JEFFREY DANE - his response to "That Diatribe"

The Essays of Jeffrey Dane

Jeffrey Dane's Response to "That Diatribe"
Ed Note: In an attempt to show all parts of this discussion, we have not mentioned the name of the author Jeffrey Dane speaks about. We assume Jeffrey Dane refers to the piece written in response to his essay
"The Composers Pianos. To make it fair for all, see Jeffrey Dane's "The Composer's Pianos" here.
See the piece written about Mr. Dane's essay (the *diatribe) here. See the comment
about both of these pieces from Donald Grant DeMan here.

* "diatribe" the name given to us by Mr. Dane

Please note that each of these items is posted as received, your editor has in no way "touched them up" or edited them in any way, (that allusion was made by one of the authors). We have never taken sides in these discussions, only report them as best as we can. Each of these pieces is too long for a normal inclusion in the Vox Pop Page. That is why each of them has it's own special page. Your editor does not want to cause or promote ill-feeling between our writers, one to the other and hopes only that we have give fair and equal exposure to all sides received on this story, which we shall continue to do if more comment is to be made on the story. We do not have an editing staff and errors, plenty of them do creep in. We apologize for that, but rest assured there is nothing intentionally like that done

Jeffrey Dane's Response to "That Diatribe"

(my response to that diatribe).
THE "KNOW-IT-ALL"
by Jeffrey Dane © Jeffrey Dane 2001

Some people actively seek fault or inconsistency of any kind as though it were gold. Many who believe they've found it relish the discovery. Everyone has the right to be a fool. One of them, it would appear, is a dealer in piano reproductions who offered comments, posted in The Inditer on March 3, 2001, about some of my work.

Ask ten different people the same question and you'll often wind up with twelve different opinions. "Everyone's an expert" is an expression we've all heard, and we often encounter such self-appointed authorities in our daily lives. The late George Burns embodied the very concept when he said, "It's a shame the people best qualified to run the government are busy cutting hair, shining shoes, and driving taxis." Not everyone is an expert - - but everybody, it seems, has an opinion, and opinion - regardless of how persuasively one tries to express it - is not expertise. It's a given that none of us are perfect (except, perhaps, the man who was so offended by my research and writing) - but Heaven help us when some people notice an imperfection or inconsistency, or even when they simply disagree with what we say or do - or write. Watch out!

Anyone can complain in long-winded Letters to the Editor (often the refuge, mainly in print-publications, of the failed, frustrated writer). Before its publication as an article, Mr. Know-It-All's original communiqué to The Inditer was a letter to the editor. Though we all make mechanical errors, typos and misspellings were legion in his original "cirtique" of my article on "pinaos" (as just two examples), which seem to have been rectified by some pre-publication cleanup by The Inditer's editor. The correspondent's letter's last comment is extremely revealing almost as a plea for some exposure: "Feel free to post my comments on your bulletin board if you like" - and that he refers to an electronic magazine of The Inditer's quality as "a bulletin board" clearly reveals where he's coming from and is downright offensive. Not everyone, however, can do what we independent historians do: we don't claim to have achieved perfection but we succeed literally through our own independent efforts - not necessarily because of others, but often in spite of the hostility of many. They're those without whose help our work is still written and published.

Mr. Know-It-All tells us a great deal but says very little. The desperation of his refutations seems almost palpable and speaks for itself: volumes about him, attitude and temperament, but it says little about me and my work, and to pretend otherwise would make no sense. The impression (implied, not inferred) that he gives is a distinct but very common one: that of the quintessential professor straightening out the errant student. We all know the type. He seems intent on trivializing, or altogether invalidating, my work. It's his right to try, but the very intensity of the exceptions he takes suggests a puzzling agenda and would almost seem to indicate some ulterior motive ( - perhaps even an effort to promote his piano business). One of his remarks, in particular, is very telling: "The structure of the article is so haphazard that it is difficult to follow a coherent argument." My writing has been called many things, but never haphazard. That Mr. Know-It-All chooses the word "argument," a noun with contentious connotations, rather than the more benign, personable "discussion" is something I find very noteworthy. He should think about these things.

His appearance on these pages is reminiscent of and corresponds closely to something I experienced about ten years ago before a monograph of mine was published. Some "expert" (it turned out to be a high school English teacher masquerading as "a music critic") seemed Hell-bent on preventing the publication of my piece, for whatever his reason(s) may have been - and those reasons, like Mr. Know-It-All's, may have been suspect. A need for some control, by whatever means and in whatever form, may have played a role here. Among numerous professionals, that "music critic" was the only person who took such exception, and with such vehemence, to what I had done. My "crime" was to have written some things with which he just didn't agree. Perhaps he was right and everyone else was totally wrong.

The fact is - and Mr. Know-It-All had no way of knowing this - that a number of professionals, including pianists and other musicians, saw the typescript of that article on the composers' pianos before it was offered to The Inditer. I had asked them to focus on and confine their comments to any blatant errors of fact (and/or mechanical tpyos) they might have found, rather than to have a discussion (not an "argument") of matters of viewpoint or personal interpretation. Some of their suggestions were incorporated into the piece before publication. I suppose Mr. Know-It-All will insist he's still right but that they, too, were all mistaken? Of course, of course. The Bible is a great book, but it is not "the only book." Mr. Know-It-All might actually disagree with this. The mode of his comments indicates as much. The gentleman should be assured that he has the right to be wrong. If I subjected my work to everyone who wanted to have a hand in it, I'd never have the chance to finish anything.

If Mr. Know-It-All is an expert his qualifications seem self-bestowed. In his tirade, he tries very hard to create the impression of competence and that he actually knows what he's talking about. The concept of "A" for Effort applies here - though in this particular case "A" would signify not "effort" but something quite different yet still fittingly descriptive, and which I wouldn't say to nice people. Just as my work pleases some and not others, he might fool some but not others. By his own admission, he's a dealer not even with authentic antique pianos but only with modern reproductions of them. He speaks therefore as a businessman - a piano salesman or technician, of whatever echelon and/or caliber - who is trying to clothe his remarks in a music historian's garb. By way of comparison, there are intrinsic and important differences between lab technicians, nurses, and doctors, notwithstanding the need and value of each, and if a lab technician engaged in specific physicians' activities he could do irreparable harm and be incarcerated for it.

Many such people fancy themselves as musicologists, an assumption they take based on little more than their being in a music-related field. We've all seen how delusions of grandeur and the attendant self-inflation can affect those who have been unsuccessful but who nevertheless continue deluding themselves through pitiful frustration and anger at their own failures in reaching goals (e.g., the "college grad" with ersatz diplomas on his walls, but who never went past high school). Heaven knows there might be some who feel that way about me and my work. That they might feel that way and even make such a claim, verbally or in writing, doesn't make it so. Mr. Know-It-All may not agree with this and he may not like it, which would prompt a TFB situation. (TFB is the acronym for Too Bad).

Unfortunately a characteristic of those - male and female - who engage in such contentions seems to be a kind of Napoleonic power complex that affects their outlook and even their sensibility and logic, in which such an individual seems to envision an image of himself in the uniform of a military general in a cocked hat, astride a white horse and holding a gleaming sabre above his head, "with all the forces of Right and Righteousness martialled behind him" (Clarence Darrow). The very tone of Mr. Know-It-All's comments exemplifies it. To be a piano salesman, a piano technician, or even the CEO or the owner of a musical firm, is not to be a music historian (though he's welcome to so delude himself if he wishes). If he's a piano salesman, his expertise in very specific technical and/or historical matters could be limited and even questionable. If he's a piano technician per se, his perception almost by definition would be from a vantage point almost microscopically close to the subject matter - and which could be too close to give him a clear perspective. You can't see the picture if you're standing inside the frame.

If he wants to revise and re-mold history to suit his own beliefs and support his own personal conclusions, he might consider doing it with a constructive contribution - like a book, or by researching and writing articles, and finding published homes for them (as authors do) - rather than by merely pointing accusatory fingers with verbose pomposity thinly disguised as "expertise." Anyone at the employment agencies can say to you - and many of them will - "I don't like your resume. . ." and that it's lacking and needs improvement. Few of them, however, are willing, or even able, to give you specifics or even to offer you general relevant advice about how to improve it. Getting off a few shots in that manner and then leaving you "holding the bag" is what's commonly known as a cop-out.

One could say about Mr. Know-It-All's litany essentially what he opines about my article, that it's quite worthless and doesn't warrant any serious consideration. Why, then, did he react to it with such intensity - and at such length? The question is rhetorical - and most of us would know the answer, because his motivation seems to have a transparency that Kodak would envy. How dare anyone do, say, or write something with which Mr. Know-It-All might not agree? Another rhetorical question: Did he intend his remarks as positive, constructive comments - or did he feel a need to spew invective for selfish (but we hope not sinister) reasons? Let the reader be the judge. My aim is and always has been to make a contribution, even if it's ultimately only a modest or peripheral one, to the sum of human knowledge. What's Mr. Know-It-All's aim? We already know where he's coming from. Now we know where he's headed.

He may be genuinely sincere but he's also misguided. He also seems to share some of the more unfortunate characteristics of the hard-of-reading. Most of what he says is opinion, viewpoint, and interpretation - not fact. For example, that he finds ". . . no connection between the pianistic writing of late Beethoven and a supposed love of the Broadwood" doesn't mean that no connection exists. Would he insist that a particular question has no answer merely because he doesn't know what the answer to the question is? "This is the essence of Beethoven's pianism," claims Mr. Know-It-All at one point. How in this world or any other does he know this? He doesn't. He offered a personal opinion as gospel. A former chief music critic for The New York Times - a journalistic bully who basked in the glory of the power he wielded - made in one of his books a comment that warrants quoting in this context: "We know as much about Beethoven's playing as he knew about ours." I am loathe to quote him but the "Credit where credit is due" principle applies here: the remark, though a personal conclusion, is absolutely beautiful in its purity, logic, and clear, simple truth. I defy anyone to disprove it as a bottom-line statement. Case closed.

By its nature, what's most obvious can easily escape our attention. The crux of the matter may be thus: Who's to say which information is correct when the evidence is in conflict? When research efforts are "wide-ranging and extensive" (Mr. Know-It-All's own words in referring to my work), it would be naïve at best, and at worst, ludicrous - and even dangerous - to believe that the information in every source would be totally consistent. Herein seems to be the underlying reason for most historical disagreement - and it's probably what incited Mr. Know-It-All to action. History is not based solely on official decisions and even on written documents, regardless of how important they can be. To offer evidence is not "to prove" - and evidence can be contradictory.

I've here given his epistle whatever consideration it warrants; I've addressed those points I felt were deserving of it; the time and effort I've expended in this response is all that I can spare him, and is certainly worth the several minutes it's taken me to type this up. If Mr. Know-It-All has nothing better to do, and believes he's going to initiate an ongoing electronic dialog involving me, he's as wrong as he claims I am in my writing and he'll be an even more disappointed man than he might already be. The fact is I have important work to do. Granted, logistically he may have the last word in this regard - but I have the last laugh.

In his memoirs, composer Miklos Rozsa had this to say about critics: ". . . You can positively sense them waiting to pounce . . . Two thousand people applaud enthusiastically and one critic makes uncharitable remarks. Which is more important?" His observation fittingly corresponds to the situation at hand.

I've heard from people - friends and strangers alike - about my work, and my experience shows me that I'll hear from people about this piece of mine, too. I wonder how much positive acknowledgement Mr. Know-It-All will get about his tirade.

"The artist creates. The parasite destroys" (consult Ayn Rand). The creator makes observations. The parasite makes judgements. Mr. Know-It-All's disapproval speaks for itself, as does the tone of his rant. In his diatribe, he unwittingly presents two possibilities: either I am crazy or he has chosen to be foolish in the extreme. I've concluded I'm not crazy.

A reaction like his is not a new phenomenon. They did the same kind of thing to Robert Schumann. Who are "they"? We don't remember them. We remember Schumann. "They" criticized. Schumann created - and he left us work which outlived him, which outlived them, and which will outlive us.

Mr. Know-It-All has offered his comments, and they should be accepted (for what they are worth). Firstly, I'm actually indebted to him for having offered his denunciations - and when I owe a debt, I pay it back. It's given me the material for this article. Secondly, it may actually please Mr. Know-It-All to know that he created a bit of a quandary for me. The quandary involved a choice of what I should do: (1) Would it be worth my time and effort to play into his hands by responding in the very same kind of miniscule detail to each of his interminable pronouncements, thereby perpetuating the absurdities, or (2) Should I pursue more fruitful, beneficial and rewarding endeavors by continuing my research today for more articles that I'll write and see published in print and electronic magazines and newspapers? Have a good day - and may that day be as pleasant as you are. - Jeffrey Dane

The Jeffrey Dane Main Page - - - The Inditer Index - - - The Inditer Main Page - - - Email Jeffrey Dane