Cleveland ideas

Indeed those are great ideas. I love the idea of providing more opinions, not fewer. As it is, poor Zachary Lewis will be forever walking a tightrope, and his opinions will always have an asterisk in some peoples' minds, no matter how diligent he is. There will always be that thought of, well, how much is he influenced by the need to keep the orchestra happy. Unfortunately, I don't think e-mailing "reader representative" (e.g. management apologist) Ted Diadiun will make much difference; he is there largely to justify and make excuses for everything management decides.

Indeed those are great ideas. I love the idea of providing more opinions, not fewer. As it is, poor Zachary Lewis will be forever walking a tightrope, and his opinions will always have an asterisk in some peoples' minds, no matter how diligent he is. There will always be that thought of, well, how much is he influenced by the need to keep the orchestra happy. Unfortunately, I don't think e-mailing "reader representative" (e.g. management apologist) Ted Diadiun will make much difference; he is there largely to justify and make excuses for everything management decides.

Good ideas. Or, better yet, let's have a website (like, say the Bravo shows for designers or cooks) so the audience could vote after each concert. Oh wait, maybe the audience isn't wired--OK, let's just pass out little pictures of thumbs with each program and after the concert, audience members would put the little thumbs in either the "up" box or the "down" box. Then we'd all be even; all critics. No one would be "more equal than the others" in 2008 and on.
Absurd situations should be treated as the absurdity that they are.

There was a fair and honorable solution to the Rosenberg controversy. It was entirely in his hands. It simply required the recognition of the following facts:

1)Over the last 6 years very few of R's reviews of WM performences were positive. His assesments were harsh, persistent, and after a while, quite predictable.

2) At the same time period, especially in the last 2-3 years, most of the published reviews about WM and the CO in the rest of the musical world were very strong. There were few indifferent pieces ( mainly in the US. Do we see here, at least in part, the unconscious influence of the highly regarded local reviewer? ). Many reviewers made the point that under WM the CO has kept its prominent position as one of the world top orchestras.

3) WM has had a remarkable success in transforming the Zurich Opera to one of Europe's best. He was also appointed to lead the Vienna State Opera-one of the world great opera houses.

4) The Cleveland musical public as a whole seems to like WM and to reject R's negativism ( based on letters to the Cleveland PD).

5) The CO management decided that WM is the right person to continue to lead the Orchestra into the future. WM agreed to extend his contract until 2018.

Since R has given no sign of flexibility in his view concerning WM suitability to lead the CO, recognition of the above facts must result in one conclution: No one will benefit from 10 more years of the same negativity. On the practical level- WM is not going away. On the artistic level- by now everybody is aware of R's musical point of view.

MR. Rosenberg should have recognized this predicament and recused himself from further reviewing of WM performences. Such a move would not have signified capitulation. Rather, it would have pointed at conviction and strength. And it would have been honorable. Sadly the past cannot be undone.