Two views on music and arts coverage

In yesterday's Star Tribune, Minneapolis teacher (and former actor) Michael Kennedy contributed an op-ed piece saying the Twin Cities face "a quiet artistic crisis." He says the recent cuts in the Strib's arts staff can mean only bad things for the health of the arts community in general.

At least in the realm of classical music, critic Greg Sandow sees it the other way around: If advocates were doing their job better, there would be more coverage.

"Classical music can look predictable to the outside world, and (to be honest) not very interesting," Sandow writes in The Wall Street Journal. "Same old, same old. Great classical masterworks, played by acclaimed classical musicians."

For just about anyone reading this blog, great music played by great musicians is more than enough. But Sandow is saying general-interest newspaper readers are looking for a different kind of incentive: "What does Brahms give us that Mozart, Feist, or Bruce Springsteen can't?"

Kennedy seems especially concerned about a decline in the number of reviews. But I agree with Sandow: Do many people read them? Kennedy is right to say that a healthy arts community needs "clear, serious criticism," but reviews aren't the only way to deliver it. Any feature story aiming to explain Johannes Brahms to a Bruce Springsteen fan would have to invoke "clear, serious criticism" to find credible answers.

And if we need reviews, must they be in the newspaper? Why aren't more of them showing up on the Web?