Today I want to examine a review of pianist Simone Dinnerstein’s performance with the Czech Philharmonic in New Jersey on Friday. Bradley Bambarger, music writer for The Star-Ledger, did something unusual: He gave Dinnerstein a bad review. (Critics tend to love her.)
Bambarger suggests that Dinnerstein is a modern-day, musical Cinderella. She wasn’t a big name in classical music until <poof> one day in 2005 she releases a recording of Bach’s “Goldberg Variations.”
But Bambarger seems to think maybe Dinnerstein should stick to playing “Goldberg.” He rips into her rendition of Beethoven’s ”Emperor” Concerto for not using enough dynamic contrast.
While he isn’t overly harsh in the review, there’s one thing I need to pick on him for:
The program had been listed for months as featuring Dvorak’s Piano Concerto, a piece not played nearly as often as the Czech composer’s concertos for violin or cello. But she switched at the last minute, not feeling prepared.
Here is an instance of a music reviewer forgetting that he is also a journalist. If someone is going to write an assertion such as “not feeling prepared,” it needs to be attributed to someone. If she didn’t say she felt unprepared, and neither did anyone with the orchestra or her management, then it is an assumption of why she switched concertos.
Journalists can’t make assumptions, of course. Without some sort of attribution, it makes it seem as if Bambarger has it out for Dinnerstein. So music writers, look at the Medill School of Journalism’s controversy with the dean and take something away from it: attribute, attribute, attribute.