The Art-Music, Literature and Linguistics Forum
March 28, 2024, 07:39:16 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Here you may discover hundreds of little-known composers, hear thousands of long-forgotten compositions, contribute your own rare recordings, and discuss the Arts, Literature and Linguistics in an erudite and decorous atmosphere full of freedom and delight.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

David Wright's article on Rob Barnett

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: David Wright's article on Rob Barnett  (Read 32812 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
dyn
Level 3
***

Times thanked: 1
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2014, 10:26:48 pm »

Why not instead look past Wright's evident hostility and address the substance of his points, which might not be entirely inaccurate?

I've never read any reviews by Barnett. But on looking through some of Wright's other articles, which are largely unsourced, poorly written and full of inaccuracies, I can only conclude he's what may not be said here. Even if there is some basis for his criticisms of Barnett they seem to have been blown massively out of proportion by his own personal animosity with the man and thus can probably be disregarded.

I reckon you're a significantly better and more unbiased writer than Wright, so if you'd like to criticise Barnett how about doing so in your own words?
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 04:49:32 am by the Administration » Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2014, 10:42:11 pm »

Without going back and reviewing the article again, Wright seems to base his negative critique on the following characteristics:

Barnett is an amateur, - an enthusiast, but neither musician or historian.

As such, when describing a composer or musical work he habitually resorts to comparing it/him/her to some other composer(s) or musical work(s) (typically as a hybrid of some combination thereof) without reference to the score or historical context, and has a penchant for often florid metaphor in suggesting the imaginative associations a particular work inspires in him.

He has biases, - likes and dislikes, that insinuate themselves into his writing.

He gets facts wrong.

Wright then elaborates on a long sequence of cherry-picked "case studies" (over a probably 20 year period) where he finds these characteristics alone or in some combination discredit and humiliate Barnett as a reviewer.

It's a somewhat contemptible "hatchet-job" (as I put it above) without consideration of Barnett's positive virtues and talents, but nonetheless Barnett does sometimes less than shine, make questionable judgements, unhelpful comparisons, is obscurantist, excessive, factually inaccurate, and the rest, as Wright catalogs, and every writer has to endure these sorts of attacks from time to time and can learn from them.  Wright duly pointed out some warts, I thought, however underhanded and base the motivation.  
  
Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2014, 11:04:41 pm »

For what its worth I'm a "fan" of Rob myself, and have enjoyed and learned from his writing for many years (not to mention the good amount of private correspondence that has enhanced my admiration of him).  I'm not defending Wright, but still felt his piece was worth considering - for all its deviance.

But he's (Barnett) not perfect, - and for any writer there's always "Wrights" out there with greater or lesser insight and style hard at work to expose one's foibles.  It means, in any case, someone cares about your work enough to give it their attention, however nefariously.  To be ignored is the greater humiliation.

Report Spam   Logged
Vandermolen
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 4
Offline Offline

Posts: 307



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2014, 11:33:16 pm »

For what its worth I'm a "fan" of Rob myself, and have enjoyed and learned from his writing for many years (not to mention the good amount of private correspondence that has enhanced my admiration of him).  I'm not defending Wright, but still felt his piece was worth considering for all it deviance.

But he's not perfect, - and for any writer there's always "Wrights" out there with greater or lesser insight and style hard at work to expose one's foibles.  It means, in any case, someone cares about your work enough to give it their attention, however nefariously.  To be ignored is the greater humiliation.



Yes, I rather agreed with his views on Holbrooke I have to say, but he is very scathing about Barbirolli.
Report Spam   Logged
Toby Esterhase
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 117
Offline Offline

Posts: 1349



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2014, 11:42:19 pm »

I can't agree on Barbirolli his wonderful recording of Symphony n°2 on MC made me to appreciate RVW first time.
Report Spam   Logged
Dundonnell
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 137
Offline Offline

Posts: 4081


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2014, 01:38:07 am »

David Wright's website contains a biographical essay about him written by one Linda Karen Dowson, M.Mus.

The article states that David Wright "has received his B.Mus and D.Mus by study and examination". The article goes on to say that he also has a "B.D. and a D.D." He has written articles exposing "the nonsense of evolution, how Darwinism led to Fascism....", and that "Malcolm Arnold insisted that Dr. Wright's performance of his Symphony No.4 was the best ever".

"Dr. Wright believes that the life style and character of the composer is inherent in some of his music and quotes, as examples Haydn for his wit and diplomacy, Schubert for his laziness and plagiarism, Bruckner for his Catholic spirituality, Elgar for his pride and pomposity and Britten for his homosexuality and pederasty."

I am afraid that I cannot take anything written by someone who, apparently, thinks that evolution is "nonsense" or that "Darwinism led to Fascism" seriously. That Britten was homosexual is obviously true (so have been a number of other very eminent composers, for what that may matter ::)) but for the other accusation there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

"Petty and mean-spirited" ??? Who ??? ???
Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2014, 02:53:21 am »

Yes, looking over a bit of his stuff now, he does seem like something of a crackpot, though I wouldn't call him a fake (my summary dismissals or anyone else's wouldn't be determinative by their mere utterance in any case, - specifics have to be understood and rebutted, - blanket dismissals lack any force).

Besides, I'll admit to a weakness for such characters (especially on the internet) whose provocations often enough aren't without insights, however sullied they might be by this or that inaccuracy, misjudgement, overstatement, impropriety, or whatever.  One just has to be discriminating :o.

Also, this sort of pell-mell "piling on" here can often seem like self-congratulatory collusion, - a way of suggesting some superior (undemonstrated) standing on the part of the herd who indulge in it.

Finally, one should confront the fact that Rob (and Len Mullinger) apparently invited and welcomed Wright's essays on the MusicWeb site for many years, - you could say he was one of their house contributors.  If Wright is the villainous crank everyone implies (and Barnett so stellar), how explain such a colossal misjudgement?


Report Spam   Logged
Neil McGowan
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 79
Offline Offline

Posts: 1336



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2014, 02:55:22 am »


The article states that David Wright "has received his B.Mus and D.Mus by study and examination". The article goes on to say that he also has a "B.D. and a D.D." He has written articles exposing "the nonsense of evolution, how Darwinism led to Fascism....", and that "Malcolm Arnold insisted that Dr. Wright's performance of his Symphony No.4 was the best ever".

In the unlikely event that Wright's qualifications are genuine, the institution which issued them should withdraw them, and itself face investigation as to how he was ever granted these what we may not say here credentials.

Wright is a what we may not say here.  Pure and simple.  I also doubt that Linda Karen Dowson even exists at all - let alone that she has Grade III Descant Recorder.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 04:26:46 am by the Administration » Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2014, 03:46:58 am »

A master of the ad hominem, you, - not inappropriate on an internet forum I suppose.

BTW, who cares about his degrees, bogus or otherwise?  It's not as if he's pretending to write academic treatises, - just popular and opinionated magazine type short essays it looks like.  Take em or leave em.
There's no tradition of scholarship at stake.  Why not raise and debate with his actual ideas and judgements in a systematic way if they've grabbed your attention? - (AH made the effort to do just that in his previous post and the points were telling and worthwhile).  Colin's cherry picking of a few random statements he takes issue with is no different than what Wright pulled with Barnett.

Report Spam   Logged
Dundonnell
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 137
Offline Offline

Posts: 4081


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2014, 04:40:31 am »

Yes, I admit to "cherry picking"-although I would, naturally enough, prefer the word "selecting", some of the statements I quoted.

Whether they are "random" is another matter. Statements such as the ones I quoted are, I would have thought, sufficiently indicative of an attitude and a state of mind which not only diminish but actually destroy the credibility of the author. These are not stated as mere opinions but as fact. Nothing that Rob Barnett has written-as quoted by Wright-approaches within miles the outrageous assertions included in the Wright bio. (which, presumably, has Wright' approval ::)).

If I came across such statements in any text, book or article, I would regard the author as someone whose views I simply could not trust, just as I find egregious error in a book which purports to be an academic treatise diminishes my faith in the author's accuracy in other areas.

However....I would regard any more time spent discussing this matter a complete waste of time. I am afraid that I do not regard David Wright merits such protracted consideration.
We may choose to disagree about that....but so be it.
Report Spam   Logged
Admin
Administrator
Level 8
*****

Times thanked: 53
Offline Offline

Posts: 4087


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2014, 04:42:28 am »

A master of the ad hominem, you, - not inappropriate on an internet forum I suppose.
Inappropriate on this one though; here we eat our cake with a fork!
Report Spam   Logged
guest2
Guest
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2014, 04:45:24 am »

Oh for the times of Newman, Tovey, Hull, Cardus, Scholes, Grew the Elder and Lebrecht!
Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2014, 05:47:20 am »


However....I would regard any more time spent discussing this matter a complete waste of time. I am afraid that I do not regard David Wright merits such protracted consideration.
We may choose to disagree about that....but so be it.

In fact we agree about that.  What's at stake just doesn't merit the effort to engage with him given our impressionistic antipathy.  One has to choose one's targets for extended argument very selectively.  But thus ignoring, or simply making a few declarative statements of dismissal shouldn't be confused with an actual rebuttal.  Kyjo (and others) expressed outrage over Wright's attack on Barnett, but then refused to suggest what was wrong in it, only proceeding with a cascade of abuse lacking any reference to the points of Wright's critique, however offensive its overall tone.  That piqued my ire somewhat.
Report Spam   Logged
Vandermolen
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 4
Offline Offline

Posts: 307



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2014, 05:55:10 am »

I can't agree on Barbirolli his wonderful recording of Symphony n°2 on MC made me to appreciate RVW first time.

I agree. Barbirolli's version of Vaughan Williams's Symphony 5 ( EMI) is my favourite version of that great work.
Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2014, 06:00:34 am »

Other fave Barb recordings anyone ::)?
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy