BackStage

Public Critic Finalists - Vote for your TOP 3!

Public Critic Finalists - Vote for your TOP 3!

Mon, 11/9/2009 - 11:04am — Angela Golden
Nov 9, 2009

Alright readers, here they are ~ our top 8 reviews, hand-picked from a great pool of entries. Now we are leaving it up to you. All public critic finalists come from different backgrounds and perspectives, but all have a deep love for classical music.

We asked writers to submit reviews at 200 words. Some posted longer reviews, so don't discount the brevity on a few of the reveiws.

So go ahead, read through and pick your top 3. At the bottom of this post there is an poll, just click your top 3 and submit. Voting will begin today and end on November 15th at midnight.

 

Entry 1 - Seattle Opera's Ring of the Nibelung, 2009
We have had industrial Rings, space alien Rings, Rings surreal and apocalyptic, concept Rings, a Romantic era Ring at the Met in New York, and a Japanese-y Ring here in Chicago. Some are great and some are dismal, and there are many more coming in the next few years. But this past Summer we have had a naturalistic Ring from Seattle that since 2000 has been not only a huge crowd-pleaser, but also serves Wagner's music faithfully.

Dubbed the "Green Ring," Seattle Opera's current production of Wagner's Ring was presented for the third time this summer in three sold-out cycles. The concept of nature guided every aspect of the production. The settings are magnificent renderings of lush forests and rocky prominences taken from the landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. Stage direction gives realistic motivation for the characters' actions and their relationships to each other. Magical elements are rendered in ways that are incredibly true to the composer's intentions, and take advantage of the latest materials and technology. The soloists, chorus and orchestra are of the highest caliber. It is no wonder that Seattle considers itself to be the North American center of all things Wagner.

But what about the voices? Sparkling-voiced Rheinmaidens had no difficulty tempting Alberich while "swimming" on bungee chords, a fantastic image that started this drama on its amazing course. Mezzo Stephanie Blythe impressed in three roles, Fricka, the Second Norn, and Waltraute. This gave audiences many opportunities to hear her deep chest tones and soaring heights as she portrayed pivotal characters which drive this epic story-- a brilliant casting choice.

But it all comes down to Siegfried and Brunnhilde, and here Seattle did not disappoint. Although we are in an age that has not produced the kinds of voices of the legendary past, we do have singers with great abilities. (And the legends of the past often sang with many cuts, and performed in smaller houses. Not only that, but some of our most cherished singers and known to us only from studio recordings which have been engineered to create those legends.)

Seattle's Siegried, Stig Anderson has sung the role many times around the world, and is very comfortable musically and dramatically as the young adventurer, tamer of animals, and conqueror of the world. His transition to maturity and his vulnerability are made manifest throughout. His voice stood up well to the strain, and only rarely did he show signs of tiring. His vocal timbre, at times youthful and piercing, at times tenderly romantic, served the drama well.

The Brunnhilde, Janice Baird, is the opera world's Brunnhilde of choice right now, and her singing was the highlight of this production. Playful as a Valkyrie, both dutiful and disobedient as a daughter, and magisterial as the only character that does what needs to be done, her voice takes many forms. And her stamina in this unforgiving role is truly amazing. I can attest that her sterling vocalism and inspiring dramatic interpretations made it all the way uo to the top row of the second balcony.

There are many other notables, particularly the Wotan of Greer Grimsley, around whom this mythological drama turns. His portrayal always gave the impression that he was in control of the scene, even when his character wasn't!

One of the greatest things about this Ring Festival is the many events that are scheduled to enhance audience understanding and appreciation. Every performance day there are morning lectures about the opera, there is a pre-performance analysis, and there is a question and answer session after each performance, given by the General Director, Speight Jenkins. On off days, there is a symposium and a tech talk. At the Tech Talk, we learn how the magic fire is created, how the dragon was constructed and how it operates, and many other behind-the-scenes stories.

Is this the best Ring Production ever? Without a doubt, unless you prefer those space aliens. If you missed it this year, you have one more chance: put it on your calendar for 2013.




Entry 2 - Charles Gounod’s Faust at the Lyric Opera
Lyric’s current production of Faust is so excellent that any criticism would be nitpicking.   But I must say that the opera’s Romantic sentiments are often ruined by a cynical outlook, particularly in the last act where Marguerite looks like a 19th century crack whore.


That nit being picked, Piotr Beczala is a delight.  His round, silver timbre, unerring legato, and crystalline top notes make for a stunning Faust. His ardent Salute, demeure chaste et pure is unrivalled by any current tenor.


As a character, René Pape was very fine as Méphistophélès—debonair and oozing gravitas.  Unfortunately, while the devil was pleasingly in the details, Le Veau D’or lacked his usual ringing top and caused a slight panic when he got ahead of the orchestra.   Vous Qui Faites L’endormie fared better vocally, but misfired on the all-important diabolical laughter.


As Marguerite, Ana María Martínez sings well and acts even better—particularly in the love duet—but I was left with the impression that the youthful voice of Katherine Lerner as Siébel would have been more appropriate to the Marguerite character.  Lucas Meachem made for an impressive Valentin and sang his heart out in Avant de quitter ces lieu, perhaps pushing his voice a bit more than was wise, but certainly to splendid effect.


The chorus was the best I have ever heard them, precise and powerful.  Andrew Davis kept a firm hand over the orchestra and produced all the aching Romantic touches necessary to the opera. 




Entry 3 - Kotlyar Shifrin Concert Review

Irina Kotlyar and Gregory Shifrin proved that two hearts can, indeed, beat together as one in a piano four-hands program of Schubert, Debussy, and Mendelssohn that continued the Pianoforte Foundation’s weekly lunchtime concert series at the Sherwood Conservatory.

The D. 951 Grand Rondeau displayed the Israeli natives’ partnership at its strongest, with Shifrin providing a sensitive and supportive bass to Kotlyar’s soprano, only occasionally breaking free from the “song without words” style and taking center stage.  Momentary shades of Schubertian darkness were given due attention by both, and tempo changes were artfully handled with only the slightest of nods, a testament to their deep mutual understanding and common interpretation.

Debussy’s Petite Suite opened with seamless arpeggios that spanned the piano’s range, an impressionistic depiction of en bateau floating lazily down a river.  This prelude set the stage for the energetic dance miniatures that followed, which showed that Debussy’s music contains much more than whole-tone scales and voiles fluttering in the wind.

Shifrin and Kotlyar concluded with Mendelssohn’s Allegro Brillante, replete with the requisite amount of technical fireworks.  The most impressive moments came not with the rapid-fire traded passages, though, but when the music was distilled down to a single voice, entering a state of suspended animation that provided fleeting moments of reflection in the midst of encompassing virtuosity.




Entry 4 - Cellist Cabezas at “Music in the Loft”
“Music in the Loft” was inaugurated in 1992 as a single series of five Sunday afternoon concerts showcasing talented young classical musicians. Under the executive and artistic direction of its passionate and tenacious founder Mrs. Fredda Hyman, the series has since doubled its number of concerts and tripled its audience, and seen its “graduates” go on to become world-renowned performers. Nonetheless, “Music in the Loft” has stayed true to its initial mission.

Last night’s recital featured cellist Gabriel Cabezas, who at 16 has already soloed with the Chicago Symphony and Cleveland Orchestra. The moment Gabriel began to play, it was clear why. Opening the program with Debussy’s Cello Sonata (1915), Cabezas displayed what is too often lacking in today’s prodigious young technicians—an intuitive understanding of the music’s harmonic intricacies. He brought this same sensitivity to Schumann’s “Five Folk Pieces,” deftly conveying the music’s myriad moods, which range from the light-hearted to the obsessive and maniacal (like those of the composer himself).

Cabezas opened the second half with the relatively obscure Cello Sonata of Francis Poulenc. With Poulenc’s oeuvre one expects the unexpected, which in this case was how classical the 1948 work sounded compared with the other French sonata on the program. Poulenc is looking back, reflecting on the music of the 18th century, and conveying its spirit through his cabaret- and jazz- influenced idioms (which resonated with the abstract paintings in Mrs. Hyman’s elegantly appointed venue). Cabezas presented the work with an appropriately Mozartean poise. The program closed with Piazzola’s “Le Grand Tango,” a tour-de-force written for the late Mstislav Rostropovich, with which Cabezas lit up the intimate setting with the same incisive yet thoughtful virtuosity that had typified the entire evening. Overall, one got the sense that another future star had stopped by the Loft on his way to the top.




Entry 5 - Review
In the past month, I realized my life was almost half over.  I feel I would be lucky to make it to 80, but with age 40 approaching, I felt pretty darn old.  I discouraged my friends from doing the “Lordy Lordy, Look Who’s 40" office party - with black jelly beans and balloons.  I figured I wanted to do something a little more memorable and appropriate for this milestone in my life. 

Fate intervened when I opened the local paper and saw the Madison Symphony Orchestra playing the Brahms First Symphony... on my birthday! 

How appropriate, I thought.  Brahms was a late bloomer.  It took him - what - around 20 years or so to finally finish the piece?  Ironically, around age 40.  I had to attend this concert, as it was a sign from God.  He was telling me, “Hey!  Remember this guy?!  In his 40's when he did this!  There is still hope for you!”

But I was hesitant.  I love Madison - and I know a few of the musicians in the orchestra... but my heart is with Chicago, the best orchestra in the world.  I was skeptical this Madison  performance would satisfy my desire for a memorable event on the day of the halfway point in my life.

Of course, I went.  And had great seats, right in the center on the floor of the beautiful Overture Center.  The program consisted of the Berlioz Overture to Benvenuto Cellini, the Schumann Cello Concerto and finally the Brahms.

The orchestra surprised me with it’s accuracy and clarity in opening with the Berlioz overture.  Maestro John DeMain has done a wonderful job of tightening up this orchestra for the past 14 years.  It showed in this piece - one that I was not familiar with.  The musicianship featuring a heavy percussion presence in the piece really popped.  I was feeling better about my “Brahms 1" experience to come later in the night.

Steven Isserlis, a well known British Cellist, then came out to perform the Schumann Cello Concerto.  Not one of my favorite pieces, as I find it meanders.  And I felt the orchestra was meandering in playing it.  Isserlis played well, but somewhat hushed.  Overall, the orchestra sounded as if it were on an assembly line, going through the motions.  My confidence was now waning, thinking about the let-down I was now anticipating with the Brahms.  The orchestra hadn’t played it in years, and I was concerned it would be beyond their capabilities. 

Isserlis left the stage and it was time for the main event - “Beethoven’s 10th”.  For me, bar 38 is it.  The orchestra has to nail that first note, then grab the audience by the throat moving forward through the next few bars, letting them know there is no getting off this ride.

As the Madison Symphony pulsated through the opening 37 measures, my heart pounded with the beat... waiting.. For that moment.  The moment that would determine if the anniversary of my 40th year on this earth would memorable, or one of “Lordy Lordy” mediocrity.

The moment between the final sound of measure 37 and the “thump” of the first note in 38 seemed like an eternity.  But then it came.  DeMain and crew nailed it.  Then they grabbed me by my white dress shirt and held me to the wall, and slapped the sense back into me.  This was a straight forward performance, with just a little bit of urgency in the opening movement.  In other words, no unpleasant surprises.

The strings of the MSO sounded glorious, particularly in the 2nd movement.  As I listened to those sweet tones of this reflective passage, I reflected on the 40 years that had passed before I had sat down to this performance.  The music took me to the place where I needed to go - reassuring me that there is more.  This is not the end.  As I came to this conclusion, the concertmaster started  the beautiful solo violin passage, and pulled it off flawlessly.

The 3rd movement, one of hope and curiosity, was played very well.  Nothing fancy, but more importantly, nothing wrong or out of place.  The orchestra was in control and confident, which came through in the performance.

The orchestra did not let up in the fourth movement,  and ended the symphony with the same fervor they started with in bar 38 at the beginning of the piece.  They resolved the piece with a bang - dead on, not taxed at all in the sound of their playing.  It prompted a involuntary standing ovation from me - which took me by surprise.  I think standing O’s are way over done.  But tonight I stood up and gave them one, and it felt appropriate and natural.  And whether or not the dawn of a potential mid-life crises clouded my judgment of the piece, I thought they deserved one.

Despite the fact the MSO had not played the Brahms First in many years, you could hear the musicians squeezing everything out of it they could, really playing at a higher level that was beyond the norm for them.  As I walked out after the performance, I felt young again.  There was no let down - it was a perfect performance of the perfect piece for the day that marked the halfway point of my journey.  My life is only half over.



Entry 6 - Molto Muti
The well-coiffed Riccardo Muti strode across the Symphony Center stage Saturday afternoon to conduct the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in a free afternoon performance of Bruckner’s Second Symphony, part of a city-wide celebration of architect Daniel Burnham’s 1901 Plan of Chicago.   As three American orchestras are making headlines in recent weeks with their new directors – Gustavo Dudamel in Los Angeles, Alan Gilbert in New York, and Muti in Chicago – the latter maestro was the picture of poise as he led his newly adopted band through sixty minutes of symphonic mood swings.  The orchestra exhibited its characteristic agility, allowing Muti to drop his arms at times so the strings could complete a delicate phrase before launching into a brawny, Brucknerian fanfare seemingly tailor-made for the CSO brass.  Dale Clevenger’s horn section cleanly punched out the rapid-fire staccato passages (for which they were given hearty applause), while the strings shimmered in the expansive second movement, airy and precise.  By the end, the packed house was as swept away by the music as it was by the maestro’s charm. 




Entry 8 - CSO and Joshua Bell
Do you go to the symphony or concert hall to *look* at the music as being played, or simply to drift off and let the music wash over you? This is a key question for concertgoers at the Chicago Symphony, as we discovered October 10 when Joshua Bell - playing the Mona Lisa of violins "Vieuxtemps" made by Guarneri del Jesu in 1741 - performed Bruch and Saint-Saen with CSO. We had seats behind stage left, on what is known as the Gray Terrace, with a full view of both the conductor and Mr. Bell from over his left shoulder as he played.

It was a new experience for me, used to drifting off and letting the music guide my thoughts, to sit so close to the Orchestra and have a compelling visual element to the show. So compelling, in fact, I found myself laughing and reacting to the facial expressions of conductor Yan Pascal Tortelier even before Bell came out after the Faure. Once the virtuoso took the stage, it was hard to look at anything else: with his face pointed back at us, we could see his expressions as he listened to the orchestra, as he reacted to them, and encouraged them in between his own bouts of strenuous, foot-stomping beauty. I've seen Mr. Bell in six concerts in four cities, and never have I actually *seen* him play before, choosing always to drift off with eyes closed. It brought a whole new element to the music: its creation and collaboration between a team of skilled, talented people.

The music was almost unbearably light and sweet at times throughout the first three pieces. Many regular CSO musicians are on tour right now; but this small, tight group of players created an evening of delicacy and beauty without Mr. Bell for the Faure, and then around him as soon as he came on stage. Perhaps it was new perspective given me by the close proximity, but I don't think I've ever seen a virtuoso "cuddled" and lifted by an orchestra in quite that way. Watching them call and respond to each other, I caught strains of music in the piece I'd never noticed before. It was a fabulous opportunity; a revelation of sorts, both informative and entertaining.

The only drawback worth mentioning with seats behind the stage is that you lose some of the balance and dynamics of the music. During Bell's performance it was hardly noticeable (he is carefully amplified, after all) and everything revolved around one clear, sweet voice. The Saint-Saen's Third in C Minor, however, really lost balance and focus once Henry McDowell began to add the massive pipe organ to the mix. Not only was it impossible to hear anything else once it began (which is not the fault of the talented Mr McDowell, it should be noted, but rather the result of the location) but one of the pipes was clearly loose, resulting in a terrifying and oddly irritating rattle from directly overhead. Considering this was Mr. McDowell's debut with CSO, I don't know whether to be horrified or hopeful about future programs featuring the pipe organ. I will definitely stick to the balcony if I see the organ listed in the program from now on. This issue could not detract from the sheer loveliness of the evening. I can't wait to go back.

  • Entry 1 - Seattle Opera's Ring of the Nibelung, 2009
  • Entry 2 - Charles Gounod’s Faust at the Lyric Opera
  • Entry 3 - Kotlyar Shifrin Concert Review
  • Entry 4 - Cellist Cabezas at “Music in the Loft”
  • Entry 5 - Review
  • Entry 6 - Molto Muti
  • Entry 7 - Thank God for Extra Virgin Olive Oil!
  • Entry 8 - CSO and Joshua Bell

Comments

vote #3

By far, #3's review was precise, entertaining and gave one a visual of actually being there. Plus kept the review at the limit of 200 words - which was a great factor.

give it to entry #3

Entry #3 is the best in my book

I vote number 2

I vote number 2

#4

I vote for #4. This writer is not only a good musicologist, her/his writing is articulate and objective, and effectively captures the musicianship of, and mood created by, the performer.

interesting to read

3 is gracious and controlled, and I'd like to read such a voice for other reviews.
How did 5 make it this far? It's more early-midlife narcissistic palavering than music review.

Voting

Entry 2

Visitor to the site

As someone who would actually come to this site as a resource, I'd prefer the shorter reviews. If someone can write clearly in 200 words, odds are their longer reviews on the site would be clear, as well. It's a measure of skill, I think.

All of that said - I appreciate the spirit of the contest, but it's been run a bit unprofessionally. I would have assumed that the marketing staff from our area's top cultural institutions would not have pulled of something more polished and fitting of their organizations' reputations.

Agreed, time to stop griping

Agreed, time to stop griping and get into the spirit of the contest. Maybe it will be better run next time!

Voting Process

Hi Anonymous,

As a member of the committee that helped pull this process together, I agree with your criticism that it could have been more polished. Not that this is an excuse, but those of us who help manage the site do this totally as volunteers and try to fit our work on ccm.org in between our day-to-day responsibilities. We appreciate everyone's participation and will work hard to do things better in the future. As said already, those of you who have problems with the 200-word limit issue should vote for those candidates who adhered to the rule -- and encourage your firends and colleagues to do so too. Can't wait to see the final results so vote, vote, vote!

Jim Hirsch

My vote

Review #2

Word Limit

I will chime in with the others and say that it is not fair to allow those who've far exceeded the 200-word limit to compete in the same competition as those who followed the rules. Chances are, those who followed the rules could have (AND WOULD HAVE) submitted more extensive reviews if they had decided the rules didn't matter. Compare apples to apples and make it fair or let everyone resubmit without a limit. You can't have a limit and NOT have a limit at the same time.

Nothing stopped people from submitting a long review...

THEY SHOULD HAVE done it anyway... Rules are meant to be broken. Don't you know that?!

Rules

People who live by the theory that rules are meant to be broken are both disrespectful and selfish to those around them. If one of the reviewers with a long essay wins, they shouldn't feel good about it because it wasn't done in fairness. However, I'm guessing that they'll feel perfectly deserving because of the nature of who they are.

Tongue was in cheek -

I think everyone is taking this a bit too seriously.

voting

6, 7, 1

Re: Entry no. 2

That was a totally farcical review. He said somehting in code at the end that is indicative of the mentioning of a certain radio host.

Entry No. 5 is self-indulgent, sentimental drivel that you would expect from a child doing his first book review.

Your review must not have been chosen...

as one of the final eight? Just a hunch...

8

8

yabba dabba

I vote #2. Luther did a great job with that review

much love from NC

Good grief

I vote for number 2, who I do happen to know is not Luther and who apparently went through more trouble following the rules than the judges care to spend enforcing them.

If I wanted a minute by minute break down, I would simply go to the show myself instead of taking the time to read an essay-sized "review."

Finally, Mr. Ginsburg, I would respectfully suggest checking facts before getting "disturbed" by anonymous accusations.

Guilty as charged

I am still concerned that "Luther's" post on the Stern site may have tipped the sales in #2's favor, but since the writer apparently didn't have anything to do with it, I don't think it should be held against him. His own efforts at promoting his review, such as through his Facebook page are perfectly legitimate, encouraged, in fact.
 
FWIW, I liked his review (I voted for #2, 3, and 4) having attended Lyric's Faust and come to many of the same conclusions. I thought his comment about the singer playing Valentin pushing his voice too hard was particularly perceptive. Another reader I know objected to the assertion about the Siebel being a better choice for Marguerite since Siebel is a mezzo role, but I took the comment to be more about the relative freshness/brightness of the voices rather than a literal suggestion.

Don't be fooled

It is my opinion that it indeed Luther who shilled for the votes on Stern Fan Network and even asked for people to vote twice, if they were so able to do so.

A number of people did reply to the thread in the affirmative, casting their vote for review two. Who knows how many voted twice, as they were requested to do... It is like Bush/Gore all over again.

It is my opinion that the only honorable action is for the author of review two (Luther) to withdraw. If he is selected, he will always be taint-ed by this detestable act.

Thank you.

The point being...

I submitted a review for this competition on the very last day. I went to a performance on Saturday, wrote the thing Sunday morning of the last day. I went to a concert off the beaten path for sure (not a comment that could be mentioned of the finalists), and I think that counted against me. Maybe the Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestra doesn't have someone on the judges' panel. But I digress. I found it very hard to stick to the 200 word limit, but I thought that was one way the judges were going to rule people out. If you can't follow a simple rule, then how else will you widdle down the entries? So, I read and edited over and over. I submitted my review on my, at the time, barely functioning wireless internet. Then I waited. I thought there would be confirmation that they received my review, but none was forthcoming. So I wrote them an email asking if they could confirm they received it, and I received none. In the end, this whole process seemed disappointing.

Loyal but skeptical

I kind of wondered where these hundreds of votes have been coming from since in the last year or so there have only been a handful of 'public' reviews posted here by a handful of 'public' posters such as oznitorres and myself.  Perhaps this site is doing what it feels it need to do to bolster traffic, and that effort is to be commended. But in the end, I'm looking for a site to promote and discuss the Chicago classical music scene and not a junior high popularity contest. I realize we are all in new territory here and the outcome remains to be seen.  I guess all I can do is hope that ends will justify the means.

Vote schilling

The author of review number two is a member of the Stern Fan Network, a Howard Stern Fan site. He posted a thread there today urging fellow board members to vote for his review. I believe that to be unfair and perhaps you should be aware of that fact.

Here is the link to the post.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17137883#post17137883

On the Stern Fan Network, we refer to such practices as douchebaggery. Just though you'd like to know.

*I* am reviewer number two

Greetings.

First off, to confirm that I am review number two, I submit to Angela Golden that my initials are "JB"...and that my last name is very long and Slavic-sounding. I don't feel like putting my full name out there, but that should be enough to confirm that I am indeed the person that wrote review number two.

No, I am not "schilling" as such. What I am doing is asking all of my friends--close or not--to vote for me, as I would expect the other reviewers are. I emphatically am NOT "Luther" on Stern Fan Network. He is a friend of mine (no, not from that website - I find that website detestable). I did not ask him to post the link and was not aware of it until just now.

Aside from that, I'm unsure what else to say - I HAVE used Facebook to communicate with the people I know and ask them to vote for me. I don't think that is unethical at all. I quote from the e-mail Ms. Golden sent to the eight finalists -

"Please spread the word in anyway you can, Facebook pages, your friends/family/anyone who may be interested!"

I am doing just that and I am not "schilling" or asking anyone to vote more than once. As a matter of fact, I have specifically told people not to.

This is no "prank" and I am not cheating. This is me trying to win, and I am using tools that not only make sense but were specifically allowed for by the contest judges. You can believe me or not.

I am guiltless.

-JB

shilling

Shilling is when you ask people to vote for you because it's you, not because of the quality of the review, the objective of the contest. I can't think of a better example of shilling than what you've done, and I further think that any contestants who have done such a thing should be disqualified.

Is that why you asked

Is that why you asked everyone to vote for you twice Luther?

And everyone on Stern Fan Network knows Luther is Slavic. He has a freaking conductor as his avatar for years.

You are busted pal. Busted. :hw:

Good to know

I would hope everyone is promoting the contest via their Facebook pages and other appropriate means. Using the Howard Stern Fan Network would be taking Angela's instruction too literally for my taste; I'm glad to learn that it was an overly zealous supporter and not you who is responsible for that posting.
 
--Jim

Thanks for bringing this up

I am disturbed by this. It would be a different thing if the votes were coming from a related site such as another classical music discussion group and the writer encouraged people to read all the entries before voting instead of just writing "Vote for review number two."
I suspect the contestant chose a radio shock jock fan site in part because he or she figured that there would not be any intersection among readers of the two sites (i.e., so he/she wouldn't get "caught").

Vote shilling

Hi All,
First, I want to thank everyone for their interest in this admittedly imperfect process.  I believe that most of us are in favor of this website serving as an open forum regardless of whether we personally agree with everything or not.  If people are concerned that candidate #2 is scamming us, then vote for others and encourage your friends to do so too.  If this candidate is chosen, and if it turns out to be a prank, we will act accordingly.  We aren't here to censor - we love it when everyone gets passionate about classical music - but we'll do what we need to to keep the site functioning properly.  Thanks again for getting involved.
Jim Hirsch

LIMITS

Not that I would have been selected anyhow, but if I thought that exceeding the word limit would be OK in order to let my reviewing strengths be shown, I would have submitted a longer, not chopped-up review...

Not sure I see the problem here

It's the 4 shortest reviews that appear to be vying for the top 3 places, so it seems the voters are favoring those who stayed within, or at least close to the word limit.

Please note that #7 is no

Please note that #7 is no longer an applicant in the conetest.

 

Thanks!

 

i vote #2

i vote #2

Voting

Rules are Rules. 200 words means 200 words. I cast my vote for number 6.

Review number 2 I would say

Review number 2 I would say put it in the best words!

voting

Review #2

Review #4

Review #4 is by far the most succinct and erudite review posted here. As a professional writer myself, I appreciated the biographical and contextual details included, as well as the insightful comments regarding young soloists (musician vs. technician).

Although I don't always enjoy the atmosphere at the Loft concerts, the reviewers visual references ("abstract paintings") and evocative portrayal of the concert ("intimate setting...incisive yet thoughtful virtuosity"). A very well-written review indeed.

I'd like to concur with the other posters here that a word-count limit, if specified, should be adhered to, and those who've chosen to ignore this stipulation should be removed from the running.

I liked this one (#4) too

I am sad to see it fall out of the top 3 this morning. As a fan of the Loft concerts, I agree with the writer's point of view.

The Executive Committee of

The Executive Committee of reviewers decided that despite the overage of words of some entries, it would not be right to discount the quality based on length. This only occured on 2 entries in which case it is your decision to vote for or against.

 

Thank you for your comments.

You know...

You know,
classical music is a serious subject.

You accepted 500~900 words reviews when you already made the rule of 200 words reviews ??

I believe Chicago Classical Music doesn't know how to appreciate classical music at all.

Or they don't deserve to represent the great city of Chicago's classical music organizations.

Give another opportunity to the 200 words submitters.

Thanks.

Interesting comparison -

Because CCM accepted applicants with over 200 words, they don't know how to appreciate classical music at all. A very serious accusation... OK then... This whole word count thing is getting a little goofy. Angela is right - if you don't like it, don't vote for it.

I agree that it's not fair to

I agree that it's not fair to stipulate a word limit and then not adhere to it--I know at least one eminently qualified person who didn't submit an entry because the 200 word limit was nearly impossible to keep.

too many

I totally agree that those who's reviews went WAY over the 200 word limit should not have gotten to the top 8. This is not fair to those who followed the rules and did what was required. By limiting and following the 200 word limit made the reviewers make their comments count.

Limitations...yeah.

I agree with the first person who commented. Stipulating a limit and then accepting reviews that were SEVERAL TIMES LARGER than the limit was probably unfair...

limitations

If you set a 200 word limit then don't enforce the rule, you give advantage to those who would express more, I think.

voting

5,7, and 8

these sound like real people with real anecdotes; not just there to review the show, but to share what ti meant to them; making for much more interesting reading.

I really wanted to like the opera reviews since that is my area of expertise. But they seemed similar to other things I have read.

also, any mention of food as it relates to music gets my vote.

thanks for this,

Oliver Camacho

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.