I just got back from LA on Saturday, and will have a post on that trip tomorrow, most likely. But when you're trotted out as an example of desperation in the classical-music world by the Chicago Tribune, that trumps vacation news.
The Trib's art critic, Alan Artner, had an article in yesterday's paper entitled "American Culture Has Always Warmed to What's Cool." (A fairly obvious conclusion, that.) Near the end was this:
"Lately the Chicago Symphony Orchestra has in advertising called its own concerts "cool," and the young commentator brought in to host after-concert beer receptions has applied the word to a new piano concerto by Marc-Andre Dalbavie. This looked desperate."
I'm the "young commentator." And looks can be deceiving. The article's unclear as to whether Artner meant that I referred to the concerto as "cool" during the reception, a Q&A with David Robertson, or in the profile of Dalbavie that ran in the Feb. 9 TOC. He meant the article, which closed with the sentence, "Oh, yeah—and the concerto sounds cool, too." This was after a fairly detailed description of how Dalbavie alters the patterns that comprise the work and how he ties his style to Leonin and Perotin. (For what it's worth, I didn't write that the concerto fits in with the laid-back finger-snapping conception of cool, which is Artner's meaning, but that it sounds cool. Small but telling difference.)
After getting Artner on the line, his criticism is a little clearer. "Cool" is an advertising term, he says, and means nothing in critical parlance, or at least not what I think it does. I offered that I could have said that the concerto sounded original, striking and new, each of which he would've had less to complain about. It's about accuracy in usage, see, and I don't say what I mean, which is what Artner does every time out.
(He also thinks I'm a shill for the orchestra, and was getting paid for hosting the receptions. Not true. I don't get a cent, nor would I take one, from the CSO. The reception also had wine and bottled water and the aforementioned Q&A, so I disagree with referring to it as a "beer reception." Our conversation was characterized as "wasting my time" by Artner, since I refuse to grant that "cool" is an inadequate word for what I was trying to describe. It doesn't fit in with the word's historical usage and meaning, and is thus used incorrectly. After the article's technical analysis, a little breath of cool, fresh air was surely in line, however.)
I was desperate, according to Artner, in using the word "cool" because it's an obvious attempt to sell the music to a demographic. But either contemporary music is part of contemporary life, or it isn't. If it isn't, then we can talk about it in fusty terms. But if contemporary music is part of life and Dalbavie breathes the same air as Belle & Sebastian and Chris Potter, then there must be other ways of writing about it.
Discussing this music, contemporary music, in words and phrases that mean nothing to today's younger listeners will contribute to its marginalization. I refuse to be part of it. My invitation to Artner to attend the next beer reception on March 22 stands.