Putting aside everything regarding the purpose and value of critics, it seems to me that if you are going to write about a performance where the players "didn't play any of the works with too much inspiration" you should not write a review that shows absolutely no inspiration itself. You know, maybe you could show the object of your criticism what real inspiration is. Not so for Geraldine Freedman and her
banal review of the Avanti Wind Quintet. Does she see the irony of writing "business as usual" in an article as useless as this? Or does she notice but not care? Maybe the performance was uninspired; that's beside the point. And even though it makes me feel a bit uneasy when those who don't or can't perform criticize those who do, that's not the point either. No, the point is that her response to this "uninspired" performance is something so pointless and devoid of insight that I'm forced to believe it's really a joke. Surely Geraldine Freedman wasn't compensated for writing this article. How could anyone who throws around "business as usual" take payment for such a piece of work? In my perfect world, people wouldn't be paid to write such garbage. The folks who read it might actually be fooled into thinking that this critic (and others like her) are qualified to do their job.
