This stinks. Stinks, stinks, stinks. And I include Wakin's reporting. One friendly quote from The Telegragh is supposed to be emblematic of European opinion. Nope. Consider Most's reviews in Corriere della Sera or Der Standard. Most of Europe considers him a mediocrity, as do many in Cleveland. And it was London Philharmonic members who gave him nickname, Frankly Worse Than Most. I realize I'm being snarky by including that, but we're weeks down the road now and I'm still angry.

And I disagree with Stick about the fresh perspective. Competent critics are in short supply. (Consider the Times' Tommasini or the recently bought out Bernard Holland. Perhaps the Times should hire Rosenberg.) But to replace him with a 31 year old staff writer? C'mon. Did I mention that this stinks?

To look at this from a few angles:
-- I'm not certain it was the conductor who was outraged as much as it was the members of the board who voted for him to continue in that position for another decade. People who donate to organizations often have a proprietal attitude toward said education. Some times, this is very good. Some times -- as when they believe that because they have given money to a group, they therefore know how best to run said group -- it leads to trouble.

-- The Cleveland Orchestra is considered one of the finest in the world, and that position and reputation demands that it be held to the highest possible standards. To do that, it needs to be closely watched by critics who know -- and just as importantly, care -- about music profoundly. Mr. Rosenberg, from what I've read of his work, is such a person.

-- The proliferation of venues such as the one via which this discussion is being conducted show that it is extremely easy for "fresh perspectives" to be presented. Just about everything in the newspaper business these days is designed to make people put down the paper and boot up the computer, so what's to stop the Cleveland Plain Dealer from continuing to run Mr. Rosenberg's reviews in its print edition, and have additional, alternate reviews by other staff members on the paper's website? Perhaps, to be fair, the review that would appear in the paper would be by a different staffer each time, including Mr. Rosenberg, while the other view or views would be online.

-- Newspapers are like any other business, in that often people best suited for one task are assigned to do something completely the opposite (there was an episode of MASH, I recall, in which a concert pianist was assigned to an infantry unit).

-- Mr. Rosenberg was, no doubt, at one time a young staff writer who got the chance to review classical music. I know a lot of critics and reviewers who come to the job of writing about the arts almost by accident, and proved themselves to be imminently suited to the task.

-- There are those, of course, who believe that the only good critic is a vitriolic one, dissatisfied with just about everything that might pass before his or her eyes and ears. These writers can be entertaining to read, certainly. And there are those who firmly believe that if one can't say anything nice, then one shouldn't say anything at all.
Both attitudes demonstrate, to my thinking, a misunderstanding of what criticism is, and what it is supposed to do. A review -- of a play, a symphony performance, a ballet, a movie, a book -- is not the last word on that event or object, but the first. A review is the opening statement in what should be the ongoing, ever-evolving public discussion about the arts and the ideas they contain.

Watts,

Rosenberg was a professional French horn player before becoming a critic. I may be wrong, but I do not believe he's ever been a staff writer. This is not to say that only a musician should be a music critic, but with an orchestra as imminent as Cleveland's something more than "three years on the crime beat" might be appropriate. Apologies to any offended staff writers. And I don't believe that Rosenberg is a vitriolic critic. He's written highly laudatory reviews of Most's operatic work and occasionally his orchestral work. He was, of course, very appreciative of Christoph von Dohnanyi's work in Cleveland. Great idea about supplemental online coverage.

Stick,

I still don't see how this story parses as anything other than that Rosenberg was a top-notch critic and was demoted for being so. If a group of angry arts board members invaded Joe Worley's office demanding Watts' head, they manifestly would not get it. Mr. Watts can confirm this for you.