Do you remember growing up watching magic occasionally, in your life, as an art of entertainment and how simple prestidigitation has transported you to an unknown world where it was all mystery, illusion and entertainment? It is not surprising that magic has historical importance although it gained respectability and strength in eighteenth century. Modern magic art owes a lot to Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin who performed in France and England. The 19th century magician of prominence, Harry Houdini magic guru took his stage name from French Jean Eugene Robert-Houdin. The world remembers these two great names as magicians who brought respect to an otherwise, what was thought and practiced as an art of, occult and conjure practice. How Is Magic Performed None of the performers of this day claim to possess any supernatural powers baring a few who may be called as 'charlatans'. Performers establish an unspoken relationship with audience even as they enter the stage, achieved through sleight of hand. And then what follows next is an illusionary and mind numbing combination of deception, misdirection, connivance with a member of the audience, mirrors, equipments and other apparatuses with mysterious mechanisms, and lots of other trickery. The bafflement the audience falls into is beyond explanation that audience thinks it lost senses as they can't believe how anything that has happened, albeit before their eyes, has happened at all. Dumb stricken, having lost comprehension and thinking abilities, audience, in no time give in to the tricks and just become a part of the show before beginning to pay a role themselves. Where Does It Stand Today Unfortunately, for much of the 20th century, this great art of entertainment was ignored and marginalized. This is mainly because of the rise of celluloid entertainment which added stories to make believe shows. Stalwarts and enthusiasts have been at it for reviving this 'children's entertainment', as it is regarded now. But the result, which, for much of the last 2-3 decades has been elusive, appears to be a distant possibility. The expression 'all smoke and mirrors' which gained coinage coinciding with the decline in interest has also contributed too magic's present state today. Some of the famous acts of magic are Escape Art, The Great Indian Rope Trick, Teleportation, Vanishing Act just make a small partial list of great acts interspersed with the routine fillers like innumerous number of card trick, pulling rabbits from hats etc. The term magic has become synonymous with great performance in other fields too, especially sports. Can anyone forget Magic Johnson, at all?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Children's Entertainment and Comedy
Only parents with Victorian attitudes would insist all children's programming be 'improving' and educational - there should be room for fun and entertainment, as in adult schedules.
Popular new genres of the 1950s included live theatre variety and the game show and Children's TV replicated both. Crackerjack (BBC, 1955-84) was a mini-version of series like Sunday Night at the London Palladium (ITV, 1955-67; 1973-74), comprising variety turns, comedy sketches, pop music, party games and simple quizzes.
Both children and television have changed greatly since Crackerjack began. The 1960s produced Top of the Form (BBC, 1962-75), an austere inter-schools general knowledge quiz with serious-minded questions addressed to uniformed pupils. Film quiz Screen Test (BBC, 1970-84) used a similar static, sit-down panel format, albeit enlivened by movie clips. Runaround (ITV, 1975-81) brought the quiz format to life - active youngsters sprinted across the studio to answer trivia questions, egged on by a noisy audience. After the first series of Cheggers Plays Pop (BBC, 1978-86), BBC Head of Children's Edward Barnes remarked, "It's the most vulgar thing I have ever seen - but I'll recommission it!" It mixed music guest spots, pop quiz and action games involving inflatable contraptions and messy gunge. The latter ingredient, influenced by TISWASFun House (ITV 1989-99) and Get Your Own Back (BBC, 1991-). These shows allow free rein to natural childish energy; quizzes of the 1950s and '60s were an extension of the classroom. (ITV, 1974-82), became de rigeur in the likes of
Cheggers Plays Pop and Crackerjack included pop performance, but ITV provided dedicated music shows in the 1970s and '80s, Muriel Young producing several for Granada in the 'glam rock' and 'teenybop' eras - Lift Off With Ayshea (ITV, 1969-74), including a legendary 1972 appearance by David Bowie, Shang-a-Lang (ITV, 1975) a showcase for the Bay City Rollers, and Marc (ITV, 1977), a vehicle for Marc Bolan. Get It Together (ITV, 1977-81) was a durable mix of performance and quiz, let down by a poor guest roster and dubious cover versions sung by host Roy North.
Pop interview, performance and - from the early '80s - music video also became a regular part of Saturday morning shows. Music video and its ubiquity, via satellite channels, has removed much of the impact enjoyed by shows like Lift Off, then a rare opportunity to see music idols perform.
Comedy for children usually deals in physical slapstick, farce and bad puns. In this vein, doddery old Mr Pastry (BBC, 1950-62) was an early comic hero, as were the grotesquely greedy schoolboy Billy Bunter (BBC, 1952-61) and the similar comic strip schoolroom antics of Whack-O! (BBC, 1956-60; 1971-72).
Broad pantomime traditions informed Pardon, My Genie (ITV, 1972-3), Grandad (BBC, 1979-84) and Rentaghost (BBC, 1976-84) - faces were blackened by exploding ovens and struck by flying cream cakes. Such series used experienced comic actors like Roy Barraclough or Clive Dunn, but farcical events and comic misadventures also befell child actors in Here Come the Double Deckers! (BBC, 1971), Graham's Gang (BBC, 1977-79) and Jossy's Giants (BBC, 1986-87). Such physical comedy has nonetheless taken in satire (Educating Marmalade, ITV, 1982) and strong character writing (Worzel Gummidge, ITV, 1979-81; Channel 4, 1987-89).
Absurdist pre-Python series Do Not Adjust Your Set (ITV, 1967-8) was a rare example of truly innovative sketch comedy. While nothing since has matched its influence, the earthy humour of various 1970s Thames series like You Must Be Joking (ITV, 1975-76) and Pauline's QuirkesPlay Away (BBC, 1972-84), a colourful mix of corny jokes and songs, was the longest running of all children's comedy series. (ITV, 1976) proved both popular and controversial.
Friday, April 10, 2009
What is Entertainment
In a world where we find ourselves ever more overwhelmed by—and drawn to—bright images and flashing screens, it is worth asking a few questions about that most important of consumer goods: entertainment. What makes entertainment entertaining? Why do we need it, or do we? What is entertainment, anyway?
These are a few of the questions I set out to answer in a class I taught a year or so ago: Entertainment in America. And while we couldn’t quite come up with satisfactory answers, even after a semester of reading and discussion, I’d like to try to set down a few of the thoughts that came out of that course here. But I don’t want to shove the partial answers I’ve come to down your throat—that’s no fun for anybody. Rather, what I’ll do in the following is offer a list of questions that you might ask yourself, along with a few resources that might be worth looking at as you search for your own answers to these increasingly crucial questions. I’ll also note, from time to time, the conclusions I have tentatively reached regarding these questions.
Are you ready? Here goes…
What is entertainment? (Too obvious, but we’ll come back to it. If you keep this question in mind as you go down the list, you may find a definition beginning to come together. Try it out.) Even if you know it when you see it, does it bother you if you can’t come up with a good definition of what it actually is?
Is there such a thing as "only entertainment"?
Only Entertainment—Bad Religion
That’s Entertainment—The Jam
That’s Entertainment—Judy Garland
When you read the lyrics of The Jam’s and Bad Religion’s songs, and read about the history of the Judy Garland highlights film, what is your sense of the kind of material that makes for entertainment?
Who needs entertainment? What for? When you are entertained, what are you feeling? Read a Dilbert or Doonesbury comic strip, and try to record what happened inside of you while you were looking at the comic. Did you feel happier? A sense of release? The resolving of tension? Was that entertainment? Would you say that reading the comic strip was the same kind of experience as watching a television show? How? How not?
Are some kinds of entertainment better for you than others? Which kinds? Is it better to play internet poker or to watch a video? Try doing each for a little while and record your feelings. Was one more entertaining than the other? How? Why? Did one make you more aggressive? Less likely to do something productive in the world around you? Did either change the way you felt about yourself? How?
One of the things I was struck by while teaching this course was the way entertainment can work as a substitute for action. If I can identify with a character on TV—on a soap opera, for instance—then I get to feel all the feelings that character feels, without having to do the actions that result in those feelings. I get to feel jealous without having a cheating spouse, excited by the intrigue of adultery without being an adulterer, and intimate without ever actually talking to a living human being. In short, I get to feel. Some researchers believe that feelings are the way we human beings experience our world most fully, but is there a price to pay when we feel our emotions in a way that’s disconnected from the physical world around us?
That is, if we get to feel feelings without taking risks, do we start to lose our ability to risk emotion in the "real world"? I don’t have a definite answer to that for you, but I do have one for me. I’ve come to the conclusion that entertainment is—while maybe necessary for emotional and psychological health—definitely a dangerous substance. Like fire. So, for my part, I’ll still watch a film now and then. But I’ll also think afterwards about how watching that film, getting that emotional satisfaction, affects my ability to act in the real world. You might consider doing the same; it actually turns out to be pretty entertaining.
These are a few of the questions I set out to answer in a class I taught a year or so ago: Entertainment in America. And while we couldn’t quite come up with satisfactory answers, even after a semester of reading and discussion, I’d like to try to set down a few of the thoughts that came out of that course here. But I don’t want to shove the partial answers I’ve come to down your throat—that’s no fun for anybody. Rather, what I’ll do in the following is offer a list of questions that you might ask yourself, along with a few resources that might be worth looking at as you search for your own answers to these increasingly crucial questions. I’ll also note, from time to time, the conclusions I have tentatively reached regarding these questions.
Are you ready? Here goes…
What is entertainment? (Too obvious, but we’ll come back to it. If you keep this question in mind as you go down the list, you may find a definition beginning to come together. Try it out.) Even if you know it when you see it, does it bother you if you can’t come up with a good definition of what it actually is?
Is there such a thing as "only entertainment"?
Only Entertainment—Bad Religion
That’s Entertainment—The Jam
That’s Entertainment—Judy Garland
When you read the lyrics of The Jam’s and Bad Religion’s songs, and read about the history of the Judy Garland highlights film, what is your sense of the kind of material that makes for entertainment?
Who needs entertainment? What for? When you are entertained, what are you feeling? Read a Dilbert or Doonesbury comic strip, and try to record what happened inside of you while you were looking at the comic. Did you feel happier? A sense of release? The resolving of tension? Was that entertainment? Would you say that reading the comic strip was the same kind of experience as watching a television show? How? How not?
Are some kinds of entertainment better for you than others? Which kinds? Is it better to play internet poker or to watch a video? Try doing each for a little while and record your feelings. Was one more entertaining than the other? How? Why? Did one make you more aggressive? Less likely to do something productive in the world around you? Did either change the way you felt about yourself? How?
One of the things I was struck by while teaching this course was the way entertainment can work as a substitute for action. If I can identify with a character on TV—on a soap opera, for instance—then I get to feel all the feelings that character feels, without having to do the actions that result in those feelings. I get to feel jealous without having a cheating spouse, excited by the intrigue of adultery without being an adulterer, and intimate without ever actually talking to a living human being. In short, I get to feel. Some researchers believe that feelings are the way we human beings experience our world most fully, but is there a price to pay when we feel our emotions in a way that’s disconnected from the physical world around us?
That is, if we get to feel feelings without taking risks, do we start to lose our ability to risk emotion in the "real world"? I don’t have a definite answer to that for you, but I do have one for me. I’ve come to the conclusion that entertainment is—while maybe necessary for emotional and psychological health—definitely a dangerous substance. Like fire. So, for my part, I’ll still watch a film now and then. But I’ll also think afterwards about how watching that film, getting that emotional satisfaction, affects my ability to act in the real world. You might consider doing the same; it actually turns out to be pretty entertaining.
Critical Sinking
Plain Dealer music writer Donald Rosenberg covered the Cleveland Orchestra for 28 years. That is, until his critiques of Franz Welser-Möst apparently unseated him from the prestigious role. What happened along the way gives a rare look at two powerful institutions and raises the question of what it means to be a critic. 
Donald Rosenberg never brings a reporter’s notebook to Severance Hall.
A classical music writer for more than a quarter-century, he jots notes on the night’s program for fear that the flip of a page might be a distraction.
Though many others in the audience have cast aside their formal attire, some even refusing to change from their denim, thePlain Dealer critic sports a coat and tie out of respect for the institution.
Tonight, music director Franz Welser-Möst is conducting the Cleveland Orchestra through the music of the less-popular Strauss brother, Josef, whose waltzes are tinged with melancholy.
But Rosenberg has scrawled his disappointment in the margins before the first piece, “Dynamiden,” is over. To Rosenberg, the waltz, beautiful in its blend of the bittersweet and the exuberant, is plodding along in Welser-Möst’s hands. The nostalgic moments, he will write in his review, are “overly weighty and restrained.”
And the lively passages? “Essentially joyless.”
For Rosenberg, a man who relishes the details and who co-workers describe as meticulous, this is pointed criticism. Compared to the review by the other critic at the spring 2007 concert, Rosenberg’s words are harsh. TheAkron Beacon Jounal’s Elaine Guregian will describe the music as “dreamy,” “wistful” and creating a sense of “lush extravagance.”
And while all critics occasionally disagree, Cleveland Orchestra officials and others have grown increasingly frustrated by Rosenberg’s views on how Welser-Möst interprets music. They complain, in a steady trickle of letters to thePD and in public, that Rosenberg criticizes the conductor relentlessly, even when he praises the players.
Back in 2005, Richard Bogomolny, the chairman of the orchestra’s parent company, even wrote to thePD to say Rosenberg had lost credibility and was hurting the newspaper. Orchestra executives lobbied for more positive coverage, going so far as to document every sentence Rosenberg had written about Welser-Möst over 12 years.
“Every time he wrote an article, he was asking the board to remove the music director,” says Robert Duvin, the lawyer for the orchestra’s parent company.
In the 18-month crescendo following the Strauss concert, Rosenberg will say that Welser-Möst “sapped the music of all character,” led an “unformed account” and was guilty of “pressing the orchestra to ear-shattering harshness.”
In the same time frame, the orchestra will extend Welser-Möst’s contract to 2018, essentially ensuring his stay with the Cleveland Orchestra through the rest of Rosenberg’s writing career. AndThe Plain Dealer will demote Rosenberg from one of the premier music-critic positions in the world, drawing international scrutiny among fellow critics and causing others to question whether the newspaper bowed to the orchestra’s gravitas.
Rosenberg will ultimately sue both the orchestra’s parent company and his employer.
But on this May night, Rosenberg sees himself as just doing his job, without fear of retribution. When the performance ends, he scoots out of Severance Hall. He doesn’t want anyone to influence his perception of the concert. He heads to the parking garage underneath the concert hall, drives home and writes his review first thing the next morning.
A classical music writer for more than a quarter-century, he jots notes on the night’s program for fear that the flip of a page might be a distraction.
Though many others in the audience have cast aside their formal attire, some even refusing to change from their denim, thePlain Dealer critic sports a coat and tie out of respect for the institution.
Tonight, music director Franz Welser-Möst is conducting the Cleveland Orchestra through the music of the less-popular Strauss brother, Josef, whose waltzes are tinged with melancholy.
But Rosenberg has scrawled his disappointment in the margins before the first piece, “Dynamiden,” is over. To Rosenberg, the waltz, beautiful in its blend of the bittersweet and the exuberant, is plodding along in Welser-Möst’s hands. The nostalgic moments, he will write in his review, are “overly weighty and restrained.”
And the lively passages? “Essentially joyless.”
For Rosenberg, a man who relishes the details and who co-workers describe as meticulous, this is pointed criticism. Compared to the review by the other critic at the spring 2007 concert, Rosenberg’s words are harsh. TheAkron Beacon Jounal’s Elaine Guregian will describe the music as “dreamy,” “wistful” and creating a sense of “lush extravagance.”
And while all critics occasionally disagree, Cleveland Orchestra officials and others have grown increasingly frustrated by Rosenberg’s views on how Welser-Möst interprets music. They complain, in a steady trickle of letters to thePD and in public, that Rosenberg criticizes the conductor relentlessly, even when he praises the players.
Back in 2005, Richard Bogomolny, the chairman of the orchestra’s parent company, even wrote to thePD to say Rosenberg had lost credibility and was hurting the newspaper. Orchestra executives lobbied for more positive coverage, going so far as to document every sentence Rosenberg had written about Welser-Möst over 12 years.
“Every time he wrote an article, he was asking the board to remove the music director,” says Robert Duvin, the lawyer for the orchestra’s parent company.
In the 18-month crescendo following the Strauss concert, Rosenberg will say that Welser-Möst “sapped the music of all character,” led an “unformed account” and was guilty of “pressing the orchestra to ear-shattering harshness.”
In the same time frame, the orchestra will extend Welser-Möst’s contract to 2018, essentially ensuring his stay with the Cleveland Orchestra through the rest of Rosenberg’s writing career. AndThe Plain Dealer will demote Rosenberg from one of the premier music-critic positions in the world, drawing international scrutiny among fellow critics and causing others to question whether the newspaper bowed to the orchestra’s gravitas.
Rosenberg will ultimately sue both the orchestra’s parent company and his employer.
But on this May night, Rosenberg sees himself as just doing his job, without fear of retribution. When the performance ends, he scoots out of Severance Hall. He doesn’t want anyone to influence his perception of the concert. He heads to the parking garage underneath the concert hall, drives home and writes his review first thing the next morning.
Donald Rosenberg’s first foray into newspapers came in 1977 while working at a Westwood, N.J., bagel shop.
Fresh out of Yale with two master’s degrees in music and no job prospects, he was boiling dough to support himself and his new wife, who he’d met in the school’s horn section.
He’d been playing the French horn seriously for 11 years, his talent putting him on the stages of Carnegie Hall, Kennedy Center and the Marlboro Music Festival in Vermont.
He had played under legendary conductor Pablo Casals and alongside music icons Yo-Yo Ma, Emanuel Ax and Franklin Cohen (who is now principal clarinetist in the Cleveland Orchestra).
One day, Joseph Polisi called the bagel shop. The admissions officer and eventual president of the revered Juilliard School told Rosenberg a newspaper in Akron, Ohio, was looking for a music critic. TheBeacon Journal called five minutes later. The interview went well, until they asked for some examples of Rosenberg’s work. All he had to send was his master’s project on the Wagner tuba.
Rosenberg’s musical chops had way more bite than his writing experience, but they invited him for a tryout anyway. By October 1977, he had his first newspaper job reviewing concerts by the Cleveland Orchestra, 35 miles away.
His first reviews took him four hours to write. But he learned on the job, writing for theBeaconfor more than a decade before making a quick stop atThe Pittsburgh Press. Then in 1992, he reassumed his role as critic of the Cleveland Orchestra, this time forThe Plain Dealer.
During Rosenberg’s time as a critic, three different music directors — Lorin Maazel, Christoph von Dohnányi and Franz Welser-Möst — have led the orchestra; Severance Hall has undergone a $36 million restoration; and Rosenberg has toured the world, covering concerts in some of classical music’s most prestigious venues — including the orchestra’s regular engagements at Austria’s Salzburg Festival.
In 2000, Rosenberg penned a 768-page history of the Cleveland Orchestra. A year later, his peers selected him to lead the Music Critics Association of North America for two terms.
Now, Rosenberg says, he can write and file reviews in a half-hour, always turning in meticulous copy with not even a comma out of place.
Over the years, Donald Rosenberg and Gary Hanson, the orchestra’s top executive, had practically become friends, enjoying an occasional glass of wine and dinner at each other’s house.
Hanson’s rise through the ranks in the Musical Arts Association, the orchestra’s parent company, included a stop in the communication department — which deals with the news media and thus, Rosenberg.
It’s not surprising the two men enjoyed each other’s company. Some of the same words can be used to describe them: professorial, meticulous, confident, thoughtful, connoisseurs.
They shared lunch at an upscale restaurant in Central Dublin in 2004, while the orchestra was on its summertime European tour. It was just days after Rosenberg published a story in thePD that included comments Welser-Möst made to the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche.
Welser-Möst called the Friday matinee audience members at Severance Hall “blue-hair ladies ... who are too tired to attend performances at night.”
In describing the city, he said: “Cleveland is an island. Here we have a world-class orchestra in what I call an inflated farmer’s village. For me, who loves the country, it is wonderful to live there among the green.”
The article went on to say, in Welser-Möst’s words, what large donations will buy you in Cleveland. $5,000? “You don’t get a handshake.” $10 million? “Of course, you go to dinner.”
Rosenberg understood that Welser-Möst was speaking to Europeans, and in Europe, it is unfathomable that the public would donate much. The state funds the arts. Rosenberg printed the conductor’s comments as the second item in a roundup of news from the orchestra’s tour across Europe.
The orchestra’s administration wasn’t pleased. Rosenberg says he received a stern phone call from public relations head Nikki Scandalios, warning there would be “consequences.” (Scandalios would not comment on the incident for this story.)
But Rosenberg expected that any lingering concerns could be worked out with Hanson at lunch.
At the restaurant, Hanson was surprised he didn’t get a heads up about the story, but otherwise didn’t discuss the article much.
In retrospect, Rosenberg says, “I don’t think [Hanson] had pondered the ramifications of it. It probably took him another week or two to realize how Franz’s comments had played in Cleveland.”
When the neworchestra season began that September, Rosenberg was no longer permitted to use Nikki Scandalios’ office to file deadline reviews forThe Plain Dealer. He was redirected to a small office with no windows. Rosenberg says it resembled a “broom closet with a desk.”
TheBeacon’s Elaine Guregian, who often criticized similar points as Rosenberg, but did so less bitingly, continued to write from the office next to Scandalios’.
Not all of Rosenberg’s comments about Welser-Möst were negative. Many times he complimented him, especially when working with operas. But there were plenty of criticisms: “Welser-Möst was the wrong maestro for the job,” he wrote about the playing of a January 2005 Maurice Ravel piece. “Welser-Möst insisted on soft dynamics that became meaningless, and he was unable to inspire the ensemble unity that is a hallmark of this orchestra,” he commented in a review of a concert later that month, as the orchestra played Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4.
Robert Duvin, the Musical Arts Association’s lawyer who spoke for the orchestra due to the lawsuit, says the reviews of the music director’s performances became increasingly harsh. And while the “blue-hair ladies” story was distressing to the orchestra, it is not what caused its ire to rise.
“That was a spat that came and went in days,” Duvin says. “This is about music.”
By May 2005, Rosenberg struggled to nab interviews with Welser-Möst. What used to take a single request took 10 weeks. When they finally met, Hanson sat in on the interview, something he’d never done before.
In June, in the middle of the orchestra’s West Coast trip, Rosenberg was informed his normal courtesy ride on the orchestra’s tour bus had been revoked. To get from San Francisco to Sacramento, he took a Greyhound bus.
And in Vienna in the fall, he was removed from two rehearsals and told he was no longer allowed backstage while the orchestra was on tour.
“I always had free access. I thought it was crucial I be able to observe the activities backstage, talk to the musicians and staff, in order to write stories. I got a lot of color that way,” Rosenberg says. “The whole process of touring and music-making needed to be explored in all its aspects.
“I tried to take the high road and be as professional as possible,” he says. “My editors wanted me to maintain a certain distance. I just tried to do my job within the new constraints.”
Rosenberg says it felt like a campaign to oust him by one of the most powerful institutions in the city — one people throughout the globe associate with Cleveland.
Duvin says it was just frustration by lovers of the revered orchestra sick of Rosenberg’s downer attitude.
“In my opinion, what happened is the people who love music — some of them directly associated with the orchestra and some of them not — couldn’t take it anymore ... and fought back,” he says. “But they didn’t fight back illegitimately. They didn’t go on a smear campaign. They presented their opinions toThe Plain Dealer and exercised their First Amendment rights. They didn’t carry pickets. They didn’t engage in harassing phone calls. They didn’t run around saying bad things about him personally. They strenuously disagreed with his professional criticisms.”
Fresh out of Yale with two master’s degrees in music and no job prospects, he was boiling dough to support himself and his new wife, who he’d met in the school’s horn section.
He’d been playing the French horn seriously for 11 years, his talent putting him on the stages of Carnegie Hall, Kennedy Center and the Marlboro Music Festival in Vermont.
He had played under legendary conductor Pablo Casals and alongside music icons Yo-Yo Ma, Emanuel Ax and Franklin Cohen (who is now principal clarinetist in the Cleveland Orchestra).
One day, Joseph Polisi called the bagel shop. The admissions officer and eventual president of the revered Juilliard School told Rosenberg a newspaper in Akron, Ohio, was looking for a music critic. TheBeacon Journal called five minutes later. The interview went well, until they asked for some examples of Rosenberg’s work. All he had to send was his master’s project on the Wagner tuba.
Rosenberg’s musical chops had way more bite than his writing experience, but they invited him for a tryout anyway. By October 1977, he had his first newspaper job reviewing concerts by the Cleveland Orchestra, 35 miles away.
His first reviews took him four hours to write. But he learned on the job, writing for theBeaconfor more than a decade before making a quick stop atThe Pittsburgh Press. Then in 1992, he reassumed his role as critic of the Cleveland Orchestra, this time forThe Plain Dealer.
During Rosenberg’s time as a critic, three different music directors — Lorin Maazel, Christoph von Dohnányi and Franz Welser-Möst — have led the orchestra; Severance Hall has undergone a $36 million restoration; and Rosenberg has toured the world, covering concerts in some of classical music’s most prestigious venues — including the orchestra’s regular engagements at Austria’s Salzburg Festival.
In 2000, Rosenberg penned a 768-page history of the Cleveland Orchestra. A year later, his peers selected him to lead the Music Critics Association of North America for two terms.
Now, Rosenberg says, he can write and file reviews in a half-hour, always turning in meticulous copy with not even a comma out of place.
Over the years, Donald Rosenberg and Gary Hanson, the orchestra’s top executive, had practically become friends, enjoying an occasional glass of wine and dinner at each other’s house.
Hanson’s rise through the ranks in the Musical Arts Association, the orchestra’s parent company, included a stop in the communication department — which deals with the news media and thus, Rosenberg.
It’s not surprising the two men enjoyed each other’s company. Some of the same words can be used to describe them: professorial, meticulous, confident, thoughtful, connoisseurs.
They shared lunch at an upscale restaurant in Central Dublin in 2004, while the orchestra was on its summertime European tour. It was just days after Rosenberg published a story in thePD that included comments Welser-Möst made to the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche.
Welser-Möst called the Friday matinee audience members at Severance Hall “blue-hair ladies ... who are too tired to attend performances at night.”
In describing the city, he said: “Cleveland is an island. Here we have a world-class orchestra in what I call an inflated farmer’s village. For me, who loves the country, it is wonderful to live there among the green.”
The article went on to say, in Welser-Möst’s words, what large donations will buy you in Cleveland. $5,000? “You don’t get a handshake.” $10 million? “Of course, you go to dinner.”
Rosenberg understood that Welser-Möst was speaking to Europeans, and in Europe, it is unfathomable that the public would donate much. The state funds the arts. Rosenberg printed the conductor’s comments as the second item in a roundup of news from the orchestra’s tour across Europe.
The orchestra’s administration wasn’t pleased. Rosenberg says he received a stern phone call from public relations head Nikki Scandalios, warning there would be “consequences.” (Scandalios would not comment on the incident for this story.)
But Rosenberg expected that any lingering concerns could be worked out with Hanson at lunch.
At the restaurant, Hanson was surprised he didn’t get a heads up about the story, but otherwise didn’t discuss the article much.
In retrospect, Rosenberg says, “I don’t think [Hanson] had pondered the ramifications of it. It probably took him another week or two to realize how Franz’s comments had played in Cleveland.”
When the neworchestra season began that September, Rosenberg was no longer permitted to use Nikki Scandalios’ office to file deadline reviews forThe Plain Dealer. He was redirected to a small office with no windows. Rosenberg says it resembled a “broom closet with a desk.”
TheBeacon’s Elaine Guregian, who often criticized similar points as Rosenberg, but did so less bitingly, continued to write from the office next to Scandalios’.
Not all of Rosenberg’s comments about Welser-Möst were negative. Many times he complimented him, especially when working with operas. But there were plenty of criticisms: “Welser-Möst was the wrong maestro for the job,” he wrote about the playing of a January 2005 Maurice Ravel piece. “Welser-Möst insisted on soft dynamics that became meaningless, and he was unable to inspire the ensemble unity that is a hallmark of this orchestra,” he commented in a review of a concert later that month, as the orchestra played Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4.
Robert Duvin, the Musical Arts Association’s lawyer who spoke for the orchestra due to the lawsuit, says the reviews of the music director’s performances became increasingly harsh. And while the “blue-hair ladies” story was distressing to the orchestra, it is not what caused its ire to rise.
“That was a spat that came and went in days,” Duvin says. “This is about music.”
By May 2005, Rosenberg struggled to nab interviews with Welser-Möst. What used to take a single request took 10 weeks. When they finally met, Hanson sat in on the interview, something he’d never done before.
In June, in the middle of the orchestra’s West Coast trip, Rosenberg was informed his normal courtesy ride on the orchestra’s tour bus had been revoked. To get from San Francisco to Sacramento, he took a Greyhound bus.
And in Vienna in the fall, he was removed from two rehearsals and told he was no longer allowed backstage while the orchestra was on tour.
“I always had free access. I thought it was crucial I be able to observe the activities backstage, talk to the musicians and staff, in order to write stories. I got a lot of color that way,” Rosenberg says. “The whole process of touring and music-making needed to be explored in all its aspects.
“I tried to take the high road and be as professional as possible,” he says. “My editors wanted me to maintain a certain distance. I just tried to do my job within the new constraints.”
Rosenberg says it felt like a campaign to oust him by one of the most powerful institutions in the city — one people throughout the globe associate with Cleveland.
Duvin says it was just frustration by lovers of the revered orchestra sick of Rosenberg’s downer attitude.
“In my opinion, what happened is the people who love music — some of them directly associated with the orchestra and some of them not — couldn’t take it anymore ... and fought back,” he says. “But they didn’t fight back illegitimately. They didn’t go on a smear campaign. They presented their opinions toThe Plain Dealer and exercised their First Amendment rights. They didn’t carry pickets. They didn’t engage in harassing phone calls. They didn’t run around saying bad things about him personally. They strenuously disagreed with his professional criticisms.”
Letters complainingabout Rosenberg’s reviews of the orchestra had been arriving at a steady pace of two to three per week during 2005. Editor Doug Clifton heard criticism of Rosenberg all the time.
Newspapers routinely get negative comments about critics, but the complaints about Rosenberg were lobbied everywhere. Clifton heard them at benefits, out socially and, because he and his wife regularly attended orchestra performances, at Severance Hall as well.
He even agreed with some of the detractors.
“As a person who went to the orchestra, I did feel he was hypercritical,” Clifton says. “That was just my observation, and it was an uninformed observation, because I would never stack my experience and expertise against Don Rosenberg, who is well schooled in classical music.”
Clifton says he even heard gripes from the publisher ofThe Plain Dealer, Alex Machaskee, a board member with the Musical Arts Association. (Machaskee did not return calls seeking comment.)
“Alex never once asked me to remove Don,” Clifton says. “He bitched and moaned about Don. No question.”
Then in June, Clifton received a letter from Richard Bogomolny, the chairman of the Musical Arts Association board. In the letter, Bogomolny said, “A legitimate goal of a great newspaper is to publish news with appropriate commentary. In the case of criticism, opinions can encourage discourse, even controversy. As a result of lack of credibility, Mr. Rosenberg has made himself the subject of this controversy. It has become all about Donald Rosenberg, not about the music where it legitimately belongs. ... Mr. Rosenberg’s bias runs the risk of damaging the credibility ofThe Plain Dealer. I, for one, would not like to see that happen.”
Clifton responded in a letter back two days later: “We must tread lightly on the independence of our critic. To overrule him in the face of protest would make a mockery of the critical process.”
Gary Hanson asked Clifton for a meeting to discuss Rosenberg further, and Clifton agreed.
For the meeting, Julie Clark, working for the orchestra’s media relations department, assembled a point-by-point critique of all 150 sentences Rosenberg had written about Welser-Möst, from his guest-conducting performance on Feb. 12, 1993, to the latest concert before the meeting. She rated each sentence as “positive,” “mixed” or “negative.”
They met at 10 a.m. on Aug. 3, 2005, inThe Plain Dealer offices downtown. The orchestra wanted the paper to stop sending Rosenberg on tour, to balance him with other critics, not to allow him to choose the alternate critics and to remove Rosenberg from his duties covering the orchestra for news stories, according to an internal orchestra memo sent to prepare key Musical Arts Association officials for the meeting.
Clifton now says he doesn’t even remember this meeting.
He does recall, however, that he began to preface conversations with Gary Hanson with a predicate that Rosenberg would not be removed from his job as music critic. “We don’t let the news sources dictate who will cover them,” he says.
Tom O’Hara, the No. 2 editor at the paper at the time, says the paper had confidence in Rosenberg. “For somebody like me, who knows virtually nothing about symphonic music, it is difficult to determine whether the critic is being even-handed or not. Don had a tremendous background and a long history of covering these things. He had the expertise. At no time did Doug talk about yanking Don out of the job.”
The conversations did lead to some changes, including asking revered dance writer Wilma Salisbury to review some concerts.
“I thought at the time there was a problem being one critical voice speaking about the orchestra,” says Karen Sandstrom, former features editor. “Whether it’s criticizing the orchestra or fawning on the orchestra, it’s one voice. We did invite Wilma to take some of the concerts. She’s knowledgeable, and she had a different take.”
But adding another voice didn’t quiet the critics, Sandstrom says. The complaints about Rosenberg never slowed.
“One of the things I respect about Don is I’ve always believed his issue is he’s always wanted the best for the orchestra,” she says. “He’s wanted the leadership to always get the most out of the orchestra, and for the city to get the most out of them musically. I truly think he always operated with that in mind.”
Not every co-worker felt that way. There seemed to be universal respect for Rosenberg, but some say they don’t think anyone could have put aside the feelings Rosenberg had to have experienced with such major changes to his access.
“I would say that any critic who has the kind of experience like Don had would on every conscious level be doing everything to avoid a situation where it becomes personal,” says one staff member. “But everyone knows all kinds of circumstances influence how you think below that level.”
According to Rosenberg’s lawsuit, Clifton did step in once, deciding not to run a column in which Rosenberg said the orchestra sounds better under guest conductors than Welser-Möst. Clifton, however, does not remember killing such a column.
“Most of the performances he led during the 2005-06 season lent credence to the growing belief that mediocrity takes up residence at Severance Hall when Welser-Möst is on the podium,” the unpublished column provided toCleveland Magazine argued. “At the end of his fourth season, the music director has had few positive effects on the orchestra, aside from helping to secure European engagements and going out into the public to schmooze on radio programs and appear in TV and print ads.”
Newspapers routinely get negative comments about critics, but the complaints about Rosenberg were lobbied everywhere. Clifton heard them at benefits, out socially and, because he and his wife regularly attended orchestra performances, at Severance Hall as well.
He even agreed with some of the detractors.
“As a person who went to the orchestra, I did feel he was hypercritical,” Clifton says. “That was just my observation, and it was an uninformed observation, because I would never stack my experience and expertise against Don Rosenberg, who is well schooled in classical music.”
Clifton says he even heard gripes from the publisher ofThe Plain Dealer, Alex Machaskee, a board member with the Musical Arts Association. (Machaskee did not return calls seeking comment.)
“Alex never once asked me to remove Don,” Clifton says. “He bitched and moaned about Don. No question.”
Then in June, Clifton received a letter from Richard Bogomolny, the chairman of the Musical Arts Association board. In the letter, Bogomolny said, “A legitimate goal of a great newspaper is to publish news with appropriate commentary. In the case of criticism, opinions can encourage discourse, even controversy. As a result of lack of credibility, Mr. Rosenberg has made himself the subject of this controversy. It has become all about Donald Rosenberg, not about the music where it legitimately belongs. ... Mr. Rosenberg’s bias runs the risk of damaging the credibility ofThe Plain Dealer. I, for one, would not like to see that happen.”
Clifton responded in a letter back two days later: “We must tread lightly on the independence of our critic. To overrule him in the face of protest would make a mockery of the critical process.”
Gary Hanson asked Clifton for a meeting to discuss Rosenberg further, and Clifton agreed.
For the meeting, Julie Clark, working for the orchestra’s media relations department, assembled a point-by-point critique of all 150 sentences Rosenberg had written about Welser-Möst, from his guest-conducting performance on Feb. 12, 1993, to the latest concert before the meeting. She rated each sentence as “positive,” “mixed” or “negative.”
They met at 10 a.m. on Aug. 3, 2005, inThe Plain Dealer offices downtown. The orchestra wanted the paper to stop sending Rosenberg on tour, to balance him with other critics, not to allow him to choose the alternate critics and to remove Rosenberg from his duties covering the orchestra for news stories, according to an internal orchestra memo sent to prepare key Musical Arts Association officials for the meeting.
Clifton now says he doesn’t even remember this meeting.
He does recall, however, that he began to preface conversations with Gary Hanson with a predicate that Rosenberg would not be removed from his job as music critic. “We don’t let the news sources dictate who will cover them,” he says.
Tom O’Hara, the No. 2 editor at the paper at the time, says the paper had confidence in Rosenberg. “For somebody like me, who knows virtually nothing about symphonic music, it is difficult to determine whether the critic is being even-handed or not. Don had a tremendous background and a long history of covering these things. He had the expertise. At no time did Doug talk about yanking Don out of the job.”
The conversations did lead to some changes, including asking revered dance writer Wilma Salisbury to review some concerts.
“I thought at the time there was a problem being one critical voice speaking about the orchestra,” says Karen Sandstrom, former features editor. “Whether it’s criticizing the orchestra or fawning on the orchestra, it’s one voice. We did invite Wilma to take some of the concerts. She’s knowledgeable, and she had a different take.”
But adding another voice didn’t quiet the critics, Sandstrom says. The complaints about Rosenberg never slowed.
“One of the things I respect about Don is I’ve always believed his issue is he’s always wanted the best for the orchestra,” she says. “He’s wanted the leadership to always get the most out of the orchestra, and for the city to get the most out of them musically. I truly think he always operated with that in mind.”
Not every co-worker felt that way. There seemed to be universal respect for Rosenberg, but some say they don’t think anyone could have put aside the feelings Rosenberg had to have experienced with such major changes to his access.
“I would say that any critic who has the kind of experience like Don had would on every conscious level be doing everything to avoid a situation where it becomes personal,” says one staff member. “But everyone knows all kinds of circumstances influence how you think below that level.”
According to Rosenberg’s lawsuit, Clifton did step in once, deciding not to run a column in which Rosenberg said the orchestra sounds better under guest conductors than Welser-Möst. Clifton, however, does not remember killing such a column.
“Most of the performances he led during the 2005-06 season lent credence to the growing belief that mediocrity takes up residence at Severance Hall when Welser-Möst is on the podium,” the unpublished column provided toCleveland Magazine argued. “At the end of his fourth season, the music director has had few positive effects on the orchestra, aside from helping to secure European engagements and going out into the public to schmooze on radio programs and appear in TV and print ads.”
When new Plain Dealer editor Susan Goldberg arrived in May 2007, she quickly learned of the discontent surrounding Rosenberg. The letters never ceased. The complaints levied to Clifton were now levied to her.
Rosenberg took Goldberg to the see the orchestra in July. They talked throughout the night, and he asked if he could send her the spiked column. He wanted to know if she would have run it.
She replied to his e-mail: “I had a great time Saturday! Thank you. As for the decision to kill the column ... I might have some word-editing thoughts, but I don’t understand why the column was killed. S.”
Four months later, though, things had changed. She received a pointed letter from Robert Baumann of Gates Mills, an adjunct professor of history and philosophy at Cuyahoga Community College and Lakeland Community College. He argued that Rosenberg’s columns could be used “as examples of informal fallacies” in his courses.
Goldberg responded to the letter in February 2008 after Baumann wrote a second time, again complaining about Rosenberg.
“I agree that we have a credibility problem when it comes to Don’s reviews. He clearly does not care for Welser-Möst’s musical interpretations the vast majority of the time. We are discussing ways to deal with this, including adding other voices for our orchestra coverage. ... Don is very well schooled in the field of classical music criticism; most of us are not, and we are proceeding with great caution.”
Goldberg says her letter was an honest response to an honest reader inquiry. “I think the letter speaks for itself,” she says. “It’s a letter to a reader who wrote with a concern. People write me letters all the time. What the letter shows is this was a matter of discussion atThe Plain Dealer for a long time.”
Baumann, an orchestra subscriber since 1971, says he has no other affiliations with the orchestra. He wrote simply because he found Rosenberg’s critiques to be “mean-spirited, not objective” and “quite personal.”
Goldberg’s response, Baumann says, was a surprise. “Only because I thought she was quite frank about her own dismay. Usually, people are not that forthcoming.”
In June, according to e-mails obtained byCleveland Magazine, Gary Hanson offeredThe Plain Dealer “advance information and exclusive access to Franz [Welser-Möst]” and himself for questions if the paper assigned Zachary Lewis to cover the music director’s contract extension.
ThePD agreed to assign the story to Lewis, a former intern for Rosenberg who went on to cover the Harrisburg Symphony Orchestra forThe Patriot-News before returning toThe Plain Dealer.
But Debra Simmons, managing editor, later e-mailed Hanson to add a caveat: “If the announcement is significant, it may warrant our pulling in a second writer.”
The result: A story about Welser-Möst’s six-year extension written by both Lewis and Rosenberg.
“That tells you people can ask for whatever you want, but in the end, we make our own decisions,” Goldberg says. “It is not wildly unusual to be approached by a news source wanting to embargo information and sometimes suggesting one person cover it over another.”
Features editor Debbie Van Tassel told Rosenberg they needed to talk. It was September, just before the orchestra’s season was to begin. As he headed for her office, she redirected him.
That’s when he knew it was coming. “I was not surprised that this could happen, given the events of the year, the escalating sequence of undermining my position,” he recalls.
Susan Goldberg was already waiting there in the cold conference room when Van Tassel led Rosenberg in.
Goldberg did almost all of the talking, Rosenberg says.
“She said, ‘I’m removing you as the critic covering the Cleveland Orchestra.’ She said that the situation had become untenable forThe Plain Dealer, and that I had been covering the orchestra for a long time and we needed to make a change.”
Rosenberg protested: She was caving to outside pressures. She was going to have to answer a lot of questions. He wanted to know how he was supposed to respond to this. Should he lie?
“No, do what you see fit,” he recalls her saying. “I know you’ll do it in a classy way.”
She told him to think about what he’d like to do at the paper and asked him not to say anything to anyone until the official announcement.
The Newspaper Guild called for an all-staff meeting in which Susan Goldberg spoke. With Don in the middle of the room, she stood before her staff to explain. The situation, Goldberg said, became “untenable.”
Much of the newspaper staff was shocked Rosenberg, 57 at the time, had been removed from his beat. There was a gut reaction: Did the paper bow to a powerful institution? And a personal reaction: What would happen to Don?
Goldberg assured the staff this was not acquiescence to a powerful institution.
That assertion was met with some grumbles, according to one staffer. “Clearly, there was a feeling that his independence was being punished,” the staffer says.
Goldberg offered to answer questions.
One by one, she gave the answer journalists hate to hear: “I’m not able to comment on that.”
It was a personnel matter, and she wasn’t willing to discuss it, even though Rosenberg was happy to consent. The questions started out journalistic but eventually turned emotional: “How could you do this to Don?” asked one staff member.
Same answer.
“I’d be leery if I started writing stories critical to Forest City,” says one reporter now. “Maybe that’s not a fair comparison, but it’s still something you have to think about.”
Critics throughout the world wrote in Rosenberg’s defense, including two former Pulitzer Prize winners. They wrote a letter to Goldberg.The New York Times,Washington Post andThe Wall Street Journal all published stories.
Even with such criticism, Goldberg maintains that the decision was her own, not the orchestra’s. “We made a decision, a journalism decision,” she says.
Goldberg says she wants to make it clear that the paper is committed to strong journalism: “We want, and we currently have and will continue to have, vibrant arts coverage inThe Plain Dealer. We want our critics to be critical, fair and honest with readers about what they hear. That has been a tradition at the paper. We have continued it and will continue it in the future.”
But over time, the hullabaloo died down. The Newspaper Guild did not protest. No writer atThe Plain Dealeror any of the music critics at other papers pulled their bylines in a symbolic sign of solidarity.
And Rosenberg fell from the critic of one of the most prestigious music institutions in the world to covering general assignment arts and dance.
This conflict, he says, has ruined the remainder of his career.
“It’s a very special honor and responsibility to write about one of the great orchestras of the world, and very few critics in America have the opportunity to do so,” he says. “There’s no question that it’s not nearly as compelling to go to work as it was before. I was covering one of the great orchestras of the world, and nothing can replace that.”
Goldberg replaced Rosenberg with Lewis, whose first bylined piece since taking over full time as music critic was a front-page story on Welser-Möst, the misunderstood conductor.
“It is a little awkward,” says Lewis. “I talk to [Rosenberg] every day. We work on stories together. Personally, we’re very close. This topic is just something we don’t address.
“I have tremendous respect for Don,” he adds. “I grew up reading him. I’m in this business because of him. I trust his opinions, even though I don’t always agree with him.”
Rosenberg took Goldberg to the see the orchestra in July. They talked throughout the night, and he asked if he could send her the spiked column. He wanted to know if she would have run it.
She replied to his e-mail: “I had a great time Saturday! Thank you. As for the decision to kill the column ... I might have some word-editing thoughts, but I don’t understand why the column was killed. S.”
Four months later, though, things had changed. She received a pointed letter from Robert Baumann of Gates Mills, an adjunct professor of history and philosophy at Cuyahoga Community College and Lakeland Community College. He argued that Rosenberg’s columns could be used “as examples of informal fallacies” in his courses.
Goldberg responded to the letter in February 2008 after Baumann wrote a second time, again complaining about Rosenberg.
“I agree that we have a credibility problem when it comes to Don’s reviews. He clearly does not care for Welser-Möst’s musical interpretations the vast majority of the time. We are discussing ways to deal with this, including adding other voices for our orchestra coverage. ... Don is very well schooled in the field of classical music criticism; most of us are not, and we are proceeding with great caution.”
Goldberg says her letter was an honest response to an honest reader inquiry. “I think the letter speaks for itself,” she says. “It’s a letter to a reader who wrote with a concern. People write me letters all the time. What the letter shows is this was a matter of discussion atThe Plain Dealer for a long time.”
Baumann, an orchestra subscriber since 1971, says he has no other affiliations with the orchestra. He wrote simply because he found Rosenberg’s critiques to be “mean-spirited, not objective” and “quite personal.”
Goldberg’s response, Baumann says, was a surprise. “Only because I thought she was quite frank about her own dismay. Usually, people are not that forthcoming.”
In June, according to e-mails obtained byCleveland Magazine, Gary Hanson offeredThe Plain Dealer “advance information and exclusive access to Franz [Welser-Möst]” and himself for questions if the paper assigned Zachary Lewis to cover the music director’s contract extension.
ThePD agreed to assign the story to Lewis, a former intern for Rosenberg who went on to cover the Harrisburg Symphony Orchestra forThe Patriot-News before returning toThe Plain Dealer.
But Debra Simmons, managing editor, later e-mailed Hanson to add a caveat: “If the announcement is significant, it may warrant our pulling in a second writer.”
The result: A story about Welser-Möst’s six-year extension written by both Lewis and Rosenberg.
“That tells you people can ask for whatever you want, but in the end, we make our own decisions,” Goldberg says. “It is not wildly unusual to be approached by a news source wanting to embargo information and sometimes suggesting one person cover it over another.”
Features editor Debbie Van Tassel told Rosenberg they needed to talk. It was September, just before the orchestra’s season was to begin. As he headed for her office, she redirected him.
That’s when he knew it was coming. “I was not surprised that this could happen, given the events of the year, the escalating sequence of undermining my position,” he recalls.
Susan Goldberg was already waiting there in the cold conference room when Van Tassel led Rosenberg in.
Goldberg did almost all of the talking, Rosenberg says.
“She said, ‘I’m removing you as the critic covering the Cleveland Orchestra.’ She said that the situation had become untenable forThe Plain Dealer, and that I had been covering the orchestra for a long time and we needed to make a change.”
Rosenberg protested: She was caving to outside pressures. She was going to have to answer a lot of questions. He wanted to know how he was supposed to respond to this. Should he lie?
“No, do what you see fit,” he recalls her saying. “I know you’ll do it in a classy way.”
She told him to think about what he’d like to do at the paper and asked him not to say anything to anyone until the official announcement.
The Newspaper Guild called for an all-staff meeting in which Susan Goldberg spoke. With Don in the middle of the room, she stood before her staff to explain. The situation, Goldberg said, became “untenable.”
Much of the newspaper staff was shocked Rosenberg, 57 at the time, had been removed from his beat. There was a gut reaction: Did the paper bow to a powerful institution? And a personal reaction: What would happen to Don?
Goldberg assured the staff this was not acquiescence to a powerful institution.
That assertion was met with some grumbles, according to one staffer. “Clearly, there was a feeling that his independence was being punished,” the staffer says.
Goldberg offered to answer questions.
One by one, she gave the answer journalists hate to hear: “I’m not able to comment on that.”
It was a personnel matter, and she wasn’t willing to discuss it, even though Rosenberg was happy to consent. The questions started out journalistic but eventually turned emotional: “How could you do this to Don?” asked one staff member.
Same answer.
“I’d be leery if I started writing stories critical to Forest City,” says one reporter now. “Maybe that’s not a fair comparison, but it’s still something you have to think about.”
Critics throughout the world wrote in Rosenberg’s defense, including two former Pulitzer Prize winners. They wrote a letter to Goldberg.The New York Times,Washington Post andThe Wall Street Journal all published stories.
Even with such criticism, Goldberg maintains that the decision was her own, not the orchestra’s. “We made a decision, a journalism decision,” she says.
Goldberg says she wants to make it clear that the paper is committed to strong journalism: “We want, and we currently have and will continue to have, vibrant arts coverage inThe Plain Dealer. We want our critics to be critical, fair and honest with readers about what they hear. That has been a tradition at the paper. We have continued it and will continue it in the future.”
But over time, the hullabaloo died down. The Newspaper Guild did not protest. No writer atThe Plain Dealeror any of the music critics at other papers pulled their bylines in a symbolic sign of solidarity.
And Rosenberg fell from the critic of one of the most prestigious music institutions in the world to covering general assignment arts and dance.
This conflict, he says, has ruined the remainder of his career.
“It’s a very special honor and responsibility to write about one of the great orchestras of the world, and very few critics in America have the opportunity to do so,” he says. “There’s no question that it’s not nearly as compelling to go to work as it was before. I was covering one of the great orchestras of the world, and nothing can replace that.”
Goldberg replaced Rosenberg with Lewis, whose first bylined piece since taking over full time as music critic was a front-page story on Welser-Möst, the misunderstood conductor.
“It is a little awkward,” says Lewis. “I talk to [Rosenberg] every day. We work on stories together. Personally, we’re very close. This topic is just something we don’t address.
“I have tremendous respect for Don,” he adds. “I grew up reading him. I’m in this business because of him. I trust his opinions, even though I don’t always agree with him.”
Two and a half months after his reassignment at the paper, Rosenberg filed a lawsuit against bothThe Plain Dealer and the Musical Arts Association.
AgainstThe Plain Dealer he alleged defamation and violation of Ohio’s free speech principle. He accused the orchestra’s management of both defamation and performing acts with malice against his economic, employment and business relationships.
He eventually dropped all claims against the paper except for those of age discrimination, hoping to keep the case out of federal court.
Rosenberg’s lawyer, Steve Sindell, says this is a special case because it touches on larger issues that should be addressed by a court. He takes issue with the idea that, because Ohio is an at-will employment state, an employer can demote someone for any nonprotected reason.
“The employers of the world have more power in many ways over the lives of people than does the government itself,” he says. “It’s time that we started to recognize that unlimited laissez-faire corporate power, which goes under the name ‘at will,’ shouldn’t be some automatic, unbridled corporate right.”
In the suit, he points to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. He says he believesThe Plain Dealer violated that code.
But how is that against the law? “The law has to be a living, dynamic thing that applies old principles to new circumstances,” Sindell says. “I’m not real comfortable with people who say that’s not the law right now. The law is what the courts and legislatures say it is.”
Sindell says other claims in the suit are more traditional. Interfering with an employment relationship, as Rosenberg accuses the Musical Arts Association, is well rooted in the law. And to be a victim of age discrimination doesn’t mean you have to be fired or have your pay cut. He says a decrease in prestige is damaging as well.
“There was a huge reduction in force at thePD,” he says. “Don was not terminated, but he was demoted in the sense that he was exiled from writing about the main thing a music critic would write about. It’s like telling someone who is covering the Cleveland Indians that now you’re covering high school softball.”
The orchestra’s lawyer, Duvin, says he can’t believe the pomposity of this suit.
“The hypocrisy of a music critic challenging the right of other people to respond to his criticism is based upon the arrogance of modern media in general,” he says. “That they believe they actually own the First Amendment and it belongs to them. And they believe it’s their right. It isn’t opinion. It’s gospel. Like they carried it down on a tablet from the mountain.”
He says the orchestra administration had every right to complain about Rosenberg. He says reading other critics provides the perfect defense to their complaints.
“It wasn’t just the people from the Cleveland Orchestra that responded to Don Rosenberg,” he says. “Every time the Cleveland Orchestra got a rave review in New York or Chicago or San Francisco or Vienna or London or Paris, it stood there in stark contrast to the often angry and harshly critical reviews of Rosenberg.”
Duvin says he doesn’t question Rosenberg’s free speech, and he can’t believe Rosenberg would call the orchestra’s free speech into question.
“He has a right to that opinion. But he doesn’t have the right for others not to have an opinion on him. And he doesn’t have a right to be the sole critic for the hometown paper of the Cleveland Orchestra.”
Rosenberg puts on his sport coat and tie — the same ones he used to wear whenreviewing a concert.
He drives to Severance Hall and parks in the same attached lot.
Herbert Blomstedt is conducting the November concert, Bruckner’s Eighth Symphony, one Rosenberg has been anticipating for a while. He’s enjoyed Blomstedt’s work with the orchestra before, and the piece has a special place in his heart. Rosenberg once played the Wagner tuba in Bruckner’s Eighth.
He decides to go at the last minute. His wife, a fifth-grade teacher in Shaker Heights, doesn’t want to give up her sleep, even though she’s a classically trained musician and orchestra lover herself. So he goes alone.
While he contends its management is responsible for his job loss, he still loves the orchestra. For 28 years, when he attended the orchestra, he was working.
This time, there is a difference: He buys a ticket.
The ushers escort him to the balcony. He is above his normal seat on the main floor, but the acoustics are beautiful in the balcony.
“The ushers recognized me. They were very welcoming and very sweet, and very happy to see me,” he says. “I even saw a few of the orchestra players, and they were very happy to see me. It was very nice to be back, but then again, it still hurts. It’s probably going to hurt for a long time.”
As the crowd applauds, he doesn’t linger. He files out of the balcony with everyone else and heads to his Toyota Camry Hybrid. He didn’t take any notes in the program. But he’s sure of his analysis.
The concert was phenomenal. He would have given it a glowing review.
AgainstThe Plain Dealer he alleged defamation and violation of Ohio’s free speech principle. He accused the orchestra’s management of both defamation and performing acts with malice against his economic, employment and business relationships.
He eventually dropped all claims against the paper except for those of age discrimination, hoping to keep the case out of federal court.
Rosenberg’s lawyer, Steve Sindell, says this is a special case because it touches on larger issues that should be addressed by a court. He takes issue with the idea that, because Ohio is an at-will employment state, an employer can demote someone for any nonprotected reason.
“The employers of the world have more power in many ways over the lives of people than does the government itself,” he says. “It’s time that we started to recognize that unlimited laissez-faire corporate power, which goes under the name ‘at will,’ shouldn’t be some automatic, unbridled corporate right.”
In the suit, he points to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. He says he believesThe Plain Dealer violated that code.
But how is that against the law? “The law has to be a living, dynamic thing that applies old principles to new circumstances,” Sindell says. “I’m not real comfortable with people who say that’s not the law right now. The law is what the courts and legislatures say it is.”
Sindell says other claims in the suit are more traditional. Interfering with an employment relationship, as Rosenberg accuses the Musical Arts Association, is well rooted in the law. And to be a victim of age discrimination doesn’t mean you have to be fired or have your pay cut. He says a decrease in prestige is damaging as well.
“There was a huge reduction in force at thePD,” he says. “Don was not terminated, but he was demoted in the sense that he was exiled from writing about the main thing a music critic would write about. It’s like telling someone who is covering the Cleveland Indians that now you’re covering high school softball.”
The orchestra’s lawyer, Duvin, says he can’t believe the pomposity of this suit.
“The hypocrisy of a music critic challenging the right of other people to respond to his criticism is based upon the arrogance of modern media in general,” he says. “That they believe they actually own the First Amendment and it belongs to them. And they believe it’s their right. It isn’t opinion. It’s gospel. Like they carried it down on a tablet from the mountain.”
He says the orchestra administration had every right to complain about Rosenberg. He says reading other critics provides the perfect defense to their complaints.
“It wasn’t just the people from the Cleveland Orchestra that responded to Don Rosenberg,” he says. “Every time the Cleveland Orchestra got a rave review in New York or Chicago or San Francisco or Vienna or London or Paris, it stood there in stark contrast to the often angry and harshly critical reviews of Rosenberg.”
Duvin says he doesn’t question Rosenberg’s free speech, and he can’t believe Rosenberg would call the orchestra’s free speech into question.
“He has a right to that opinion. But he doesn’t have the right for others not to have an opinion on him. And he doesn’t have a right to be the sole critic for the hometown paper of the Cleveland Orchestra.”
Rosenberg puts on his sport coat and tie — the same ones he used to wear whenreviewing a concert.
He drives to Severance Hall and parks in the same attached lot.
Herbert Blomstedt is conducting the November concert, Bruckner’s Eighth Symphony, one Rosenberg has been anticipating for a while. He’s enjoyed Blomstedt’s work with the orchestra before, and the piece has a special place in his heart. Rosenberg once played the Wagner tuba in Bruckner’s Eighth.
He decides to go at the last minute. His wife, a fifth-grade teacher in Shaker Heights, doesn’t want to give up her sleep, even though she’s a classically trained musician and orchestra lover herself. So he goes alone.
While he contends its management is responsible for his job loss, he still loves the orchestra. For 28 years, when he attended the orchestra, he was working.
This time, there is a difference: He buys a ticket.
The ushers escort him to the balcony. He is above his normal seat on the main floor, but the acoustics are beautiful in the balcony.
“The ushers recognized me. They were very welcoming and very sweet, and very happy to see me,” he says. “I even saw a few of the orchestra players, and they were very happy to see me. It was very nice to be back, but then again, it still hurts. It’s probably going to hurt for a long time.”
As the crowd applauds, he doesn’t linger. He files out of the balcony with everyone else and heads to his Toyota Camry Hybrid. He didn’t take any notes in the program. But he’s sure of his analysis.
The concert was phenomenal. He would have given it a glowing review.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
How to Play Fast Guitar
Guitar lovers will love playing fast guitar and aspire to be like Slash or Metallica. Yet, no matter how hard we try, we find that trying to play fast, ends with us playing something that just does not sound right. Now is not the time to throw the towel in, instead we can try analyzing what is slowing us down and trying to fix that problem.
Tips To Play Faster
There are certain things that you can do everyday to improve your speed. The first and most important thing to do is to practice each day. Many people desire to become experts but do not actually making an effort. People simple do not say that practice makes perfection, indeed it is 100% true as far as playing the guitar is concerned. It is necessary to practice each day at least for half an hour. Practicing will not only help improve your skills but also be good for your hands. Your fingers may ache initially but with continued effort you will soon stop complaining and start enjoying it.
You can decide on a particular piece of music and start practicing it bit by bit. You can play a particular bit over and over again and soon you will notice that your speed has improved. You can then try playing the whole piece of music each day and will notice your improvement each day.
Your choice of picks also influences the way your speed improves. Soft or flexible picks slows your pace where as harder picks are designed to improve your speed. You can try playing a portion of the scale ascending and descending without stopping.
Many people dislike using tools such as the Metronome but if you want to improve, there is no harm in trying them. If you are a novice you can set the metronome at say 40 BPM. This essentially means that the metronome will click forty times each minute. You have to ensure that each note corresponds to each click of the metronome. If you are able to keep up to it, you can try increasing the tempo to 60 BPM. Try increasing the tempo each day until you are able to play fast without losing the tempo. You can set your own limits and work on improving your skills accordingly.
It is important to take your time. Do not try playing faster than you are capable of until you have practiced and perfected a particular speed.
You can look up the internet and search for exercises to help improve your speed. You have to periodically set certain goals such as playing a difficult piece of music at a high BPM. Do not play if your hands start aching.
When you analyze and identify areas that need improvement and work on them, your speed will automatically improve. You can use metronomes that are available for free online and save yourself the cost of investing in one of them.
These are a few things that you can work on each day without fail. Soon you will notice that your improvement is steady and consistent. Each week you will find that your tempo increases yet you are making less mistakes. Soon you will be able to play fast without worrying about making mistakes. Get your guitar and start practicing from today and watch your playing speed improve beyond expectations.
Tips To Play Faster
There are certain things that you can do everyday to improve your speed. The first and most important thing to do is to practice each day. Many people desire to become experts but do not actually making an effort. People simple do not say that practice makes perfection, indeed it is 100% true as far as playing the guitar is concerned. It is necessary to practice each day at least for half an hour. Practicing will not only help improve your skills but also be good for your hands. Your fingers may ache initially but with continued effort you will soon stop complaining and start enjoying it.
You can decide on a particular piece of music and start practicing it bit by bit. You can play a particular bit over and over again and soon you will notice that your speed has improved. You can then try playing the whole piece of music each day and will notice your improvement each day.
Your choice of picks also influences the way your speed improves. Soft or flexible picks slows your pace where as harder picks are designed to improve your speed. You can try playing a portion of the scale ascending and descending without stopping.
Many people dislike using tools such as the Metronome but if you want to improve, there is no harm in trying them. If you are a novice you can set the metronome at say 40 BPM. This essentially means that the metronome will click forty times each minute. You have to ensure that each note corresponds to each click of the metronome. If you are able to keep up to it, you can try increasing the tempo to 60 BPM. Try increasing the tempo each day until you are able to play fast without losing the tempo. You can set your own limits and work on improving your skills accordingly.
It is important to take your time. Do not try playing faster than you are capable of until you have practiced and perfected a particular speed.
You can look up the internet and search for exercises to help improve your speed. You have to periodically set certain goals such as playing a difficult piece of music at a high BPM. Do not play if your hands start aching.
When you analyze and identify areas that need improvement and work on them, your speed will automatically improve. You can use metronomes that are available for free online and save yourself the cost of investing in one of them.
These are a few things that you can work on each day without fail. Soon you will notice that your improvement is steady and consistent. Each week you will find that your tempo increases yet you are making less mistakes. Soon you will be able to play fast without worrying about making mistakes. Get your guitar and start practicing from today and watch your playing speed improve beyond expectations.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Beatles
Induction Year: 1988
Induction Category: Performer
George Harrison (guitar, sitar, vocals), John Lennon (guitar, keyboards, vocals), Paul McCartney (bass, guitar, keyboards, vocals), Ringo Starr (drums, percussion, vocals)
The impact of the Beatles has often been noted but cannot be overstated. The “Fab Four” from Liverpool, England, startled the ears and energized the lives of virtually all who heard them. Their arrival triggered the musical revolution of the Sixties, introducing a modern sound and viewpoint that parted ways with the world of the previous decade. The pleasurable jolt at hearing “She Loves You” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand” - given the doldrums into which rock and roll had fallen in recent years - was comparable to the collective fever induced by Presley’s “That’s All Right (Mama)” and “Heartbreak Hotel” nearly ten years earlier.
The Beatles’ music - with its simultaneous refinement (crisp harmonies, solid musicianship, canny pop instincts) and abandon (energetic singing and playing, much screaming and shaking of mop-topped locks) – ignited the latent energy of youth on both sides of the Atlantic. They helped confer self-identity upon a youthful, music-based culture that flexed its muscle in myriad ways - not just as music consumers but also as a force for political expression, social commentary and contemporary lifestyles.
Landing on these shores on February 7, 1964, they literally stood the world of pop culture on its head, setting the musical agenda for the remainder of the decade. The Beatles’ buoyant melodies, playful personalities and mop-topped charisma were just the tonic needed by a nation left reeling by the senseless assassination of its young president, John F. Kennedy, two months earlier. Even adults typically given to dismissing rock and roll conceded that there was substance in their music and cleverness in their quick-witted repartee. Between the lines, and without obvious disrespect, the Beatles announced the ascendancy of youth - and the inevitable coming of a generation gap as a result.
The long journey resulting in the mob scene that greeted the Beatles’ arrival at Kennedy Airport began in Liverpool. In 1958, John Lennon formed a skiffle group called the Quarrymen. Lennon was raised on Fifties rockabilly and was especially partial to Elvis Presley and Gene Vincent. He met a similarly rock-smitten schoolkid named Paul McCartney. Impressed by McCartney’s knowledge of song lyrics and ability to tune a guitar, Lennon recruited him into the Quarrymen. A schoolmate of McCartney’s, George Harrison, came next. The youthful Harrison’s mastery of guitar licks by Duane Eddy impressed the skeptical Lennon.
With a rhythm section consisting of bassist Stu Sutcliffe (a sharp-looking art student with negligible musical ability) and drummer Pete Best, the group eventually settled on the Beatles as their name. They became a fixture on the rough-and-tumble club scene in Hamburg, Germany, where their five-set-a-night marathons helped mold them into a tight performing unit. Their repertoire comprised well-chosen rock and roll and rhythm & blues covers by such trailblazers as Chuck Berry and Little Richard. In April 1961, Sutcliffe left and McCartney switched from guitar to bass. On the local scene in their hometown of Liverpool, the group landed a lunchtime residency at a club called The Cavern, where they were discovered by a local record merchant and entrepreneur, Brian Epstein, who became their manager in December 1961. In January 1962, a fan poll in Mersey Beat declared them the top group in Liverpool.
Epstein helped polish the group’s appearance. He attired them in dapper collarless gray suits, which made them appear more accessible than the menacing leathers they’d worn in Hamburg. The Beatles signed with EMI-Parlophone in April 1962 after impressing producer George Martin. In August, fellow Liverpudlian Ringo Starr (born Richard Starkey), then a member of Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, replaced Pete Best. The group’s first single, “Love Me Do”/”P.S. I Love You,” briefly dented the U.K. Top Twenty in October 1962, but their next 45, “Please Please Me,” formally ignited Beatlemania in their homeland, reaching the Number Two spot. It was followed in 1963 by four consecutive chart-topping British singles: “From Me to You,” “She Loves You,” “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” “Can’t Buy Me Love.”
They conquered the U.K., even inducing a classical music critic from the London Sunday Times to declare them “the greatest composers since Beethoven.” Moreover, they were the greatest rockers since the composer of “Roll Over, Beethoven” - i.e., Chuck Berry. The freshness and immediacy of the Beatles’ sound stemmed from the fact they assimilated and synthesized the most vital sources for rock and roll that preceded them.
Writing in the Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, Greil Marcus observed that “the form of the Beatles contained the forms of rock and roll itself. The Beatles combined the harmonic range and implicit equality of the Fifties vocal groups with the flash of a rockabilly band (the Crickets or Gene Vincent’s Blue Caps) with the aggressive and unique personalities of the classic rock stars (Elvis, Little Richard) with the homey, this-could-be-you manner of later rock stars (Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran) with the endlessly inventive songwriting touch of the Brill Building, and they delivered it all with the grace of the Miracles, the physicality of ‘Louie, Louie,’ and the absurd enthusiasm of Gary ‘U.S.’ Bonds.”
The Beatles’ success can be attributed to a combination of factors, including Lennon and McCartney’s songwriting genius, Harrison’s guitar-playing prowess, Starr’s artful simplicity as a drummer, and the solid group harmonies that were a hallmark of their recordings. Personally, they had youthful high spirits, good looks, quick wit and refreshingly down-to-earth dispositions to commend them. George Martin’s production and Brian Epstein’s management were important elements as well.
The Beatles’ conquest of America early in 1964 launched “the British Invasion,” a torrent of rock & roll bands from Britain that overtook the pop charts. The Fab Four’s first #1 single in the U.S. was “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” released on Capitol Records, EMI’s American counterpart. This exuberant track was followed by 45 more Top Forty hits over the next half-dozen years. During the week of April 4, 1964, the Beatles set a record that is likely never to be broken when they occupied all five of the top positions on Billboard’s Top Forty, with “Can’t Buy Me Love” ensconced at #1. Their popularity soared still further with the release of their anarchic Marx Brothers-as-rock-stars documentary film, A Hard Day’s Night (1964) and its equally playful followup, Help! (1965).
When all was said and done, the Beatles charted twenty #1 singles in the States – three more than runner-up Elvis Presley. It is estimated by EMI, their British record company, that the Beatles have sold over a billion records worldwide. For feats of sales and airplay alone, the Beatles are unquestionably the top group in rock and roll history. Yet their significance extends well beyond numbers to encompass their innovations in the recording studio. The Beatles’ legacy as a concert attraction, during their harried passage from nightclubs to baseball stadiums, is distinguished primarily by the deafening screams of female fans more overcome by their appearance than the music they played.
Consequently, the Beatles began to indulge their creative energies in the studio, layering sounds and crafting songs in a way that was experimental yet still accessible. This retreat from the ceaseless mayhem of pop celebrity yielded such musically expansive and lyrically sophisticated albums as Rubber Soul (1965) and Revolver (1966). The former, with its acoustic leanings and thoughtful lyrics, betrayed the influence of Bob Dylan upon the band, while the latter stands as a tour de force of tuneful, concise pop psychedelia.
The Beatles retired from touring for good after a San Francisco concert on August 29, 1966. Like Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, who abandoned touring to focus on his music, the Beatles thereafter became creatures of the studio. Ten months later, they released Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album that has almost universally been cited as the creative apotheosis of rock and roll, a watershed event in which rock became “serious art” without losing its sense of humor - or, in Lennon’s case, sense of the absurd. Realizing the band members’ collective ambitions took four months and all the technical wiles of producer George Martin could muster. A completely self-contained album meant to be played and experienced from start to finish, Sgt. Pepper broke the mold in that no singles were released.
The album’s artistic reach further cemented the notion of a viable counterculture in the minds of youthful dropouts everywhere. Anyone who was alive in the summer of 1967 can remember the pleasant shock of hearing it and the reverberations it sent outward into the world of rock and roll and beyond. As writer Langdon Winner observed, “For a brief moment, the irreparably fractured consciousness of the West was unified, at least in the minds of the young.” Sgt. Pepper was followed by perhaps the greatest two-sided single in rock history, “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Penny Lane,” which exhibited the creative sensibilities of John Lennon and Paul McCartney, respectively, at their zenith.
In the wake of Sgt. Pepper, the Beatles began to splinter in ways that were initially subtle but gradually grew more pronounced. Subsequent events included the death of manager Epstein due to an overdose of sleeping pills; the release of the TV film Magical Mystery Tour, which earned the Beatles some of their first negative reviews; a trip to India to meditate with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, about whom Lennon wrote “Sexy Sadie”; and the launching in January 1968 of Apple Corps, Ltd., a well-intentioned but ultimately mismanaged entertainment empire that helped bring down the Beatles.
Through all the chaotic events of the late Sixties, however, the Beatles retained their ingenuity and focus as recording artists. Released in August 1968, the single “Hey Jude"/"Revolution" became their most popular single. The Beatles (1968), a double-LP popularly referred to as the White Album, found the group refracting into four estimably talented individuals. This 30-song tour de force included such Beatles classics as “Back in the U.S.S.R,” “”While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” “Blackbird,” “Birthday,” “Helter Skelter” and “Revolution.”
The album and film Let It Be, recorded in 1969 but shelved until 1970, documented the Beatles’ dissolution. Internal squabbles and the discomfiting presence of John Lennon’s new soulmate, Yoko Ono, revealed widening cracks within the group. Even in this tense atmosphere, the Beatles playfully harked back to their origins with impromptu performances of early rock and R&B classics in the studio.
The Beatles exited on a high note, coming together in the summer of 1969 to record a fitting swan song, Abbey Road. That album included numerous highlights: a playful pastiche of shorts songs, with Paul McCartney as chief instigator, on the second side; a pair of John Lennon’s most emotionally unguarded songs ("Come Together,” “Don’t Let Me Down"); and impressive contributions from George Harrison ("Here Comes the Sun,” “Something").
On April 10, 1970, Paul McCartney announced his departure from the Beatles, and the group quietly came to an end. Throughout the Seventies, fans hoped for an eventual reunion, while the group members pursued solo careers with varying degrees of artistic and commercial success. Those hopes were dashed by the senseless murder of John Lennon in New York City on December 8, 1980.
The Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988. Paul McCartney did not attend the ceremony, leaving surviving Beatles Harrison and Starr and Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, to be inducted by fellow British Invasion legend Mick Jagger, of the Rolling Stones. McCartney released a brief statement that read: ‘’After 20 years, the Beatles still have some business differences which I had hoped would have been settled by now. Unfortunately, they haven’t been, so I would feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with them at a fake reunion.’’
In 1995, the three ex-Beatles regrouped harmoniously for The Beatles Anthology, which produced a six-hour video documentary aired over the course of three nights on ABC-TV; three double-disc anthologies of Beatles music, including much rare and unreleased material; and a massive coffee-table book with new and archival pictures and interviews. Yoko Ono provided home demos of two unreleased Lennon songs for the project, and McCartney, Harrison and Starr completed the recordings under the guiding hand of their longtime producer, George Martin. This resulted in the first new Beatles singles in 25 years: “Free as a Bird” (#6) and “Real Love” (#11). It was the closest the group came to a reunion since their breakup in 1970.
One of the latest eruptions of Beatlemania occurred in 2005 with the release of 1, a single-disc collection of 27 songs that topped the American and/or British charts. In July 2006, LOVE – an elaborate Cirque de Soleil production that pays tribute to the Beatles - opened at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas.
Though popular music has changed considerably in the decades since the Beatles’ demise, their music continues to reach and inspire new generations of listeners. Half a century after their humble origins in Liverpool, the Beatles remain the most enduring phenomenon in the history of popular music.
TIMELINE
July 7, 1940: Richard Starkey - a.k.a. Ringo Starr - is born in Liverpool, England.
October 9, 1940: John Winston Lennon is born at Oxford Street Maternity Hospital in Liverpool, England, to Julia Stanley and Alfred Lennon.
June 18, 1942: James Paul McCartney is born in Liverpool, England.
February 24, 1943: George Harrison is born in Liverpool, England.
1956: John Lennon’s mother, Julia, buys him his first guitar through a mail-order ad.
July 6, 1957: John Lennon meets Paul McCartney at the Woolton Parish Church after a performance by Lennon’s skiffle group, the Quarrymen. McCartney is invited to join the group.
October 18, 1957: Paul McCartney makes his performing debut as a member of the Quarry Men at a club in Liverpool.
February 1, 1958: Paul McCartney introduces George Harrison to the Quarrymen at the Morgue, a basement club in Liverpool. Harrison, a guitar-playing schoolmate of McCartney’s, joins the group.
1959: The Quarry Men change their name to Johnny and the Moondogs.
January 1960: Stuart Sutcliffe joins John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison – a.k.a., Johnny and the Moondogs, the Silver Beatles and the Beatles - on bass guitar.
August 1, 1960: The Beatles debut in Hamburg, West Germany, with Stu Sutcliffe on bass and Pete Best on drums.
January 1, 1961: The Beatles peform at Liverpool’s Cavern Club for the first time.
November 1, 1961: 1961: Brian Epstein becomes the Beatles’ manager, having checked out the band at the Cavern Club after receiving requests for their single “My Bonnie” at his Liverpool record shop.
January 1962: Decca Records passes on the Beatles after their audition, leaving A&R Dick Rowe with the unenviable reputation as “the man who gave away the Beatles.”
March 7, 1962: The Beatles debut on the BBC, performing Roy Orbison’s “Dream Baby” and two other songs.
April 10, 1962: Stu Sutcliffe, who’d played bass in the Beatles, dies of a brain tumor.
June 1, 1962: The Beatles audition for George Martin at Parlophone/EMI Records. He agrees to sign the group but insists that drummer Pete Best be replaced.
August 1962: Richard “Ringo” Starkey, the popular drummer for Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, joins the Beatles.
September 4-11, 1962: The Beatles hold their first recording sessions at EMI Studios in London, with George Martin as producer.
October 1962: “Love Me Do” becomes the Beatles’ first U.K. single for the Parlophone label, reaching #21.
March 22, 1963: The Beatles’ first album, Please Please Me, is released in England.
November 22, 1963: The Beatles’ second album, With the Beatles, is issued in the U.K. on the same day President John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
December 26, 1963: “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” by the Beatles, is released. It is their first release on Capitol Records.
February 1, 1964: “I Want to Hold Your Hand, by the Beatles, tops the Billboard singles chart for the first of seven weeks.
February 7, 1964: The Beatles arrive in America and hold a quip-filled press conference that sets the antic tone for their two-week stay.
February 9, 1964: The Beatles make the first of four appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show. Their TV debut in the U.S. is viewed by a record-breaking audience of 75 million.
February 11, 1964: The Beatles kick off their first U.S. tour with a sold-out show at the Coliseum Theater in Washington, D.C.
February 15, 1964: Meet the Beatles!, the Fab Four’s first album on Capitol Records in the U.S., tops the charts for the first of 11 weeks.
April 4, 1964: “Can’t Buy Me Love,” by the Beatles, reaches #1. The next four positions on the singles chart are held down by the Fab Four as well. It is a feat that’s never been matched before or since.
July 6, 1964: The Beatles’ first film, A Hard Day’s Night, premieres in London.
August 19, 1964: The Beatles’ first American tour begins at the Cow Palace in San Francisco.
September 20, 1964: The Beatles’ first American tour ends with a charity performance at Brooklyn’s Paramount Theater.
April 1, 1965: John Lennon composes “Help!” the title song for the Beatles’ second film. He later reveals the lyrics were a cry for help and a clue to his confusion at the time.
July 29, 1965: The Beatles’ second film, Help!, premieres in London.
August 15, 1965: The Beatles play for nearly 60,000 fans at New York’s Shea Stadium.
August 27, 1965: The Beatles spend the evening talking and playing music with Elvis Presley at Graceland, his Memphis estate.
October 9, 1965: “Yesterday,” by the Beatles, hits #1 for the first of four weeks. It is the most covered song in pop history, with more than recorded 2,500 versions.
October 26, 1965: The Beatles are awarded England’s prestigious MBE (Members of the Order of the British Empire). Lennon later returns his in opposition to Britain’s involvement in the Vietham War.
March 1, 1966: The London Evening Standard publishes an interview in which John Lennon says the Beatles are “more popular than Jesus now.”
July 31, 1966: John Lennon’s controversial comments on Christianity – made in March, but only recently picked up in the U.S. - spark protests and record burnings on the eve of the Beatles’ 1966 American tour.
August 29, 1966: After performing at San Francisco’s Candlestick Park, the Beatles declare that their touring days are over.
March 18, 1967: “Penny Lane,” by the Beatles, reaches #1, and the flip side, “Strawberry Fields Forever,” peaks at #8.
June 1, 1967: The Beatles’ magnum opus, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, is released in Britain. It appears a day later in America.
July 1, 1967: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, by the Beatles, tops the U.S. charts for first of 15 weeks.
August 1, 1967: Beatle George Harrison and his wife, Patti, stroll through the streets of San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district at the height of the hippie movement.
August 19, 1967: The Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love” hits #1.
September 1, 1967: John Lennon composes “I Am the Walrus” while under the influence of LSD. It will be one of six new Beatles songs included in their quixotic TV film, Magical Mystery Tour.
December 30, 1967: “Hello Goodbye,” by the Beatles, reaches #1 for the first of three weeks. The flip side, John Lennon’s experimental opus “I Am the Walrus,” peaks at #56.
February 15, 1968: The Beatles depart for Rishikesh, India, for an advanced course in transcendental meditation with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. They are joined by Donovan, Mike Love (of the Beach Boys), and sisters Mia and Priscilla Farrow.
May 1, 1968: The Beatles launch Apple Corps, Ltd., a business venture that includes Apple Records, in London.
September 28, 1968: The Beatles’ “Hey Jude,” a seven-minute song highlighted by an extended singalong coda, tops the charts for the first of nine weeks. It holds the record among Beatles singles for most weeks at #1.
Novenber 22, 1968: The Beatles’ sprawling, self-titled double album – generally referred to as the White Album – is released. It tops the U.S. charts for nine weeks.
January 30, 1969: The Beatles make their final live performance with an impromptu, five-song set on the rooftop of Apple headquarters, on London’s Savile Row, during the filming of Let It Be.
May 24, 1969: The Beatles reach #1 with “Get Back,” which features Billy Preston on keyboards.
September 26, 1969: The Beatles release Abbey Road, which tops the American charts for 11 weeks.
November 29, 1969: The Beatles reach #1 with “Come Together.” Only four months later, the Beatles will come apart.
April 10, 1970: Paul McCartney announces he is leaving the Beatles due to “personal, business and musical differences.”
May 8, 1970: Let It Be, by the Beatles, is released. It is followed five days later by the Let It Be documentary film.
June 13, 1970: “The Long and Winding Road” becomes the Beatles’ 20th and final #1 single.
April 14, 1973: Two simultaneously released double-album compilations – The Beatles/1962-1966 (“the Red Album”) and The Beatles/1967-1970 (“the Blue Album”) – enter the Billboard album chart. They will peak at #3 and #1, respectively.
January 2, 1975: The Beatles’ formal legal dissolution takes place in London.
June 19, 1976: The Beatles, now defunct for half a decade, have a Top Ten hit with “Got to Get You Into My Life,” a song that had been recorded a decade earlier.
December 8, 1980: John Lennon is shot by a deranged assailant as he and Yoko return to the Dakota after a recording session. He is pronounced dead at New York’s Roosevelt Hospital.
April 10, 1982: “The Beatles’ Movie Medley,” a seven-song mashup, enters the Top Forty, where it will peak at #12.
March 7, 1987: The Beatles enter the digital age with an initial release of three albums in the compact disc format. The CDs are configured like the original British albums, not the altered American versions.
June 1, 1987: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, by the Beatles, is issued on compact disc exactly 20 years after its original release.
January 20, 1988: The Beatles are inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at the 3rd annual induction dinner. Mick Jagger, of the Rolling Stones, is their presenter.
December 6, 1994: The Beatles’ Live at the BBC, a 56-song double-disc collection assembled by producer George Martin, is released.
November 19, 1995: “Free as a Bird,” a John Lennon demo from 1977 that’s been newly overdubbed by the three surviving Beatles, enters the singles chart, where it will peak at #6.
November 19-23, 1995: The Beatles Anthology, a comprehensive documentary based on archival footage and fresh interviews, airs on ABC in three parts.
December 9, 1995: Anthology 1, the first of three archival double-disc releases by the Beatles, tops the Billboard 200 for the first of three weeks.
March 23, 1996: “Real Love,” the second “new” Beatles single based on a John Lennon demo, enters the charts, where it will peak at #11.
Octobe 5, 2000: The Beatles Anthology, a 368-page coffeetable-book companion to the 1995 TV documentary and three double-CD sets, is published.
November 29, 2001: George Harrison dies at age 58 after battling lung and brain cancer.
November 13,2000: 1, a collection of 27 Beatles songs that topped the U.S. and/or U.K. charts, is released. Demonstrating the Beatles’ undiminished appeal, it will top Billboard’s Top 200 album chart for eight weeks.
November 11, 2004: At a ceremony in London, the Beatles are inducted into the UK Music Hall of Fame in its first year. The other inductees, each representing a particular decade: Elvis Presley, Bob Marley, Madonna and U2.
November 16, 2004: The first four Beatles albums that were issued in the U.S. by Capitol Records in 1964 are reissued on CD as the box set The Capitol Albums, Volume 1. All four albums appear in both mono and stereo mixes.
April 15, 2005: The Beatles’ 1 hits collection is certified diamond (10 million copies sold) by the RIAA.
July 1, 2006: Cirque du Soleil salutes the Beatles’ legacy with LOVE, a multimedia production featuring over 100 Beatles songs, collaged and remixed by George Martin.Sunday, April 5, 2009
Slank - Generasi Biru [Full Album 2009]
Slank Not Acting in the 'Generasi Biru'.When the film syuting 'Generasi Biru' of Garin Nugroho, the band with a million fans, Slank not have trouble means. In fact, according to Bimbim, itself does not remove the ability his acting slightest.
"Not much we play it. So freely explore what we do acting," said Bimbim at a press conference in the 'Generasi Biru' in FX Plaza, Jl. Jend Sudirman, South Jakarta, (11/2/2009).
Only Kaka is a constraint, it is difficult to wake up when sleep should syuting morning. "His calling too early", said the vocalist.
However, to realize the goal to use film, the band that already exist since 1983 that have to be willing to wait for 25 years. Until now, the personnel shall not be Slank imagine what happens as the film is also actress star Nadine Chandrawinata it.
"No show happens this movie is like. Slank actually have the intention of ever since a long time, 25 years ago", said a word.
Slank is deliberately to give the title 'Generasi Biru' film in their prime. Bimbim reveal that the blue band is the philosophy of the album owners 'Anthem For The Broken hearted it'.
"Biru is the philosophy of Slank. Slank want successor generation blue like blue sky, wide and deep oceans", said Bimbim.
Track List:
01 Slank Title Hits Song 'Slank Dance'.
02 Slank Title Hits Song 'Monogami'.
03 Slank Title Hits Song 'Generasi Biroe'.
04 Slank Title Hits Song 'Bang Bang Tut'.
05 Slank Title Hits Song 'Gossip Jalanan'.
06 Slank Title Hits Song 'Terbunuh Sepi'.
07 Slank Title Hits Song 'Pulau Biru'.
08 Slank Title Hits Song 'Loe Harus Grak'.
09 Slank Title Hits Song 'Missing Person'.
10 Slank Title Hits Song 'Utopia'.
11 Slank Title Hits Song 'Bendera ½ Tiang'.
12 Slank Title Hits Song 'Indonesiakan Una'. (Live)
13 Slank Title Hits Song 'Mars Slankers'. (Live)
14 Slank Title Hits Song 'Cekal'. (Remake '09)
15 Slank Title Hits Song 'Koepoe Liarkoe'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
