David C. F. Wright, the most interesting
critic in the history of music
I read Mr Wright’s articles when I have absolutely nothing
to do, and every time I do, he never fails to disappoint me. Some people’s
blind worship for this critic has always been a mystery for a number of
thinking individuals.
“Wagner
is the first composer to have inspired me, and he still does. At the age
of thirteen I declared that he was my favourite composer. I
conducted The Mastersingers Overture in my front room many times!”
Who cares what Wright thinks? Nobody gives a darn. Often,
when he explains why certain composers’ are “great”, he simply describes his
own experiences with their music. I must say this is totally pathetic and
mostly irrelevant. Is the greatness of composers determined by how often Wright
vows and kisses their portraits and statues? Does he think we honestly care
about his personal opinions, absurdities? Maybe a lunatic asylum is the best
place in which he could continue to conduct imaginary orchestras.
“I had Furtwängler's
magnificent recording of Tristan and Isolde and played and played it
with a large vocal score on which I wrote many comments some of which
now read as awful juvenilia. I said it was the greatest of all operas
and, today, I still believe that passionately. I loved the second
act and could sing most of it without the music although my German was suspect.
The Liebestod is the most sublime music I know…The most frequently
comment about Wagner's music is, "There are some great moments but long
half hours." I can see that point but the expectation of the next
tremendous moment is worth the wait and can afford edge-of-the-seat excitement.”
An endless sequence of “I think” “I know” “I
believe”… University music professors wouldn’t even bother to have a glance at
Wright’s articles. The most frequent
comment about Wagner’s music? I laughed so hard at this statement. I searched
for the phrase on the internet wondering whether others have said it. The
result was obvious… Only Wright’s article contains the phrase. Sure… it is very
frequently said…What does this tell us? The most frequent comment said BY ME (WRIGHT
HIMSELF) is "There are some great moments
but long half hours." Whenever
Wright cunningly twists facts to his advantage, he keeps his statements vague.
I would be thunderstruck if I saw a bibliography by him. Obviously, Wright
makes himself believe all the information he uses is his very own. Both Wagner
and Wright share these traits in common; Self-centeredness and selfishness. (I
obtained this information from the biography, “Clara Schumann, The Artist And
The Woman”)
“…Meyerbeer
who was also a Jew. On reaching terra firma a meeting was arranged between
Wagner and Meyerbeer who welcomed him and was very kind to him. Why Meyerbeer should
be thus hated by Wagner might be a mystery…”
Even though Wright is supposedly aware of the fact
that Wagner’s extreme anti-Semitism was inhumane, Wright avoids explaining why
“Meyerbeer should be thus hated by Wagner”? Why? Because it is too painful for
Wright to criticize his favourite composer. His Chopin Article, like most of
his articles, is a worthless piece of total rubbish with no substance. It
finally found its right place in a trash. It would be better to say there’s
absolutely no substance in Wright’s writing. The Beethoven article is no
exception. He mostly fills the article with descriptions of Beethoven’s
relationship with women, when each of his works was written. He ends the
article by saying the seventh symphony was a masterpiece, the sixth symphony
was a silly tune, and so on. He also appears to be too proud (or maybe
arrogant) to cite his information sources.
The following was taken from http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/holocaust/wagner.htm and it
tells a lot about Wright’s favorite composer. Enjoy
The Aryan Myth: Richard Wagner
Richard Wagner was the most politically
incorrect composer in history and also was one of the worst anti-Semites of the
19th Century. The German composer's behavior and religious views were off
the charts of civilized society. In many ways he was a monster. Wagner
believed that all Jews should be burned up. Wagner lost no opportunity,
year in and year out, of fretting the life out of his Jewish friends and
collaborators about their Judaism. When Levi, a Jewish conductor, conducted the
world premiere of his opera, Wagner remarked that if he were playing in the
orchestra he wouldn't like to be directed by a Jew. Richard Wagner was the
unofficial court composer of the Third Reich. Adolf Hitler said that "Whoever
wants to understand National Socialistic Germany must know Wagner."
Hitler's appropriation of the Bayreuth Wagner Festival was to serve his own
cultural propaganda purposes. Wagner was a cultural hero for Hitler and his
Nazis. The strains of Wagner were played during the Nazis' book-burning
ceremonies and when concentration camp prisoners were about to be put to death.
Nazi Germany's main defense fortification was called the "Siegfried
Line," after the mythic hero in Wagner's Ring of the Nibelung. Wagner had many
Jewish friends, although he thought of Jews as formal cannibals. Wagner
hated Jews because Jewish financiers and impresarios failed to support him
at the start of his career; and Jewish competitors such as the composer Giacomo
Meyerbeer, whose operas in the 1840s were far more successful than Wagner's
early efforts. In some of his more levelheaded moments, Wagner was tolerant of
the Jews, and said "If I wrote about the Jews again, I would say there is
nothing to be held against them, only they came to us Germans too soon; we were
not stable enough to absorb this element." His
music and attitude had a great influence on Hitler and the Nazis, even though he died in 1883, 50 years before Hitler
rose to power. Wagner is an example of the Aryan myth (the belief of the
superiority of some races over others) is expressed through music. Von Bulow
was among the first of more than a century of music lovers who would face the
challenge of bridging what Gordon Craig calls "the gulf between the
tremendous music and the mean-spirited man."
“Today there
are cult figures in music. People worship at the shrine of a composer and are
so indoctrinated that they will not accept that their hero is not flawless as a
person or as a musician and they become enraged at evidence that this might be
the case. There are those who believe that their favourite composer is the
greatest composer whereas that may not be the case either.”
-Wright
Well said, by Wright. Let’s see how Wright would
react once he learns about the relationship between the Nazis and Wagner. Wright claims that Chopin was more anti-semitic than Wagner. If Wright
bothered to learn some history behind the music used by the Nazis, he would
have kept his ignorance from being revealed. In fact, almost every Pole during
the time of Chopin was anti-semitic. Chopin indeed disliked the Jews and
Russians. Many of his biographies, including “Chopin The Conqueror” claim that
the reason for this was his immense patriotism. They also claim, although Meyerbeer
was a Jew, Chopin claimed to have liked him as a man. There’s no evidence of
Chopin hating Mendelssohn as it is well known that both were close friends. Chopin
wrote numerous pieces to glorify his homeland and this fact is so arrogantly
ignored by Wright. Wright’s description about Mozart is even
more horrendous.
“The
Mozarts hated Salieri because they thought he was a better musician than both
of them. And they were right! They also verbally abused Clementi. Young Mozart
wrote to his father about Clementi, "He has not a kreutzer's worth of
taste and feeling. In short, he is simply a mechanicus."… Whereas Mozart was a villain,
as already indicated, Beethoven
was quite different…”
Salieri was a better musician than Mozart? Mozart
was a villain? The fact that Wright writes like a third grader who likes to
“generalize things” makes me doubt whether he is really is a third grader.
Wright arrogantly decides to forget Mozart’s piety and generosity. Wright’s
constant use of the overly generalized words, “better”, “good”, “bad” shows how
poorly educated he is as a writer. Wright self-righteously uses verbal
atrocities against Britten, when he calls Mozart’s constructive criticism
“verbal abuse”. In fact, Mozart said
“Clementi plays well, so far as
execution with the right hand goes. His greatest strength lies in his passages
in thirds. Apart from this he has not a kreutzer's worth of taste and feeling -
in short he is simply a mechanicus.” Wright chooses to omit the
positive comment so that the entire statement sounds negative. This is another
example of Wright’s pathetic, unjust method of twisting facts please his own
little mind. His mediocre Chopin Article is infested with this abusive method.
He evidences absolutely nothing. He claims to know Chopin thoughts and how his
mind worked and yet, he NEVER identifies the information sources he uses. (or
does he even use one?)
Wright seems to believe in some kind of
childish nonsense as he claims Mozart was a villain. Maybe he is inspired by
some infantile TV shows. His greatest admirer, Linda Dowson, goes even further
as she claims the reason why some people don’t want their favorite composers
from being criticized is because they have “hidden agendas”. Seriously, these
people need to wake up from their immature daydreams.
A British musician and a conductor, Mr Charles
Hazzlewood, discusses the greatness of Mozart in a BBC documentary, “The Genius
of Mozart”. Mr Hazzlewood claims that Mozart was one of the most pioneering,
greatest composers of all time, and his work went far beyond the achievements
of Beethoven as he discusses how innovative Mozart’s later works, such as the
Jupiter symphony, are. There’s a lot Wright has to learn from this thoughtful,
logical individual. Salieri was indeed a proficient composer, but experts agree
that the works of Mozart are far more innovative. Every music professor would
laugh at Wright’s face, when they hear his statement that Salieri was far
superior to Mozart. Why would I speak on Wright’s behalf when his knowledge is
so limited and he has a dirty habit of twisting facts?
Compare Evgeny Kissin with Wright. Kissin
has almost perfect understanding of piano literature, and he himself is an
excellent pianist. Kissin calls Chopin a genius, and Wright, who is a far
inferior musician, always disagrees with pianists like Kissin on this subject. Can
Wright even play a single Chopin Etude like a true artist? Honestly, who would
I believe? Both are musicians, the difference is that Wright spends his time
mocking Mozart, Chopin, Schumann and devaluing many of their works, while
Kissin passionately performs sublime music like a true, modest artist. One can
easily see that Kissin is 100 times the musician Wright is. Maybe Wright should
consider how poorly written his own Cello Concerto is before pondering that of
Elgar. What prevents Wright from keeping his mouth closed? His pride, obviously
