Abuse of Dr David Wright
wright-music:
There are some cruel, outrageous and defamatory remarks on various feedback sites concerning my articles on music.
Some assert that my essays are controversial which is utterly wrong. Only opinions and points of view can be controversial, facts cannot be controversial. Consult your dictionary or the definitions on line.
When I stated that all of Schubert's stage works were flops and that he died of syphilis, which is not controversial because it is factual as recorded in many other places and by researchers and scholars more competent than I am.
I have referred to Chopin's intimate and disgusting letters to women. I am not being controversial as Chopin's letters are in print and can be read by anyone. That Jane Stirling was kind and generous to Chopin is not controversial and that Chopin was horrible to her is also proved and stated in his own letters as was his relationship with a man called Titus.
This is not my being hateful or assassinating any character. I am stating facts so why should I be pilloried?
Scriabin is truthfully portrayed in my article and what I have written is evidenced elsewhere. Scriabin was always in trouble with sexual indiscretions with women some of whom were underage. These are facts and evidenced in writing in many early and commendable books on the subject. That he was mentally ill is also reflected in the article and these incidents also appear in other more scholarly accounts.
To say that my articles are deranged is absurd. It also implies that as the author I am deranged and I am not!
That Britten was homosexual is not controversial. It is well known. That he wrote love letters and explicit letters to underage boys is also evidenced. Therefore it is not controversial, but factual.
I had a dreadful message from someone who said that Schubert did not die of syphilis but this writer went on to say, 'I hope you also get syphilis like Schubert and rot in hell’.
Another writer asked me to give the exact location in a Britten String Quartet which displayed his having anal sex with a boy. What utter absurdity and this proves that people use the internet for ridiculous and offensive means presumably having nothing better to do.
As an unfairly maligned author, my article on Elgar was investigated by the BBC who put out a programme as to the neurosis of Elgar who was a thoroughly unpleasant man. That Elgar headed some movements allegro with speeds of crotchet equals 96 or dotted crotchet equals 69 shows that the music is not allegro. A metronome will tell you that a moderate allegro would be crotchet equals 112 to 120. I have unequivocal evidence from very many people that he was a truly hateful man and even more interesting communications from professional musicians who dislike his music not out of prejudice but factual reasons. Beecham and Boult were two such objectors.
I also have letters from composers such as Veale, Stiles, Brown, Smith Brindle, Donatoni and others pointing out the serious weaknesses in Elgar's music. Channel Four did a major programme along the same lines about the music of Britten with musical examples and irrefutable evidence.
And yet some people will dismiss all this evidence because they like the composer.
Someone has said that I put my personal opinions into the mouth of John Veale. Mr Veale put these views in writing to me which I have published in my article which he approved in writing. Mr Veale' family seem to be ardent supporters of the Labour Party as was John until Tony Blair came to power.
It is rich when people on internet sites dismiss my writing style, punctuation and spelling when their own comments on websites have these faults. My articles are usually professionally edited.
I receive many letters per year in praise of the honesty of my articles. Some originally objected to what I wrote about some composers, and then found the contents to be true.
I have been a very successful teacher for many years and composers still seek my advice on their music. My articles are appreciated by the ordinary man and also used in many colleges and universities around the world.
My academic degrees were not purchased for $25 each and the tops of Corn Flake packets. My qualifications are listed in the International Directory of Biographers.
People have made much of 'my' article on Rob Barnett but it is not my work, but a compilation of what others have written. Barnett's reviews are inadequate and this is proved in the compilation. His reviews can be read on MusicWeb International and anyone with any sense can see that they are inadequate.
Is it right that a writer on music should correct any falsehoods written by others without being pompous or unpleasant? I am quite happy if people correct any mistakes I make.
I was removed from Musicweb International because some people found my reviews and articles to be taking swipes at composers and yet Barnet can and does do this lambasting Liszt, Rihm and Maderna to name but three. Barnett can take swipes at composers but I cannot tell the truth. Isn't this hypocrisy?
I have no desire, or even have had, to be malicious about Barnett.
My comments about conductors are also shared by many people and some of my information appeared in print in the works of other authors before I wrote my articles. Books on Solti are far more severe and fully evidenced, and interested parties can acquire these books for themselves.
People would rather believe a beautiful lie than an ugly truth and people have not taken into account the work that I have done to promote unsung composers even in having works recorded.
There are composers who are pushing me to prepare articles about themselves. That speaks volumes.
I do not want to present myself as an expert or pedagogue but I have tried to bring to the attention of the public many composers who are neglected and ignored in the hope that positive interest can be shown in them and, in some cases, this has worked.
ahinton:
I for one have no idea what your intended purpose might be in writing as you have above, especially on this forum where the thread David Wright's article on Rob Barnett, initiated by a member here on 20 January this year and which ran fdor a further 66 posts until everyone presumably got fed up with it, but if you have yet to peruse this thread, you will find it difficult to avoid discovering precisely what it is about some of your writings including your hatchet job on Rob Barnett that the members who have contgributed to that thread think about them.
So much commentary has indeed been provided in that thread and elsewhere anout some of your writings that raises unanswered and often unanswerable questions that I have no wish at this stage to add to them, save to cite the following from your diatribe on Chopin...
Chopin was often called Fritz and he wrote to Delphina [Potocka], whom he called Phindela, this verse
Loving you is my favourite occupation
Bed is better than inspiration
I long for your lovely tits
So says your faithful Fritz.
You can read this letter and his other lewd letters in the books of his letters.
...and oberve that, firstly, you provided no precise bibliographical citation of any books of Chopin correspondence in which this verse appears and, secondly, if indeed it had appeared anywhere under Chopin's unquestionable authorship, it would be truly exceptional to the extent not only that Chopin was not in the habit of writing doggerel in English (and why would he have done so to a Polish countess in any case? - and, as recounted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfina_Potocka, "the supposed erotic correspondence between Chopin and Potocka, which Paulina Czernicka claimed to have discovered in Poland in the 1940s, has been proved to be a forgery", a footnote in support of which assertion is provided there) but also that, as the first reference to "tits" used in this way that can be found in my edition of OED (which admittedly is not the current one) dates from 1928, Chopin must also have been a most remarkably premonitory user of English slang.
The sheer paucity of bibliographical and other footnoted references in your articles, as well as the poor quality proof-reading in matters of grammar, spelling and punctiuation, sits uncomfortably with the apparent academic credentials of an author who claims to have no less than five university degrees, no details of which appear to have been cited any more than have the many claims and statements that you have made, such as Rawsthorne's in the company of you and Searle at a performance of Elgar's Cello Concerto in which he is supposed to have cited the "Trades Description Act" (which is in fact the Trade Descriptions Act and become law only in 1968) or Malcolm Arnold's alleged statement "I am awfully glad that Elgar never wrote any music!" or his "insistence" (against what and/or whose challenge?) "that your performance of his Symphony No. 4" (in which you conducted which orchestra, where and when?) "was the best ever". It would not be difficult for a well-researched musicologist to provide these and other references provided that they are indeed sourceable and provable.
You resolutely refute the suggestion that some of your writings are "controversial", yet the second paragraph of your Elgar Unmasked piece begins "I realise that this article will be controversial...".
Enough said, methinks...
guest377:
Obviously, if the facts can be substantiated by the evidence, there is no controversy. What's controversial, is their (the critcs of your writing) disregard of the truth.
I would suggest you digitize your evidence if you can, and refute anyone with it.
my 2cents
Dundonnell:
"My qualifications are listed in the International Directory of Biographers".
May we have a reference to this publication, please ??? I have searched for it but the title is not referenced anywhere that I can find. An ISBN perhaps ???
Jolly Roger:
Quote from: Dundonnell on March 07, 2014, 07:25:52 pm
"My qualifications are listed in the International Directory of Biographers".
May we have a reference to this publication, please ??? I have searched for it but the title is not referenced anywhere that I can find. An ISBN perhaps ???
innocent until PROVEN GUILTY!!! I asked for the smearing articles but saw nothing..it was nice of him to explain, he owes us nothing..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page