The cold fluorescent light shining down on Franz Welser-Möst stands in stark contrast to the exalted glow in which Clevelanders usually see him: leading the Cleveland Orchestra at Severance Hall in the great symphonies that define European musical history. But in a deposition from July 2009, the conductor looks straight ahead, his face expressionless as he responds to a lawyer’s drill of questions.
After a series of basic queries about Welser-Möst’s life and career, the proceedings veer sharply toward the matter at hand: the steady criticism of Welser-Möst’s performances by Plain Dealer music critic Donald Rosenberg.
The lawyer quotes from a 2002 review of a Beethoven symphony, in which Rosenberg claimed that the conductor “largely rendered the idyllic scenes lifeless and subdued.”
“Do you believe that the idyllic scenes were ‘lifeless and subdued,’ or don’t you agree with that?” Welser-Möst is asked.
“I only can say . . . that a critic has an artistic opinion, and a conductor has an artistic opinion,” responds the conductor with cold control.
“I don’t think when I’m onstage I am lifeless.”
It’s one brief exchange in a deposition that goes on for hours, but it gets to the core of the issue: The Plain Dealer and the Musical Arts Association — the group that manages the Cleveland Orchestra — are ensnared in a civil lawsuit brought by Rosenberg seemingly because an internationally renowned conductor couldn’t stomach a steady diet of criticism throughout his eight-year tenure here.
Late last month, a judge sealed all documents entered into evidence for the case, which is slated to go to trial in July. The attorney representing the Musical Arts Association declined comment on behalf of the conductor and orchestra; Rosenberg, Plain Dealer editors, and their attorneys also declined to be interviewed for this story. But their arguments are laid out in detail in the depositions and documents obtained by Scene prior to the judge’s order.
“I don’t believe it should have ever gotten to this point,” said Tim Smith, the Baltimore Sun critic who broke the story of Rosenberg’s reassignment. “A paper with a sense of perspective could have solved this a lot differently. Cooler heads would have said, ‘We’re not going to let this become a national and even international incident.'”
The relationship went sour from the very beginning, when Rosenberg covered Welser-Möst’s 2002 appointment as music director not with fawning adulation, but as an unvarnished news story. In the piece that introduced Welser-Möst to Cleveland, Rosenberg ran with several juicy bits from the conductor’s past, including his controversial tenure leading the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the fact that he was adopted as an adult by a baron from Liechtenstein, and that he subsequently married his own stepmother — the baron’s ex-wife. For two professionals charting a new course together, it wasn’t the friendliest of welcomes.
But the real issue has always been the music. Almost from the start, Rosenberg’s reviews made it clear that Welser-Möst didn’t measure up.
The feud escalated in 2004, while Rosenberg covered an orchestra tour in Europe. The critic reported comments Welser-Möst had made to a Swiss magazine in which he described Cleveland as “an inflated farmers village” where maintaining such a magnificent orchestra was dependent on relationships with “many wealthy widows.” At one point, Welser-Möst referred to the “blue-hair ladies” who come to matinee performances because they are too tired for evening concerts. Rosenberg shared it all with Cleveland readers.
A spokeswoman for the orchestra at the time said there would be “consequences” for reporting comments that weren’t intended for a hometown audience, Rosenberg claims in his deposition. And soon the prophecy was fulfilled: The orchestra stripped Rosenberg’s access to its archives and barred him from an office in Severance Hall that he long had used to file reviews immediately after concerts. Following years of unrestricted access, he was forbidden from going backstage during tours — a ban that Rosenberg claims amounted to the orchestra shooting itself in the foot.
Andrew Fischer was the Musical Arts Association’s limo driver early in Welser-Möst’s tenure. In depositions, he describes having heard loud, closed-door meetings between Welser-Möst and others, discussing what could be done about the critic.
He recalls another incident in which Welser-Möst got into the car and was “more upset than I’d ever seen him. He stated that he was upset because of a review written in The Plain Dealer by Donald Rosenberg.” He remembers hearing the conductor declare that “Don doesn’t get it,” and that the critic will soon change his ways or find himself looking for another job.”
But Rosenberg was hardly alone in his criticism. By 2007, plenty of critics in the U.S. and Europe were giving Welser-Möst similar marks. After praising his rendition of Tchaikovsky’s “Pathetique” symphony in an October 2007 concert at Carnegie Hall, the preeminent critic for The New York Times, Anthony Tommasini wrote, “But the concert began with a strangely listless performance of Mozart’s Symphony No. 28. . . . This was one of several ineffective Mozart performances I have heard from Mr. Welser-Möst.”
During that autumn tour, which proceeded from New York to Europe, the conductor garnered more mixed reviews. Under the headline “Snoring Through Mahler With Welser-Möst,” MusicalAmerica.com critic Larry L. Lash wrote, “It also sounded as if the conductor had eschewed the composer’s obsessively detailed directions altogether, in favor of a broad-stroke, ‘Cliffs Notes’ version.” In the Austrian daily Der Standard, critic Ljubisa Tosic said Welser-Möst’s performance of a Mozart symphony “sounded a bit dry, almost mechanical and well-behaved — the little gem was dispatched in a rather offhanded way.”
To Welser-Möst, it seemed, tepid reviews from random critics around the world came and went. But the sting of the hometown scribe always lingered.
Performers often get crabby about the words of newspaper critics, and usually that’s where it ends. When someone is upset enough to voice complaints to the paper, the editor typically stands by the critic.
That’s how it went for Baltimore Sun critic Tim Smith. “I’ve had delegations from orchestras come to the paper to demand that something be done about me. I’ve arrived at a concert hall to find chairs leafleted, saying please contact the paper about me. And let me tell you, it was wonderful that the paper’s management said, ‘Are you kidding? This is what we hired him for. Go away.'”
For years, that’s what former Plain Dealer Editor Doug Clifton did, even as the Musical Arts Association lobbied against Rosenberg — complete with charts that documented every Welser-Möst review he wrote from 1993 to 2005, weighing each one on a scale from “positive” to “neutral” to “negative.” The chart skewed sharply to the negative.
When Richard Bogomolny, then-president of the Musical Arts Association board, wrote a spirited three-page letter complaining that Rosenberg’s commentary “exceed(s) the normal bounds of legitimate criticism,” Clifton again stood by his man. It seemed not to matter that Clifton’s own boss, then-Publisher Alex Machaskee, was an orchestra trustee, as is current publisher Terrance Egger today.
“My sense is that Don’s criticism is based on an honest and strongly held belief that Franz is not up to the job,” Clifton wrote in a response to Bogomolny. “In the end . . . 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.”
Clifton encouraged Bogomolny to submit his letter for publication in the paper’s opinion pages. That version of the letter never came.
But Susan Goldberg, Clifton’s successor at The Plain Dealer, was perhaps not as confident in her critic as Clifton had been. When she took the helm in 2007, it was on her watch that Rosenberg dared, week after subscription concert week, to be critical of the conductor.
The final straw may have been a November 11, 2007 article in which Rosenberg concluded that “to experience the orchestra at its best these days, listeners need to hear a concert at Severance or Blossom led by guest conductors who convey something specific and distinctive to the musicians and loyal audiences alike.”
In January and February of 2008, orchestra Executive Director Gary Hanson and Musical Arts Association board President Jamie Ireland met with Goldberg and others at The Plain Dealer, according to depositions. Rosenberg claims that during the February meeting, Hanson “presented several requests to The Plain Dealer, including stopping [Rosenberg’s] participation in tours, hiring someone else to review the orchestra on occasion, and thirdly, assigning someone else to write news stories about the Cleveland Orchestra.”
Six months later, when Welser-Möst’s contract was extended through 2018, the orchestra specifically asked that a different reporter — Rosenberg protégée Zachary Lewis — cover the news. Goldberg complied, but sent Rosenberg along with the rookie when another editor complained that the orchestra was controlling its story.
Rosenberg’s deposition describes a meeting with Goldberg and Assistant Managing Editor Deborah Van Tassel-Warner during which he was informed that the situation between him and the music director had become “untenable.”
Goldberg reassigned Rosenberg in September 2008, leaving him to cover the region’s other orchestras, conservatories, recitals, chamber music, and dance performances — anything but the Cleveland Orchestra.
Three months later Rosenberg sued, claiming that The PD discriminated against him because of his age (he was 57 at the time the suit was filed).
At the same time, Goldberg issued a decree forbidding the critic from pairing the terms “Cleveland” and “orchestra” together in anything that he wrote. Judge John Sutula later allowed Rosenberg to add the claim of “retaliation” to the suit in response to Goldberg’s embargo.
Rosenberg’s suit also charges the Musical Arts Association with “maliciously intentionally, willfully, unlawfully, consciously . . . retaliatorily . . . tortiously . . .” and in more than a dozen other ways interfering in Rosenberg’s relationship with his employer.
The Plain Dealer rightly argues that Rosenberg still has a job and a veteran’s salary, which is more than many journalists — even those at The PD — can claim. But to Rosenberg, the reassignment represents a defining blow to his life’s work. “The Plain Dealer took my career away from me,” he told The Cleveland Jewish News one month after filing his suit.
The Plain Dealer‘s classical beat now belongs to Lewis, a onetime arts contributor for Scene who, according to depositions, was unable to identify the scores of several pieces of music the orchestra had recently performed, and which he had recently reviewed. Lewis also maintains a weekly column on health and fitness when he isn’t covering the orchestra. Such is the world of today’s ever-shrinking newsrooms and the multitasking journalists who cling to jobs there.
Rosenberg, meanwhile, has said he doesn’t want to be reinstated as Cleveland Orchestra critic. He is seeking only $25,000 — a fraction of the annual salary The Plain Dealer still pays him.
Some observers wonder whether the larger score wouldn’t be in transforming his experience — and the thousands of pages of depositions that chronicle its every turn — into a book. Convincing Rosenberg not to do that might cost a lot more than $25,000.
Baltimore critic Tim Smith says the case has implications for anyone who writes opinion. “It looks ridiculous,” he says of the fracas. “You wouldn’t dream of doing this to your political commentator because he attacks the mayor week in and week out, or your local sports team. Who hasn’t been in a town with a sports columnist who is constantly knocking the hell out of the coach of the football team? And who then would take him off that beat?”
The Plain Dealer‘s own newsroom may be divided on the case, but one of its most prominent figures weighed in with a 2008 letter in support of Rosenberg that was entered as evidence.
“The only reason you are no longer assigned to cover the Cleveland Orchestra,” wrote Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Connie Schultz, “is because you insisted on doing your job, not its supporters’ bidding.”
Send feedback to mgill@clevescene.com.
This article appears in May 5-11, 2010.
I think this whole issue goes to the notion of who is qualified to assess the art of another person. The conductor does his job, presumably to the best of his ability and that should be presumed good enough given his contract extension, and then the local critic sees it as his job to trash that artistic viewpoint on a continuous basis. It would be akin to assessing the works of Picasso when the critic hates Picasso. The bias is clear on the part of the critic, and so maybe another critic without so much at stake is the right step.
Claudia Cassidy, music critic of the Chicago Tribune, consistently trashed the work of Jean Martinon when he was the conductor of the Chicago Symphony. Michael Steinberg was heavily critical of both Erich Leinsdorf’s and William Steinberg’s work with the Boston Symphony. Harold Schoenberg, critic of the New York Times, could not seem to find anything good to say about Leonard Bernstein. Despite this, their editors and publishers always stood behind them. If the Plain Dealer hired Rosenberg in the first place, it must have believed his opinions were of value. To remove him from the Cleveland Orchestra beat because of pressure from the Musical Arts Association is an incredible abdication of its responsibility to defend the freedom of the press. It makes Cleveland look like a very provincial town.
What makes Rosenberg’s situation stand out is that his critiques of the Cleveland Orchestra were usually very fair and accurate. I thought he did a good job evaluating the technical and interpretive aspects of orchestra’s performances. I looked forward to reading his opinions. When Mr. Most came along everything changed. The reviews were consistently negative, even when the orchestra and conductor were great. At times the thrust seemed to be less about the music and more about personal attacks. This was a clear departure from the norm. A music critic’s obligation is to the music, nothing else. When expert opinion cannot be rendered objectively then that opinion has no value. There has to be accountability, even in journalism. The Plain Dealer should have dealt with this issue long before the Musical Arts Association had to take a stand.
Rosenberg was about the least boring critic in the region. If you want to read press releases and simply confirm your superiority for merely attending a concert, then be content to go on the Cleveland Orchestra Web site. If you want to be challenged and really THINK about great music, then you lost your chance with Rosenberg’s cowardly dismissal on the part of the PD. BTW, Michael Gill’s piece is wonderfully written!
I was fortunate to experience the Cleveland Orchestra during its golden age beginning in 1955 though 1970, the era of George Szell. Those who know the orchestra during that time understand what supernatural musical levels this orchestra could reach. Donald Rosenberg knew that too. His 700-page, beautifully-written history “The Cleveland Orchestra Story – Second to None”, published in 2000, makes that fact abundantly clear. It is shameful that this knowledgeable and honest journalist has been subjected to reassignment from the orchestra he was so superbly qualified to assess. I have no respect for a newspaper that cowers and toadies in this way to outside pressures. Thank you Michael Gill for your excellent coverage — it is high time the facts become known!
One of the benefits of the internet is that classical music reviews from all over the world can be easily accessed, and in many cases translated from other languages into English. In some cities, the music critic acts to much like a cheerleader for the local orchestra. In others, the music critic can stimulate discussion on a performance and the abilities of the orchestra and the conductor. Finally, there are situations where the music critic seems perfunctory and, assuming he or she has some knowledge about the music being performed, one would not know it from the mediocre quality of the article. At best, the Cleveland Plain Dealer now falls into the latter category. Initially, Mr. Lewis showed some backbone in some of his reviews, albeit without demonstrating much experience or knowledge in what he was reviewing, but those days seem to be gone. He is perhaps a better politician than was Mr. Rosenberg. That said, Mr. Rosenberg’s reviews of FWM’s performances can be compared with many other reviews from critics throughout the world, and one can see that many other critics shared his perceptions. There are a few notable exceptions, but overall FWM does not seem to be a highly regarded conductor.
I remember somebody saying that trashing the musicians’ work by music critics is kind of “a cannibalism”. Does not serve a classical music in a long run. There are poor performers, but… Many music critics failed as performers, many of them are simply too old to perform “standing ovation” (another aspect), etc. My main point is, however, that people (audience, readers) interested in developing the objective assessment of the quality of the performance cannot and should not use only ONE source of evaluation (ONE music critic “assigned” by editor????? -this is a professional crime). If this ONE chosen (even the most knowledgable) is consistently negative (knowing that in life most often nothing is black or white), there is a serious concern that the reader has no chance to develop his or hers point of view and is treated as a dummy (trust me, I ma a doctor !!!). What is a function of the critic, after all? Ruin somebody’s career? Or support the members of “a tribe”?
The newspapers should publish a few, possibly differing, reviews of the same performance to avoid accusation of brainwashing and supporting “tribal propaganda”. Please, treat the audience with RESPECT!!!
FWM has his enemies, but he & Cleveland have received many good to great reviews all over Europe and the USA which the article chose not to mention, including some from Tim Smith (who was mentioned in the article, though his reviews were not) and even some from Rosenberg. It is easy to show two reviewers disagreeing about the very same concert, and on one occasion I noticed two reviewers comment about the very same phrase at the beginning of a particular symphony–one reviewer admired the FWM treatment and the other dissed it. Believe whom you want, or better yet, go to the concert and decide for yourself. The PD should not have reassigned Rosenberg just because the orchestra didn’t like his reviews. On the other hand, the orchestra had no obligation to provide Rosenberg with privileges like an office in Severance Hall or backstage access. As for Rosenberg’s claim that the reassignment basically ended his career–that sounds like an admission that he was a leech. Maybe he’s mad because his annual expense-paid trips to Europe (to cover the orchestra tours) have been taken away from him.
No word about the outstanding reviews the orchestra has received from international papers. When the Cleveland Orchestra was in residence at the Salzburg Festival in 2008 (under Franz Welser-Most), the critical acclaim was overwhelmingly positive. VERY high praise was given to the orchestra for its concerts and performances of Dvorak’s “Rusalka”. Cleveland can be very proud of the fine work done by this orchestra and its current conductor–they certainly gained more international prominence during this residency. I’m sure the Vienna Philharmonic (also resident at the Salzburg Festival) was a bit green with envy at the notoriety the Cleveland Orchestra gained on the Austrian’s home turf. FWM is a wonderful conductor and the orchestra is one of the finest. It seems these great musicians have an excellent working relationship. Mr. Rosenberg didn’t seem to acknowledge how successful this relationship was and was being more “loyal” to the previous conductor who it seems he had a personal liking for.
Thanks for publishing this article. Before moving to Cincinnati – a great town with a great orchestra led by Paavo Jarvi, a great conductor – I lived in Miami, FL for more than 25 years during which I had the pleasure of listening to some of the world’s great orchestras on tour led by, again, great conductors. The Miami residence of the Cleveland Orchestra has led to no end of bad blood from the community – both audiences and musicians – towards the Cleveland Orchestra, its management and its conductor. The high-handedness of this little Austrian fellow and the Teutonic arrogance with which Welser Most has led many concerts in Miami have allienated a good segment of the concert-going audience in South Florida, where he has come to be known as “Franz worse than most.” Sad-to-say his imperious ways reflect on his music-making which many South Floridians find cold, robotic and eccentric. No doubt Herr Musik Direktor Welser Most has some choice barbs for the Florida audience, peopled as it is by so many non-Arian immigrants. Has anyone stopped to ask whether Mr. Rosenberg’s name has played a part in provoking the ire of the son of the Baron from Lichtenstein? Just a thought.
Rafael de Acha
Only thing worse than a lazy reporter is a spineless editor.
Bravo to Michael Gill for a well-written and balanced article! The fact that the PD bowed to pressure from the Orchestra is scandalous – and has literally caused an international scandal in the musical world. Only in a provincial town would the critic be expected to be a cheerleader. The actions of the Orchestra management and Susan Goldberg against Rosenberg make Cleveland truly seem like the “inflated farmer’s village” that Welser-Moest described.
There was mention of the London Philharmonic Orchestra in the article as being controversial. I was Principal 1st horn in the LPO for 33 years playing with all the Music Directors over that period, Bernard Haitink, Solti, Klaus Tennstedt, Franz Welser Most and Vladimir Jurowski. Certainly some members of the orchestra did not like Franz but many like myself did and we had many memorable concerts and recordings with him. Many if the critics in London seem to have, like Rosenberg, a particular dislike of Franz which I could never understand. Maybe it was because he was very young as the London critics, at the time, could only consider Simon Rattle as the only young conductor who was any good, Franz had a rough time at their hands. It does sound to me that Rosenberg is a bit bonkers!! particularly going to law, very expensive. To sample a little of Franz and the LPO try the live recording from Vienna of Bruckner Symphony No. 5. Wonderful!!!
Busch
I sampled FWM’s Bruckner No. 5 DVD with the CO. Fell asleep the first time and the second time I managed to stay awake. The playing was beautiful, but the interpretation remarkably Earth-bound. Same with his performance of Tchaikovsky’s No. 6; he was called back for only for round of applause. In concertos, he seems to often be out of synch with his soloist. His Beethoven No. 5 was very poorly received in Cleveland the first few times it was performed (apparently it improved since). I thought his Verdi Requiem was again Earth bound and at times he could not keep up with the Orchestra. The list can go on and on. I think the point about Rosenberg is two fold: First, he is upset that the management of the Cleveland Orchestra, in his view, conspired to take his job away from him. On the one hand, no one is entitled to their job forever, but then again the Plain Dealer didn’t exactly replace Rosenberg with a seasoned music critic who is experienced as examining the great conductors and orchestras of the World. Second, he seems to feel that FMW is to up to the job as music director of the Cleveland Orchestra. Actually, that should probably be chief conductor, because in many respects he is an excellent music director. I agree regarding FWM’s conducting skills as do many throughout the world (but there have been a few notable outstanding reviews, which I will acknowledge but his supporters seem to like to ignore the many bad reviews or rationalize them away). Management made the decision that they like FWM and the Rosenberg was the one who had to go. I for one have stopped making donations to the CO because of FWM, and the saga involving Mr. Rosenberg has only put the CO further down my donation list.
All one needs to do is compare a performance led by Boulez to one led by Welser-Most. Boulez expects and receives clean, musical line from a well balanced sound. They, The Cleveland Orchestra and Mr. Boulez create wonderful music, well worth sitting in those horrible seats. Welser-Most needs to learn a bit of humility. He cannot just stand up there with his nose in the air, presenting a “holier than thou” attitude and expect The Cleveland Orchestra to follow his truly non-existent understanding of whatever he is conducting. I understand his passion is opera – well, go conduct opera somewhere else, Mr. Welser-Most! From the first time I heard Mr. Welser-Most speak when he was introduced to Cleveland, I will never forgive him for saying, “We will having them (The Orchestra) sounding like the Vienna in no time.” The Cleveland Orchestra sounds like the Cleveland Orchestra! It does not have to sound like any other orchestra, much less like one that is sloppy! I certainly support Mr. Rosenberg.
I’ve spoken with a current member of the Orchestra on this issue. This particular performer seemed fair and balanced in their assessment and also played under Welser Most’s predecesser, von Dohnányi. According to this musician, in Rosenberg’s eyes, von Dohnanyi could do no wrong whereas Welser Most can do no right. He even described Rosenberg as being “in love with von Dohnanyi.” I’m not saying that hometown critics have to praise everything their subject does, on the contrary he owes it to the reader to provide a fair and balanced assessment of a performance. However, consistent negative reviews are uncalled for. Having read Rosenberg’s reviews I’ve found them to be a bit pompous and bloated. There Don, how do you like that?
Who knew all these “artsy-fartsies” read Scene magazine!
Whether or not Welser-Most is a good conductor or Rosenberg is a qualified critic, the question remains whether the Plain Dealer bowed to pressure from the orchestra…. it seems they did, again confirming the PD is just not a very good newspaper.
It’s funny that the PD hounds politicians for comment yet no one at the PD is around to offer any comment on this story. Shame on the PD.
Great article Mr. Gill. Someone has to watch the supposedly free and open press.
A quick perusal of classicstoday.com, which has a point scoring system, shows that Welser-Most’s recordings with various ensembles have received mixed reviews. His recent recording of Beethoven’s 9th got 6 out of 10. His recording of Mendelssohn’s 3rd & 4th Symhonies and Mozart’s Don Giovanni got 7 out of 10. He has fared better with Bruckner and Britten, which got a 9. Best of all was music of Korngold (where there are few competitors since the music is rarely recorded), FW-M got a 10.
This is not to bash or praise FW-M, just to point out that his work evokes a range of critical responses, and that Rosenberg’s criticism of FW-M’s conducting is hardly unique.
Sounds like Rosenberg has it in for this conductor on a personal level. He appears jealous and catty, especially considering people liked his reviews up until he started committing personal attacks against the conductor from day one! Just goes to show most news reporters now a days don’t report the facts nor just news, but instead write biased emotionally charged opinions and then they don’t understand why people don’t repect them and don’t give reporters the credibility they once had! This Rosenberg comes off as a catty “mean-girl” jealous biatch. Regardless of the fact that he’s biologically male, he sounds like he has estrogen related hormone fluctuations and needs a shot of testosterone to get ahold of his inner biatch!!