The Washington Post’s music writer Anne Midgette put out an interesting blog post about the importance of linking to other critics when publishing a review on a piece or concert or CD. I found it pleasing to read a prominent music critic’s acknowledgment that her opinion is not the be-all, end-all.

In contrast, Montreal Gazette guest blogger Arthur Kaptainis published a preview of the Montreal New Music Festival a couple weeks ago where, at the end of the post, he suddenly rails against Michael Daugherty’s Grammy win. Kaptainis’ opinions aside, he is factually incorrect inasmuch as he cites Daugherty’s win for the “Metropolis Symphony”, when the New Classical Composition Grammy went to Daugherty’s piano concerto, “Deus ex Machina”. As I read Kaptainis’ piece, it became clear he was using Daugherty to attack the Grammy’s in general.

Just wanted to share these with our community of critics to see what others think!

To provide full disclosure, Michael Daugherty personally drew my attention to the Montreal Gazette article. I am a student at the University of Michigan, where he teaches, but he is not my private instructor.

One Response to “Criticism done well (and poorly)”
  1. I don’t understand why Kaptainis went off on Daugherty. Was this one of those gossipy columns with ellipses?

    He appears to be slamming Daugherty more than the Grammys. Getting his facts wrong about the win is sloppy journalism.

    And the meme of John Cage as class clown continues with a description of Atlas Eclipticalis as the “wackiest” piece on the festival. Really? I would give that honor to the cell phone piece.