1a) The only serious attempt I've seen to describe why, in the speaker's view, Carmina Burana is crap, which was delivered by Ken Harrison, late of the San Jose Symphony, and which did not mention Les Noces, was very detailed but was based on the assumption that art which is easily analyzable is, to that extent, not good. I reject that perspective utterly, and not just because it leads too easily to the error of saying that anything sufficiently complex must be great. Carmina Burana is made of simple elements. It is not crap. It shows that simple elements can make great music.
1b) I didn't deny the resemblance to Les Noces. I thought the term "ripoff" ill-advised. I accept the term "derivative." But in art, "derivative" is not an insult. It is an acknowledgment of inspiration, nothing more. What matters is what the artist does with the inspiration. The resemblance between the two is actually somewhat superficial. The spirit and feel of the works is quite different.
2) The question I raised was not so much one of displaying hatred in a professional review - I've dissed a few lousy pieces, though not established ones, in my time - but of reviewing a concert from a position of such complete lack of sympathy. I worked my way to understanding what Corigliano was saying. Had I been assigned to review the Berlioz, I would either have done the same thing, or if I found that impossible, I would have at least accepted, for purposes of discussion, that he wanted to sound like that, or if I found even that impossible, I would have declined the review. (Blog posts are an entirely different matter.)
3) Personal taste, liking or disliking individual works, is irrelevant to my question. See my remarks about Corigliano.
no subject
1b) I didn't deny the resemblance to Les Noces. I thought the term "ripoff" ill-advised. I accept the term "derivative." But in art, "derivative" is not an insult. It is an acknowledgment of inspiration, nothing more. What matters is what the artist does with the inspiration. The resemblance between the two is actually somewhat superficial. The spirit and feel of the works is quite different.
2) The question I raised was not so much one of displaying hatred in a professional review - I've dissed a few lousy pieces, though not established ones, in my time - but of reviewing a concert from a position of such complete lack of sympathy. I worked my way to understanding what Corigliano was saying. Had I been assigned to review the Berlioz, I would either have done the same thing, or if I found that impossible, I would have at least accepted, for purposes of discussion, that he wanted to sound like that, or if I found even that impossible, I would have declined the review. (Blog posts are an entirely different matter.)
3) Personal taste, liking or disliking individual works, is irrelevant to my question. See my remarks about Corigliano.