Pianist Dejan Lazic Defends His Takedown Request By Pointing Out That The WaPo Reviewer Is Really Mean
from the wow dept
We just wrote about famed pianist Dejan Lazic's rather misguided attempt to make use of Europe's new focus on "the right to be forgotten" to cajole the Washington Post into removing a 2010 review of one of his performances, written by Anne Midgette. The story has gotten lots of attention, and Lazic has posted a response on his website (as far as I can tell, there's no way to permalink just to the response).In his response, he insists that many of his quotes were taken out of context, and notes (correctly) that the Washington Post did not post his entire initial request or response. However, his attempt to explain himself doesn't come off much better. He points out that he knew that the recent court ruling (not a "law" as he claims) was only about search engines in Europe and not publishers in the US -- and says he only made mention of it to explain a larger point he was making. That larger point? Anne Midgette is really mean, and lots of musicians don't like the reviews she writes about them. Yes, as far as I can tell, that's the extent of the larger "truth." Midgette is mean and it would be good to shut her up. Since Lazic felt his previous words were taken out of context, I'm going to post a big chunk of text here, all of which seems to sum up "Midgette writes a lot of mean reviews, and that's just not right!"
In my case, I was inspired and encouraged by the dispute maestro Placido Domingo had to endure in 2011 with the same reviewer: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/classical-beat/post/placido-domingo-and-questions-of-bias/2011/10/01/gIQAbJwhCL_blog.htmlHe does include a lot more before he gets to that point, but as far as I can tell, the issue to him here is that Midgette is really, really critical and some musicians don't like it, and thus it's no longer criticism and somehow... slander? Also, apparently, this one reviewer is helping to kill classical music? Something to that effect, and none of this makes Lazic comes off any better. Yes, there are reviewers out there who tend to be overly critical (and I have no idea if that's the case for Midgette one way or the other), but that's hardly a reason to shut them up. Besides, the idea that one overly critical reviewer is somehow leading to the death of classical music is kind of hilarious. Either way, go back and re-read the original in which Midgette is doing what a real critic should be doing. She highlights Lazic's great talent, and basically just notes that she was disappointed with some of his recent choices. That seems like perfectly valid criticism, and nowhere near anything that resembles defamation or even being uncharitably mean.
Therefore, I am not only speaking for myself here but also for many colleagues I dearly respect and/or I have made music and shared same stage with, all of which this particular reviewer criticised on so many occasions so harshly and unfairly, in a manner that is - in comparison with all the other reviews they have ever received (good, tepid, and bad) during their long and highly successful careers (in maestro Placido Domingo's case: 50 years) - simply over the top in sheer negativity and toxicity.
That simply does not comply with the principle of fairness in journalism.
Judging from numerous readers' comments from the past, I know this is a fact that so many Washington, D.C. area concert goers couldn't agree with more!
Can it really be that all these artists performed so often so badly, and that predominantly in Washington, D.C. in presence of this particular reviewer!?
So, when can an individual, in this case a creative artist, simply say enough is enough, this journalist has crossed the line?
How powerful and successful can an individual actually be in a dispute with mass media or say, a major corporation?
Only after a scandal, or after his or her naked pictures have been shown in the newspapers or on the internet, or is there such a thing as intellectual harassment and bullying as well?
After how many years would such an article become irrelevant for the society and taken as simply outdated, perhaps downgraded from the top page on Google searches, and when can it be classified as libellous and defamatory?
And what do newspaper editors expect from reviewers?
Putting all these issues back into the context, it is evident that this case is not simply about retracting a single 'bad review' from the internet for the sake of one's own ego.
We have to be able to distinguish carefully between this and the bigger, broader picture of the whole issue and raise important questions for our interconnected society: how much can such regular, frequently horrific and highly destructive reviews by one single reviewer that has been given a chance to write for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US affect entire generation of young, new potential concert goers, loyal longtime subscribers, sponsors, donors, art lovers and supporters in general, not to mention countless artists, orchestras and opera companies?
How much image damaging for the classical music in general can it potentially generate?
Can such common, abundant, frequent 'reviews' actually inspire anyone to come and listen for the first time Washington's National Symphony Orchestra, visit the Washington National Opera, hear one of the guest artists, or even encourage somebody to learn to play an instrument at any given age and thus become a richer human being and a potential concert goer?
When is such a thing no longer fair journalism rooted in the concept of freedom of speech, and can there still be in the 21st century such a thing as a witch hunt?
Can we like this breed new generation of potential music lovers, concert and opera subscribers for many already troubled and financially fragile classical music institutions on a global scale?
I don't think so.
Look, people say mean stuff online all the time. Some of it is fair. Some of it isn't. Assuming that the stuff that you and your friends don't like deserves to be deleted because it's so mean, is simply ridiculous. There's no defense for that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anne midgette, criticism, dejan lazic, free speech, reviews, right to be forgotten
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Never!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding 'when'?
No, they can say "enough is enough" whenever they feel the line has been crossed, that doesn't, however, mean that the courts, the public or a publisher has to agree with them.
Incidentally, am I the only one that feels Midgette's criticism is being leant some, pretty major, credibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding 'when'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regarding 'when'?
Sounds to me like Midgette is a pretty darn good mirror for Dejan Lazic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it's especially laugh-worthy when the criticism he's complaining about isn't really that bad in the first place, as in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonderful that he can summarize his position so succinctly... just in case you were wondering, "Why did he make that crazy request, anyway?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An artist has no right to not be critiqued harshly, and should even expect it
"and can there still be in the 21st century such a thing as a witch hunt?"
What, are you planning on starting one? Burn the reviewers who don't like your work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe there's a simple way to summarize his sentiments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would say it is about 10% as damaging as one asshat pianist having such thin skin that he is totally unable to accept any bad reviews of his performances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah - I get it. Your real problem here is that this reviewer is not simply acting as an advertisement for your art.
I have an idea: do your own advertising you pedantic jerk. It is not the job of a reviewer to steer them to listening to your music. The reviewer is supposed to steer them TO MUSIC THEIR READERS LIKE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say what you will about the Music Industry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Say what you will about the Music Industry, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seem to want to stop any kind of blasphemy by any means possible and keep their art sacred, whether it be through banning criticism or banning the rights of other artists through copyright when it involves derivative remixes (both of these, let's face it, are one in the same thing - it doesn't just matter what your criticisms are but HOW you criticise).
The whole point about freedom of expression is that nothing is sacred. Not the Bible, not the Koran, not any piece of creativity, and that includes your own god damned expressions which are up for free inquiry and ridicule just as any other. And in any medium, too.
Copyright believers in particular need to stop trying to square this circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Setting the mood
I totally did not imagine him getting to the last line, "I don't think so." and then running out of the room in tears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Setting the mood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I have learned
Having just learned of this Pianist Dejan Lazic he is not making a very good impression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All I have learned
My opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are not the answers you are looking for...
Answer: Well, if you don't like it there, maybe you you shouldn't have put it there!
Answer: Never and never, because that would mean that she had slandered you as a person and not just critiqued your work... If she had called you a nazi or a blue-nosed koala, then you would have a case.
Answer: Not a question but still needs an answer. The only thing evident by this piece of trash you have written, is that soon, the only things people will remember you by is a mildly less than perfect review and a temper tantrum, because you as a person will have disappeared down in that gigantic hole, you have dug for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These are not the answers you are looking for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When Lazic is 50 and has matured into the music he performs, he'll no doubt see his current windmill-tilting as on par with his childish onstage antics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This.. is... UNFAIR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I have learned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]