September 18, 2007
Hatto Tip: Experts Don’t Always Know What They’re Talking About
I am officially a non-expert. The extent of my vocabulary around the savants is “Huh?” But I am not one to drown in my drool when a pontificating and preening artiste declares something to be beautiful and expects all mankind to agree just because, well, just because. Sometimes the experts don’t know what they’re talking about and it’s obvious to non-experts.
Sometimes it’s not so obvious, but since we lack the Jr.High-girls-going-to-the-restroom gene that many experts have, we simply don’t get as excited as everyone else.
Two years ago the elite were gaga over Hatto’s amazing recordings.
“I have no hesitation in saying that Joyce Hatto is one of the greatest pianists I have ever heard,” began Jeremy Nicholas in a eulogy for Gramophone. “If you want to experience a perfect assimilation of virtuosity and musicality, then she comes close to faultless.” Critics across the world compared her to legendary artists such as Claudio Arrau, Dinu Lipatti and Sviatoslav Richter. By the time of her death in June 2006, she was, in the words of Jed Distler, “one of the greatest, most consistently satisfying pianists in history.” (source)
Well, it seems like it was all a hoax. A big one. The experts proved they were human, very human. They stampeded to give the Hatto recordings high marks, unrestrained praise, and guys like me who just listen to music went “huh?”.
I suppose it is sweet that a loving husband would steal all kinds of music, time stretch it, and tweak it a little to make it pass for his dying wife’s recordings, but in the end what everybody praised was really nothing.
Experts don’t always know what they are talking about.
Posted by Bob Bixby at September 18, 2007 03:26 PM | eMail this entry! | 285 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Politics and Culture
Your thesis about experts may be correct, but I don’t think this example helps to demonstrate it. The “experts” weren’t commenting on the authenticity of her work. They were praising what seemed to be quality performing across a wide range of musical literature, which in fact “her” recordings did have, because her husband had borrowed the best works of B-level artists and then improved them through editing.
Posted by: Austin at September 18, 2007 05:36 PMMy point is that a number of people (this is actually on record) had the same thought I did when I first heard about her ~ how was it feasible that someone her age and that sick could record 190 plus CDs (if I remember correctly). In other words, it seems as the critics who are supposed to be skeptics weren’t and normal people (at least some of them) were.
But your point is well taken. I see it. I humbly admit the weakness of my illustration.
Posted by: bob at September 18, 2007 06:11 PM
