.jpg)
Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol. 37, No 24. September 18, 1974
Unperceived contrapuntal control
Unperceived contrapuntal control
Dear Sir,
| 1) | I did not "assert" that "Valdramar" is remarkable. In fact, I offered no opinion on the show whatsoever. I merely suggested that your readers might have concluded, on the basis of Mr Campbell's egregious review, that "Valdramar" was remarkable; and whether or not this was a plausible suggestion, it did not commit me to a verdict on that show. |
| 2) | I did not accuse Mr Campbell of "spite and aggression towards the show" — or towards anything in particular. I had in mind his description of (the) Downstage (Theatre Society) as "incestuous". However, I am happy to extend the accusation as Mr Campbell suggests, since he seems so bent on wearing a crown of thorns. |
| 3) | Any abuse I levelled at Mr Campbell was far from "unprovoked" — but I am not surprised that he is unaware how obnoxious, apart from dowright inadequate, his "criticism" can seem. However, this — not to mention his apparent gross insensitivity in the face of, among other things, the demonstrable musical merits of "Valdramar" and the minor ironies of my letter is to be expected, I suppose, of one who has "never felt embarrassed in public in his life". |
| 4) | I certainly do not bear either Mr Campbell or his paranoia anything like "hatred". I couldn't be bothered. |
In the light of these considerations, I feel that my putative obligation to explain to Mr Campbell what he has missed all but evaporates; which is as well, for I am not sure that this would have been possible for one so musically ingenuous as to foment the absence in a score of "decent melodies" — whatever they may be. Perhaps I may make my own position clear by noting what appears to have escaped Mr Campbell so far: that I prefer not to grant his writing the status of "criticism" or "review" at all. Not just because it was a display of ill temper, but because, philanthropist though he may be, Mr Campbell appears to be deaf.
I believe that Gordon Campbell has failed entirely to perceive certain fairly obvious musical merits in the Cockburns' score — for example, its harmonic inventiveness, its contrapuntal control in the development of certain ensembles, its dramatic continuity and compactness. I believe that he failed similarly, to observe strengths in "Valdramar" other than the vital musical ones, and so his criticisms of all except certain technical difficulties are unfounded. He is, it would seem, insensitive to the stylistic objectives and achievements of at least this particular piece of music-drama, however much social science he might know. It is perhaps inevitable that someone prone to discover "arrogance and elitism" exemplified in a theatrical production should be unsuited or unwilling to discern its internal artisitic merits. Mr Campbell's criticism fails because it is not, despite his protests, specific in the right way: he is unable to provide any penetrating internal criticisms of the work. It is not enough, or even, of interest, to say "It, sounded ghastly", or "It's just a set of riffs": one must, I believe, to be informative, point to stylistic reasons for the failure claimed — show that the work is unsuccessful on its own terms.
But the spectacle of Mr Campbell's public education could hardly be of further interest to your readers. If Mr Campbell wishes. I suppose it would be possible to analyse the score and its dramatic thread for him, in a little detail, out of the arena. In the meantime I think I can most charitably only express my hope that he will get a better seat or a better dinner when he goes to "Valdramar" again.
Robert Love