Weird piece. First, the "name dropping" claim comes after an event in which no name was dropped. It was plagiarism of a work that had been (almost) forgotten. T

Weird piece. First, the "name dropping" claim comes after an event in which no name was dropped. It was plagiarism of a work that had been (almost) forgotten. That's certainly something that plagues classical music. There are many wonderful composers whose works are rarely performed. It's as if there are scores of emporers, all regally clothed. That adjective doesn't really work here, does it? Name dropping in program notes and cd liner booklets (which are still being made for downloadable music, by the way) is a thing, that's true. But it's one of the few objective things you can say about a musician. People like winners. It's advertisement. But then comes the "WTF" moment of the article: > Many classical music lovers still reject aesthetic developments made over a century ago Here, the author seems to think he has the high ground, and discredits everyone who doesn't like 'modern' music. I don't think it suits anyone to judge someone over taste, and it certainly doesn't help the popularity of classical music. One could just as easily argue that people who listen to modern music are poseurs who aggrandize their importance by name dropping the difficult pieces they pretend to enjoy. See how easy that is? No facts or logic needed, and the accusation is almost irrefutable. So, whatever the point of the article is, I think the author doesn't manage to lend it credit. Rather, it's another empty piece, in the style so common of art criticism, where haughty dismissal of common opinion passes for knowledge and understanding. Oops, I did it again.