Paul Griffiths still at the NY Times?

Haven't read anything by Griffiths in the Times in a while. Today in the NYT, I noticed a review by Jeremy Eichler, who usually reviews for NY Newsday. Does anyone know the status of PG?

No longer with the NYT and moved back to the UK.

Aaarg!! One of the few good ones leaves and now we'll be choked with drivel from morons like Anthony Tommasini.

the following letters to be typed in

It could be worse; they could have the idiot Heidi Waleson.

What about Anne Midgette?

I really don't know much about music, but I must say that her reviews frequently seem to suggest to me that she knows even less. The latest example is the Richard Goode review. Or maybe it's just me.

I think that people here hate Bernard Holland too, but there was an amusing article in the Sunday Times about the fan (hate) mail he's

That must have been a fairly recent development. I saw him (and later read his reviews) at the Brian Ferneyhough retrospectives here in mid-December. Most unfortunate for us here in NY, though I tend to believe that not all NYT critics are quite the midgettes some here allege.

I was particularly interested in that review, since I had heard Goode perform the same program in Philadelphia. My objection to that review was not lack of musical knowledge. I think she knows her stuff, but her problem is expressing it in reasonably straightforward English. After plowing through her overblown prose, I still couldn't tell whether she liked the recital or not! (I did, by the way...Goode is one of my favorites).

As for critics, I prefer Allan Kozinn, or Peter Dobrin of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Henry Maurer, Cherry Hill, NJ, USA

If I recall correctly, Midgette has no formal musical training (not unusual for critics, I know), which might explain the opaque nature of her musical description. Kozinn tends to fall into the 'What I Did Last Summer' student concert-report mode whenever he reviews. Holland is more interesting generally

I enclose this link so that others know what we're referring to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/arts/music/ 04GOOD.html

I've to admit that I'm skeptical of a review that nearly starts with 'The light, what there was of it, picked out distinct highlights: the white piano keys and the white hair of the pianist, Richard Goode.' It's a bit laughable, no? Or maybe it's just me and my weird sense of humor.

I was also at this recital, actually, which was why I read the review. It was interesting that she thought that Chopin was particularly suited for Goode. I thought otherwise. I didn't think that either the Chopin or the Debussy featured was particularly interesting. I did like the Beethoven Op. 109 and the Mozart K. 310 in the first half quite a lot. I haven't heard much Byrd, so I couldn't really say much about it.

Also she doesn't identify encores in this review. I seem to have noticed this sort of behavior. Usually I'm interested in knowing which encores were played since I can't usually identify all of them (some of which I obviously have never heard in my life). The fact that she doesn't identify them suggests to me that she doesn't know what they are either, and I expect the music critic to know more than I, a casual concert-goer, do.

Are these unreasonable expectations on my part?

I can't comment much on Kozinn

letters to be typed in

Your judgment is spot on; if anything, I'd say it's not merely a bit laughable, but downright asinine.

The visual side of concerts is surely an important part of the experience, and I for one won't savage a reviewer who comments honestly on what actually struck him or her sensually, rather than be content with trawling out some predictable penny-in-the-slot critique of a probably not terribly memorable rendition.

The critic is fully entitled to tell us about what it was like to be there. I can remember a not-so-brilliant performance in Canterbury Cathedral of VW's Tallis Fantasia. The spring sunset filtering through the stained glass onto the warm brown stone turned it into - very nearly - the experience of a lifetime.