Barnett needs to be analysed point by point and, whilst I do not suggest that it might be entirely without merit, the vast majority of it is not only unsupported by hard unequivocal documentary evidence but also reads like the sourest of sour grapes; reading Wright's own writings clarifies beyond doubt that such sour grapes are one of the weapons upon which he hopes most heavily to rely.
OK, let’s have a brief glance at his Barnett piece, for what it may or may not be worth.
It is described as "compiled by" David C F Wright DMus; one might ask "compilata …da" as in Busoni’s Fantasia Contrappuntistica? – what is supposedly meant by this? Wright’s answer appears to be that it is "a compilation of what people have said and put in writing from the ordinary music lover to professional musicians" – yet at no point throughout the piece are any such people identified, so at the very outset Wright presents not a shred of evidence that any of the allegations are other than his own.
Wright tells us that Barnett "writes that there is a most urgent need for a recording of Holbrooke's First Choral Symphony". OK, this may well be Barnett’s personal opinion, but Wright retorts that he "does not know what he is talking about" – which means that Wright disagrees, no more, no less.
Wright observes that Barnett "makes shocking mistakes and does not check his writings, and when people write to him pointing out his mistakes he takes offence"; he cites no examples of this, however – still less does he admit that he might make his own mistakes and respond to being upbraided for them likewise.
He states that Barnett claims that "Holbrooke’s Piano Concerto no. 1 is a masterpiece. To begin with it is not a concerto. The composer called it a poem for piano and orchestra. Call it a concerto if you want, but most concert pianists and other musicians state it is an awful work. And it is!" But do they? Which ones? And is it so? and on what grounds? Wright does not tell us.
Wright tells us that the "American cellist, Lynn Harrel, has said that there are only two great cello concertos, those by Dvorak and Dutilleux". No reference for this statement is provided, Harrell’s name is spelt incorrectly and, even if Harrell did say this, what is its relevance to what? Wright, once again, does not tell us.
Wright opines that Barnett "writes that the Viola Concerto of Quincy Porter left him cold and yet its dedicatee spoke of it being a warm and glowing work. Obviously, Barnett does not understand the work" – which tells us only that Wright cannot accept that Barnett merely disagrees with the view of that dedicatee but must be wrong, because Wright says that Barnett doesn't understand the piece.
"Hobrooke's piano music", writes Wright. OK, he doesn’t like Holbrooke, but does that excuse him from mis-spelling his name (and this isn’t pedantry – there’s way more of that kind of thing from whence this one came). Wright then confirms this by his statement "as to any work of Holbrooke being great is unlikely", which is not a sentence and, whatever else it may be, it's a mere statement of Wright’s personal opinion, not a critical judgement supported by reason.
Wright then notes that Barnett "jumps on the bandwagon of Lewis Foreman who complains that when William Glock was the Controller of BBC Radio 3 he prevented the broadcast of tonal works by living British composers in favour of the avant garde which is nonsense, absolute nonsense! (see my articles on William Glock – The Saviour of the Promenade Concerts and Sir William Glock, not avante garde)". "Avant
e garde"? Whilst Glock was not quite the ogre as which he has been presented in this regard, there can be no doubt that one part of his agenda was indeed to discourage the broadcast by BBC of certain works by tonal composers, perhaps most notably Rubbra and Lloyd (although Arnold seemed somehow to get away with it).
He then tells us that Lewis Foreman (whom he seems to quote only as a stick with which to beat Barnett when not using his own) "wrote that Alun Hoddinott was a gentle giant. He certainly was not….In Cardiff, there was Cello Competition where Alun was the chairman of the judges and I was on the panel. The best cellist was a 22 stone girl with a disfigured face. She had an amazing technique and the best competitor. But she did not win. The girl that won did so because Hoddinott said that she had the nicest legs." Can he prove any of this? Possibly not. Does he try? Certainly not!
…Another review on Dr Mullinger’s site…this is Musicweb, from which Wright was dismissed and his work removed – and he can't be bothered to spell Mullenger correctly either. Taking his sights off Barnett again momentarily, Wright accuses Mullenger of have spoken of "Barbirolli being a great conductor. That he was not, as members of his orchestra and others have testified." Which members? Which others? And can he prove that, if there were such players and others, that their opinions were correct and Mullenger’s wrong?
""With regard to Elgar, I produced irrefutable evidence of his navy blue knickers fetish, voyeurism and other deviations”, claims Wright. Where? Can you find and justify it? I can't!
Next, "With Britten, I produced evidence of his pederasty"; again, where and from what source/s and were they indisputable?
"I produced evidence about Barbirolli as a lousy conductor and how orchestras disliked him even when he was sober", claims Wright – but he didn't; he merely state his opinion and expected his readers to accept that, because he cited what he claimed (without provision of actual sources) were the opinions of players and others, it might be irrefutable.
"You have only to look at [Eric] Coates's songs and compare them with some of Schuberts to see that what I say is correct", writes Wright about what he apparently sees as the sheer incompetence of Schubert's accompaniments, following this with "What I wrote was correct and can be evidenced on all points"; odd, then, that he provides no such evidence and that so few pianists who have played them have made similar comments.
"Another contributor [to what, pray?] has sent in his comments on the inane ramblings by Barnett and added his own comments some of which are almost as hysterical. This contributor is a very well-known musician and composer who is very highly thought-of!", we are then told; the musician's identity remains, like so many of Wright's "sources", unidentified.
In another context, "What does this means?", asks Wright; "What does it tell us about the music? Does it tells us what style the composer uses?" Apparently, decent English is unnecessary for Wright. "Of the Mennotti's Violin Concerto" is another example of this sloppiness.
Wright tells us that Barnett "is very good as infecting bilious attacks on the innocent!" How can a bilious attack be infected"? and how would Wright of all people know(!) (and, of course,
"as" should read "at").
"No wonder [Musicweb]…is called the Morecambe and Wise site!", opines Wright – but where and by whom?
"Barnett", we are then told, "removed some reviewers from his site because they showed him up and those reviewers knew what they were talking about!". It’s not his site and it was not him who removed any such reviewers.
"He is an enthusiast and, no doubt, means well and it is not our desire to humiliate him. Not at all." That’s about the best of the lot, I think!
"We asked two exceptionally prominent musicians to comment on Rob Barnet[sic]'s reviews published on the internet in the week before Christmas 2011 and we set out their professional verdicts below:
"In his review of Pettersson's first two symphonies, Barnett makes irrelevant references to Elgar and his 'not bad' piano concerto. Mr Barnett, Elgar's Piano Concerto is really a dreadful work…"
Wright’s not far wrong about the Elgar except that he does not add the vital point that this work is a reconsruction by someone else; Pettersson's "first two symphonies" – in 2011? I don't think so! No. 1's been partially reconstructed by Christian Lindberg and recorded for the first time since then.
"Professional musicians rightly say that he talks a lot of rot"; which ones?
"Whatever reaction there is to this article, it is not intended to be an attack"; good God, Wright has a sense of humour!
And so on and so off…
Enough!...
