Last Sunday, in a brief note inside the Arts section, The Plain Dealer told readers that Donald Rosenberg had been replaced as the newspaper’s principal classical music critic. Zachary Lewis would be the new critic, with Rosenberg reassigned as an arts and entertainment reporter.
Thus ended Rosenberg’s 16-year tenure as the city’s authoritative voice on the Cleveland Orchestra. Naturally, many readers wanted to know why.
Some, of course, believe they already know. “Cowardly,” one reader called the decision to replace him, in a letter published Wednesday. “Gutless,” said another.
Music critics around the country – first Tim Smith of the Baltimore Sun and then others – rallied to Rosenberg’s support. “The Plain Dealer has clearly caved in to pressure from a faction representing the orchestra and the man on its podium,” Smith wrote. The give-and-take on Smith’s blog has been lively, as it has been elsewhere on the Internet. The New York Times ran a story about the decision on its Arts cover Thursday.
What is clear to some is less clear to others, however, so for the benefit of interested observers who are not blessed with the ability to read minds, here is some background:
In 2002, Franz Welser-Mst succeeded Christoph von Dohnanyi as the orchestra’s music director. After a relatively smooth beginning, it quickly became clear that Welser-Mst’s approach and interpretation were not in synch with Rosenberg’s standard of what a music director should be. Unflattering reviews became the rule. While the musicians themselves were routinely lauded, the man with the baton rarely was. Making the criticism more stark was the fact that Dohnanyi, a man whose music Rosenberg admired, had been almost uniformly praised.
Naturally, many in the orchestra leadership, patrons and other Welser-Mst fans were unhappy about this, and were unabashed in expressing their dismay.
In June 2005, only a couple of months into this assignment, I had gotten so many complaints about Rosenberg’s reviews that I addressed them in a column. Here is the gist of what I wrote:
“I think we should celebrate [Rosenberg's critiques]. I want him to hold both the musicians and their leader to the highest possible standards. It’s the greatest service he can provide for all of us who want the orchestra to remain one of the best in the world.”
That was three years ago, and since then, Rosenberg’s criticisms of Welser-Mst continued, as did the complaints about his criticisms.
Last week, Editor Susan Goldberg removed him from his post as critic.
Did she make the move in response to the complaints? No, she said.
“Our work is regularly, and sometimes harshly, scrutinized by the people and institutions we cover,” said Goldberg. “That’s just part of the process of what we do, and I work hard to make myself available to people who have issues with our stories. Criticism of our work can provide valuable feedback that helps us do a better, and fairer, job. That said, we cannot and do not allow compliments or criticism to dictate our personnel decisions.”
I still believe the comments I made in 2005. But I recognize that there’s another legitimate point of view:
Welser-Mst’s contract extends to 2018. Rosenberg has made it clear, over and over, that he believes the conductor routinely fails to get the most out of the orchestra, a view he seems unlikely to change or mute. It is fair to wonder, then, whose interests would be served by 10 more years of unrelenting criticism on the same point. Just as we would not assign a book review to a critic who is already on the record as loathing a certain author’s style or genre, is it reasonable to continue assigning a music critic to review performances by a conductor whose leadership he is unlikely ever to approve?
Critics are paid to criticize – and to praise when appropriate – the performance of the musicians, actors, cooks, authors, architects, linebackers and point guards they cover. Plain Dealer journalists have written critically about the Cleveland Clinic, the major sports teams, leaders in business and government, prosecutors and police chiefs and advertisers who annually spend millions of dollars with the newspaper. The objects of these critiques are not always pleased, and have often demanded that the writer be removed from the beat or fired.
Editor Goldberg, like Doug Clifton before her, always gives these people a hearing, as she should. Complaints about our coverage can and should cause editors to look more closely at what we’re doing – but while such complaints are taken seriously, not one time did either of these editors ever take someone off a beat because of outside pressure.
Should we believe that, after standing up to angry industry leaders, county commissioners, advertisers and others on issues of journalistic principle, Goldberg would wither in front of some orchestra patrons?
I don’t.
Like many of you, I am sad to lose Donald Rosenberg’s voice as orchestra critic of this newspaper. But it doesn’t follow that the decision to remove him was based on anything other than Susan Goldberg’s honest belief that the change would be in the best interests of the newspaper and its readers – a decision that is her right and responsibility to make.
