Winnipeg Free Press > Detour > Hold your applause > All comments

Detour

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Hold your applause

If local art is to be taken seriously, we can't lavish praise on every hometown production

By: Bartley Kives

30/05/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 105

IF there’s one thing this city can safely boast about, it’s a creative class that punches well above its weight on the national scene.

Supposedly self-deprecating Winnipeggers have no problem celebrating their own success stories in the arts and cultural industries, which is justifiable, considering the achievements of our city's musicians, filmmakers, writers, designers and visual artists.

But if Winnipeg wants to continue to be taken seriously, its citizens must also observe the corollary of the self-congratulatory impulse: we must never give a free ride to bad art, even if it's made by Winnipeggers for consumption by other Winnipeggers.

On May 21, about 2,200 people filed into the Centennial Concert Hall to witness the world premiere of I Believe, a Holocaust-inspired musical composed by Winnipeg music teacher and choral arranger Zane Zalis.

Most of the audience appeared to enjoy the performance, which some members of the city's Jewish community have praised as a means of conveying a story about the Holocaust to an audience that may not know much about the Nazi horror.

But the sad truth is I Believe should never have been presented to such a large audience in such a professional context.

Zane Zalis's creation may be one of the most poorly conceived and executed works of art ever presented on a Winnipeg stage, given the gulf between its weighty subject matter and the shallow nature of the composition.

Stylistically, I Believe employs a combination of classical bombast and 1970s-era Broadway show tunes to attempt tell the entire story of the Holocaust, the intellectual and spiritual watershed event of humanity's modern age.

To call this work tonally inappropriate is kind of like saying it's a bad idea to munch popcorn at a funeral. There are so many unintentionally comic moments in this piece, it approaches the form of biting parody you normally find in animated shock-satires like South Park or Robot Chicken.

Imagine an episode of The Simpsons in which the students of Springfield Elementary perform Holocaust: The Musical. That was close to the scene two Thursdays ago at the Centennial Concert Hall, where one imagined the talented members of the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra struggling to conceal their contempt for the work they were obligated to perform.

While the esthetic crimes committed by this piece are too numerous to name, there are two particular moments that must be revisited.

Narrator Shelley Faintuch, who was handed the task of adding clumsy exposition to an already trite libretto, was somehow compelled to muster up a Snidely Whiplash sneer when she uttered the name "Hitler" -- accompanied by a flash of blood-red lighting, just in case some dense member of the audience did not get the point.

And the decision to trot out a young boy to mouth the final words of clunking show-closer I Will Remember You (no, not the Sarah McLachlan ballad) was so comically manipulative, it led me to giggle instead of cheer.

To place this in a personal context: one of my great aunts died in a Nazi concentration camp. I may never forgive Zalis for creating a clumsy and vainglorious tribute not just in her name, but in the name of six million Jews and nine million other Europeans who died in ghettos and trains and camps and marches and gas chambers.

The problem is, Zalis didn't just choose a wildly inappropriate medium to tell the story of the Holocaust. He bit off far more than he or any other composer could possibly chew in the space of the single piece.

Many works of art have been inspired by the Holocaust, the event that forever shattered humanity's faith in itself. But the few successful ones deal with just a tiny chunk of this enormous, paradigm-shattering subject and use a mix of horror, dissociation and dissonance to set the right tone.

Arguably, the most successful musical piece inspired by the Holocaust is Different Trains, American minimalist composer Steve Reich's 1998 juxtaposition of his own childhood travels across the U.S. at the same time Jewish children in Europe were taking locomotive rides to their deaths in Nazi-occupied Europe.

Architecturally, Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum Berlin has an appropriate design: Its jagged angles and zig-zag passages leave the visitor with a feeling of not knowing where they are.

Personally, I can't recommend any Holocaust-inspired movie as entirely appropriate, despite the relative merits of blockbusters like Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List. But it is possible to create a work of art about the Holocaust and do justice to the subject matter.

Unfortunately, for every tasteful Sophie's Choice, there is more than one Black Book, Paul Verhoeven's unwittingly offensive 2006 Dutch-language thriller whose mix of sexuality and genocidal violence may very well make it the world's sole "Holocaustploitation" film.

I am not arguing I Believe is an exploitative work. It is just an amateurish, offensively lousy work, despite the best performance efforts of a decent choir and an excellent, if likely reluctant, orchestra.

In small communities, there is a tendency to praise all hometown creations in fear of upsetting artistic applecarts.

Winnipeg has a large, mature and robust arts community. Nobody need praise rubbish in this town, lest it be performed again.

 

bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition May 30, 2009 F3

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 3.5 out of 5 (29 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

105 Commentscomment icon

To the editor:
Thank you for your response. You mentioned that this story no longer appears under "most popular" on the home page because other stories have overtaken it in the rankings. I accidentally used the wrong heading. The responses to this article easily outnumber all the others listed under "Most Commented," but it is not listed there either.

Editor's note: All of the "most" lists in the tabbed box are fed dynamically. They don't simply show the most-commented/viewed/emailed stories ever, which would eventually become a rather static list; rather they show the most commented/viewed/emailed stories in the last 24 hours or so.

Flutesnoot: Thank you very much for your very supportive comments! I agree, it's not easy to defend one's position in the face of such opposition, but you did it with style. By the way - who do _you_ think Archie is going to marry? :) LOL!

Goodguy: Your last comment was very thoughtful and well-written. Thanks for that insight.

Most of all, thanks to the moderators - I've noticed you've been up at rather late hours monitoring these comments, and your work is appreciated! :)

I posted a large comment yesterday, which has not yet appeared. Do I have to re-submit?

[Editor's note: Our system does not accept comments longer than 2,000 characters. If your comment was longer than that, please resubmit a shorter version, or break your comment into two. Thanks!]

To whoever edits these posts:
I was just curious to know why no more posts are being displayed. I was talking to someone who sent one in but it has not been posted. Is it due to a policy of some sort, or was a decision made by someone to end them? I also noticed that the link to this article under "most popular" on the home page is no longer being displayed. Why is that?

[Editor's note: we are still accepting comments on this story and they are being moderated as usual. The story's link no longer appears under "most popular" on the home page because other stories have overtaken it in the rankings.]

I'm afraid that these postings have become a war of words that will never be won. I and others have tried to promote the positives of "I Believe" but a small handful of others have chosen to focus on the negatives. Defending Zane Zalis and “I Believe,” while necessary, has not been an enjoyable experience. Goodguy. I agree with your last comment about the mud slinging being misplaced. What started out as comments regarding Barley's trashing of ”I Believe” (and let’s not forget the editor who chose to allow it to be printed), has gotten off track. I agree with PP. It’s time to call a truce and move on. I hope that there will be no further provocative postings that will require rebuttal.

Just to poke the fire one last time... I think if we go back to the original headline of Mr. Kives' article- "Hold your applause", then it seems that all the mud slinging that has been going on is really quite misplaced. Just to redirect- for me what really gets stuck in my craw is the fact that as a performer, it is frustrating to perform ,for less than a full house, a piece of music which may or may not not be well known, but which is undoubtably a truly great work of art (accepting that the definition of art, let alone GREAT art is subjective)only to receive what could be perceived as, well, a luke warm, or polite response.Professional musicians , such as those of the WSO, sweat blood and sometimes compromise their physical health to produce world class performances, no matter WHO the composer, conductor or employer. This is what a professional does. That being said, one does not have the same opportunity in certain pieces of music to infuse them with as much overt energy,(not that this is due to a lack of effort) simply because of the style of playing, or the actual instrumental writing itself. This kind of playing is much less satisfying, emotionally and intellectually for a musician. Hence, it can be frustrating to have an audience respond in what seems like an overly enthusiastic manner to a performance or piece that does not present these opportunities. I realize that this seems selfish, ego-centric or just plain needy, but understand that ALL musicians love music, and want the people who listen to them to share in their passion- to be moved by their efforts. If they don't, then perhaps we have failed- and no one likes to fail.

Opus:

"Hate" is a strong word. That's crossing the line a bit. Do you honestly think anything is served by further attacking me in this venue? Bartley's comments about Zane Zalis and his work were far more demoralizing and far more public than anything I have said, yet for him it is acceptable?

No, Opus... You are not my judge or jury. Can I say that Bartley's article should never have been printed? Absolutely I can - and many agree with me. Would it have been better received had it not been so forceful? Perhaps. Can I say that Bartley should apologize to Zane Zalis? Absolutely - and others have echoed that sentiment. Can I call someone's comments childish - absolutely I can. Will I defend myself if someone calls me arrogant or childish? Absolutely I will - and if you look back in the commentary, that's exactly what this is - someone called me childish, and I defended myself.

There is far more I would love to say to you, Opus, but all you will do is accuse me of "attacking you personally." So I choose to relent.

To the anonymous poster; Thank you for echoing the suggestions that we move on from this. I hope you agree, Opus...

...who, it now appears, is my split personality acting out... :)

skydancer:

I was actually kidding if you were wondering.

skydancer:

You've caught me. I'm also PP. :-)

Hmmmm...Opus, it seems you have a personal vendetta against PP or something. You appear out of nowhere, how far into the discussion here, and just start ripping apart everything PP has said. Out of all the comments you've made, only one really had anything at all to say about the I BELIEVE concert, the rest has just been bashing the other posters comments (especially PP). PP has not been nearly as accusatory as you've made him/her out to be.

I can't help but wonder if you're the same person posting under different usernames. Of course, I can't proove that, but it's a thought...

PP:

You are not "simply disagreeing with Bartley's article and the supporters of said article." You are attacking and demoralizing every dissenter with derogatory remarks and inflammatory terms. You've made accusations that are unfounded and have gone so far as to lobbying for censorship. These are not the statements of mere "opinions" but the literary foundations for "hate". You've opened the doors to these discussions, now I hold you accountable for them.

Opus:

This is the other comment you are referring to in its entirety (from many days ago):

"For the record, if you're calling "I Believe" a satirical work a la Simpsons or Family Guy, I'll bet you're one of those people who would argue the Holocaust never happened, even while knowing the opposite. Playing devil's advocate simply for the sake of "balancing the scales" is NOT always appropriate, warranted, or wanted."

Clearly, I was trying to illustrate that the particular commentator in question would debate or argue _any_ point simply for the sake of argument. I did not accuse the person of being a "holocaust denier" as further evidenced by me offering that they clearly "knew the opposite."

Opus:

If that is how you perceive me, then so be it. I think you have been far more harsh on me than I have been on anyone else, when I am simply disagreeing with Bartley's article and the supporters of said article.

If I think someone is a traitor for participating in a performance when they knew full well what they were getting into, then coming online and saying they were embarassed to be a part of it, that is my opinion.

If I think someone's comments were childish, I will say that too.

You are praising Bartley Kives for his opinion which was, according to many commenters here (not just me) a terrible attack on Zane Zalis.

I am not the only one of this opinion, yet you single me out.

You, Opus, then make the comment that I should be held "accountable" for my opinions. Someone else, indeed a few someone elses in history thought that people should be held accountable for their opinions and words. I leave you to consider who and the results of the execution of that accountability.

This battle between you and I is pointless and not appropriate for this venue. It's time to move on, as I have mentioned before.

Goodguy:
You missed the point completely, which was, that comparisons are pointless. Nobody has measured up to Beethoven in the past 200 years. Why are people criticising Zane for not equalling him? Think of all the concerts that have recently been at the MTS Centre that have gotten great reviews in spite of the fact that they didn't meet such a high standard. Just appreciate it for what it is. Not what it is not.

I agree with you that Zane’s credentials are not what’s important. What is important is how well his composition was received by the audience, which was an enthusiastic, sustained, standing ovation. If I read you correctly, you’re intimating that I am not familiar with the works of John Cage. Having been a musician for nearly 40 years, I’ve heard more than enough of his “music” and would rather forget the titles than list them. Lastly, the point of “I Believe” was to bring the lessons we must learn from the holocaust to those who need to be educated. It’s the message and the way it will get through to an audience that’s important. Not whether or not it’s a masterwork that will be studied by music students.

Congratulations to Mr. Kives for causing the most comments posted on an article that I have ever noted. I think this even beats the construction ticket controvesry just a few weeks ago. Way to go Bart!!

Just as a side note to the paper, maybe you might want to start numbering the comments for your loyal viewers so can have an easier time responding or looking up a comment by a respondent.

Obviously, by the 88 comments listed to-date, the feelings, the emotions and the thoughts toward this performance have been stirred and exposed, just like a raw nerve. I would like to think that everyone has now made their points, and positions quite clear and you all have to give Mr. Kives a thank you for getting you so involved. This is only through the written word of one individual, and look how involved you all became. Wow!! The written word lives on!

But, if anyone is a real winner during all of this, it has to be commenter PP, because out of the 88 comments listed, she contributed 21 times!! Way to go PP!!A strong sense of passion was displayed by you. A distant second was OPUS with at least 9 responses.

Now, can we give this article a rest and move on with our busy lives. For all the ones who loved this performance, buy the CD or DVD when it comes out, I'm sure it will help cover the costs in paying for the Concert Hall.

All this over one event.

Only in Winnipeg could we do this.

PP:

So far, you have:

-accused one commentator as a Holocaust-denier
-called another a "traitor"
-referred to several people as childish

At least with flutesnoot, whom I disagree with, has responded with eloquent thoughts and admirably defenses to his/her position. That is the sort of discourse that contributes to critical discussion. You are simply throwing rants and tantrums.

PP:

As with everybody here, we are free to have our own opinions. What sets your remarks apart is that you've blatantly attacked and demoralized everyone who disagrees with you without anything substantial to back them up with. You cannot simply write off your comments as mere opinions without being held accountable for the attacks you've made on any of us. That is irresponsible.

Opus:

I don't have to justify my position to you. It's my opinion. Opinion, by its very nature, does not require justification beyond "This is my opinion." Right out of the dictionary: "Opinion: a personal view, attitude or appraisal."

Bartley Kives does not have to justify his position - because it's his opinion, and I respect his opinion though I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

I have no idea what you have against me, "I Believe", the WSO or anyone else here whom you have attacked - nor do I care.

You have completely missed the point of this entire debate and your attempts at drawing me further into a pointless battle are futile. If in your world that makes you think you've "won", so be it.

To Bartley:

Referencing your column;

"It is just an amateurish, offensively lousy work, despite the best performance efforts of a decent choir and an excellent, if likely reluctant, orchestra."

If you attack the creation, you attack the creator. Also in that sentence you make the very comment that elicited the response to your column via a letter to the editor from the Executive Director of the WSO.

Your personal attack:

"To place this in a personal context: one of my great aunts died in a Nazi concentration camp. I may never forgive Zalis for creating a clumsy and vainglorious tribute not just in her name, but in the name of six million Jews and nine million other Europeans who died in ghettos and trains and camps and marches and gas chambers."

Another participant in this forum said that could have been something said about Heinrich Himmler. Your column often referenced Zane Zalis personally as opposed to sticking to commentary on the work itself.

My opinion is that your column crossed the line of journalistic decency and _that_ was the the beginning of these comments, not the merits of I Believe or its creator.

Bartley, you've eluded to protestations of WSO performers. Their boss has gone on public record to validate the WSO's support of I Believe. That's enough for me.

Personally, I submit that this comment thread be closed. Everyone has a right to their own opinions, as I have stated several times. This thread has degenerated into attack after counter-attack and focus has been lost.

I stand behind my comments and I continue to be a supporter of "I Believe".

PP:

Obviously you have no leg to stand on in defense of your position, so you have resorted to personal attacks. You have yet to counter my arguments with any reasonable points or logical perspective to sway my position. I await your rationalized retort.

QuantumofReason:

TOUCHE! A most admirable retort that I must commend!

The difference with Anne Frank's diary is that it was written from the first-person's point of view. A detailed collection of thoughts of someone who lived through the ordeal, making it an important account of what happened through the eyes of a human being.

I BELIEVE is not. The analogy I was making was in reference to literature ABOUT the Holocaust from an academic (or 3rd-party's) point of view. Not of a personal account of the events.

Oh - and Opus, if I'm offending you, you're free to stop reading my commentary and picking it to pieces.

@PP: You have repeatedly accused me of making personal attacks. I did nothing of the sort. Please re-read my column.

You and others have also suggested I formed an opinion about WSO employees without speaking to any.

Suffice it to say reporters do not betray confidences.

Again, I encourage anyone who has questions for me about this column -- or any other story -- to contact me directly via phone or e-mail. All my contact information is present on this website.

Bartley Kives



So we can compare Zalis to Bernstein, Williams and Lloyd Weber, but not to Mahler or Beethoven?.. Interesting. Furthermore, Mr. Zalis' credentials can be viewed in his resume, although they are hardly the point. I wonder how many pieces by John Cage you can name- probably as many you have heard. Finally, it is beyond silly to think that Zane Zalis' music will be studied and analyzed by any music students anywhere, ever.(well, maybe Mr. Zalis' own students) Well done flootsnoot!!

Wow Opus - I sure got your knickers in a knot! Now who's reacting with emotion? I have just as much right to strongly disagree with Bartley's column as you do to defend it. Deal with it.

I have only one further thing to say to you;

(quoted)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"Would you take a piece of literature on the Holocaust seriously if it was written with junior high-level grammar?"

You mean, like Ann Frank's diary?

Yes. Yes, I would.

Why the comparisons to Mahler and Beethoven? Leonard Bernstein, John Williams and Andrew Lloyd Weber aren't Mahler or Beethoven, but they're very successful composers. If "I Believe" followed the style of any great composer Zalis would be criticized for not having a style of his own. I’d rather listen to something written by him than by John Cage.

Some people seem to be hung up on the fact that Zane is an educator, which somehow seems to translate as “don’t even try.” Get your facts before you criticise. Opus. Do you actually know what lessons or training Zane has? You're making assumptions. And by the way, although there were major and minor chords, you can’t write a melodic piece of music without some. The choir struggled with many complex chords and rhythms throughout the work. If you couldn’t hear them, then might I suggest that before you comment any more on the score, you take some ear training?

PP:

Some more statements you've made that I (and many of us) take issue with:

““Bart's "journalism" should be condemned”

“You may have written this article, but it never should have seen the light of day”

These statements are tantamount to censorship. Bartley’s article need not be condemned; it is his right to express his true feelings on any work, most especially if it is counter to popular opinion. It is only up to the reader to agree or disagree with it, nothing more. In fact, as history has shown, such a piece of writing becomes that much more important when it incites such critical discussion. That is the foundation of intellectual inquiry and understanding. If it is that offensive to you, then simply stop reading it.

PP:

“anyone critiquing the piece should have _some_ musical credentials” –

In that case, anyone composing a choral/orchestra work should have_some_compositional/orchestrational_credentials. The orchestrations of I BELIEVE were incredibly amateurish and did not utilize the orchestra to the fullest potential. Zane obviously had little training in the art of orchestration, and this weakness was one of the things that diminished its musical impact. As well, all of the songs were built entirely on basic major/minor chord progressions and formulaic song structures (ABA, ABAA, ABACA, etc). These are things one would expect from a preliminary or first-year college student. But for a major work that incorporates a full choir and world-class orchestra, one would expect some level of experience and expertise in the area of harmony and form from the “composer” (not only that, does a minor chord really sum up the loss of millions of lives?). The reliance of such basic concepts is a telltale sign of an amateur composer. Mr. Zalis obviously had little professional training in advanced composition. He would do himself well to invest some time taking lessons from a seasoned orchestral composer. The only analogy I can make is this: If a novelist was to write a book on the Holocaust, one would expect that writer to have mastered the basic elements of rhetoric (allegory, metaphor, linguistic rhythm, etc.). Having these techniques, especially when used in their own “voice”, allows them to direct their points that much more powerfully, render their arguments more convincingly, and express their prose that much more beautifully. Mr. Zalis’ lack of basic compositional/orchestration skills were too painfully obvious that it immediately turned off those with an experienced musical ear. Would you take a piece of literature on the Holocaust seriously if it was written with junior high-level grammar?

PP:

"...and when was the last time that a performance of Mahler caused a sell-out of the Concert Hall?"

Beethoven's 9th...but the point is not which sold the most tickets but whether I BELIEVE is as much of a masterwork as Mahler's 6th Symphony.

PP:

A few statements you made that needs to be pointed out -

“I'm not here to attack anyone personally.”

Then to Goodguy, you state:

“You're a traitor, to the production, to the composer, and most of all, to yourself, for allowing yourself to take part in something that you considered to be so personally embarrassing.”

If you want to express your points across more convincingly, I would suggest that you take on a less hypocritical stance and a more reasoned one.

Mr. or Ms. PP- #1)Objective does not mean positive. It means dispassionate and unemotional. Every defence of "I Believe" has been emotional, and therefore subjective (the opposite of objective). #2)You know what most flies eat, but that doesn't mean that we all should- Mahler does not equal dollar.In other words,performing "I Believe" WAS a sellout! #3) Ms. Schroeder is the business manager of the WSO, and therefore does not represent the artistic side of management. Her comments are correct, but probably do not reflect the opinions of the WSO musicians about the artistic value of "I Believe".

PP:

Beethoven's 9th Symphony was sold out months in advance. It generated some ho-hum reviews but nobody was outraged by that. I BELIEVE is hardly at the same calibre as Beethoven's work (which, by the way, expresses the universality of hope and love of mankind as well) so why should we anybody be outraged by negative reviews of it?

This was not directed at you, thiisme, I was simply elaborating upon your points. I apologize for the confusion.

Goodguy: Nothing is above _objective_ criticism. Bartley's article was not objective.

...and when was the last time that a performance of Mahler caused a sell-out of the Concert Hall?

Regarding the WSO's response, please see "Review too negative" at:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/47297052.html

thisisme: I believe at least a couple of players have come forward to offer support in this forum. However, the letter to the editor on behalf of the entire WSO showing its unified support should be enough.

If your comment is directed at mine, Goodguy, let me be clear. My first point was to explain the possible absence of honest opinion from the players to the other performers on stage. My second was to explain the absence of praise, by the players, in this particular forum.

Professional musicians, such as those of the WSO, also earn their livings (believe it or not) playing music, much of it good, some of it great, and some of it not so good. Just the week before, they had performed Mahler's massive 6th symphony. Interestingly, the reviewer chose to soundly belittle this work. Also interestingly there was no backlash from the musical community of Winnipeg over the ignorant trashing of an acknowledged master work. Why then, is it so difficult to accept the criticism of Mr. Zalis' work? I believe (no pun intended) that for the students involved in this production, there was a huge investment of time, energy and emotion. Obviously they will feel a great personal attachment to the event, as well as to Mr. Zalis. However, that doesn't place "I Believe" in a position above objective criticism. It's no Mahler symphony.

As a professional musician, not in attendance that evening, allow me to offer two salient points:

1. Musicians hired to perform a work, whether they think it is good or not, have a responsibility to behave in a professional manner.

2. When they do appreciate a work, and such a lively debate as this is going on, they tend to join in, identify themselves as players, and offer their praise and their perspective.

flutesnoot:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I think "too old to blog" did a very good job of explaining the offence that many of us took to the original column.

musiclvr, do not be so sure that those of us defending the production are not completely aware of who and what we are defending. I am sorry that you or anyone else (including the lady in front of you at the concert), were not moved by the performance the way that I was. You are entitled to feel that way. I will continue to whole-heartedly support the I BELIEVE project.

I agree with PP, that no one here is likely to change their opinions about I BELIEVE as a result of this debate. Let’s just agree to disagree, and leave it at that before this discussion degenerates any further than it already has.

BB, I think you are absolutely right with your statement: "the main difference is that some people feel that is impossible, and others feel Zalis was able to accomplish what he set out to do." In the end, we ALL want to honour the memories of the Holocaust victims. I BELIEVE does that for many people. If it doesn't do it for all, that's ok. It is ONE way to pass on the legacy; it is not the only way. The means of expression through which you choose to remember is not what's important, so long as you choose to remember.

Opus. Your question may be rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway. As a matter of fact, I did speak directly to two members of the WSO, although Trudy Shroeder would have more contact with them than I would. After the standing ovation at the end of the concert, there was no reason to think that there would be any kind of strong, negative criticism that would require a poll of the musicians and singers to get their opinions of the quality of the music. You didn't expect me to run around asking all the WSO members, did you? Why do you ask?

flutesnoot:

Did you actually hear any of the orchestra musicians praise the work?

(Slight rhetorical question)

Alec: I again thank you for your thoughtful comments, as I have done before. I do still stand behind my comments and the manner in which they were delivered. I do agree that I may have come across somewhat forcefully at times.

This entire debate has made me very thankful that we do live in a society and country where this is allowed, and indeed encouraged!

Thanks to flutesnoot for bringing the WSO's letter to the attention of this thread.

In the end, we are all free to express ourselves and have our own opinions - and I do recognise that.

I think it is safe to say that I and others feel passionately about the success of "I Believe" and think that Bartley's article was in poor taste. Alec, you and others did not like the production and feel that Bartley's article was justified.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one - end of story. It's time to move on.

Don't miss Trudy Shroeder's letter to the editor in June 9th's Free Press. If you had any misgivings about how the orchestra felt about performing "I Believe" this will set you straight. As one of the performers, I know that everyone in my section, most of whom were mature, experienced vocalists, was proud to have been a part of this world class production. I never heard a single negative comment from anyone in the chorus. I don't know what stage Goodguy was on, but it couldn't have been the same one.

PP: Quote: [It is not Bartley's "picking apart" of the work that I'm opposing with such passion. It is his hateful attack on the producer himself and others involved.]

I don't see this column as intended as being a personal attack. I think you're causing more harm than good by assuming it was intended this way, and reading more into it than is there.

I do, however, see a lot of instances of you being very aggressive with other people here in the comments thread. Regardless of whether the author intended to attack anyone, you've proven yourself to be someone prone to ad hominem attacks to try to force your point. Your use of all-caps and insults implies that you are having a very strong, angry reaction - which is why a lot of people assume you are closely tied to the production.

I find it ironic that you feel "I Believe" is about a message of hope, bringing people together - and yet you are acting very aggressively.

I don't think its helping. I don't say this to attack you, but to help explain how you appear to some other people who have read this.

I suggest if you want to convince them of certain positive aspects of the production that you adopt a politer tone and be more open to considering that they have a different viewpoint. (they might not like it, and that's okay)

musiclvr: My motives are my own. Bravery, as is art, is in the eye of the beholder. I do not consider Bartley's article brave in any way - clearly you do. As has been mentioned several times, everyone is entitled to their opinion. EVERY survivor I spoke to had only positive comments about the concert - do you know if the lovely older lady you spoke to was a survivor?

I'm not here to attack anyone personally. I was deeply offended by Bartley's article and commented as such. The issues at hand here are clearly polarizing, and anyone offering any opinion or position likely won't have their opinion or position changed as a result of these comments. However, I have just as much right to defend this production as you do to criticize it - and no matter what you say or how you indeed choose to attack ME now, I will continue my defense, because I Believe.

Goodguy: You weren't forced to be there. You had many rehearsals and plenty of opportunity to opt out. You're a traitor, to the production, to the composer, and most of all, to yourself, for allowing yourself to take part in something that you considered to be so personally embarassing.

If it is true that "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE", then the work "I BELIEVE" is a sad commentary on our society's ability to address the horror of mankind's own evil through anything other than the context of shallow mock-rock. This work sounded more like "Mama Mia" than a serious representation of genocide. And Bartley, I was embarrassed to be on that stage,as were many of us.

PP

My Gracious, in response to my comment, you have taken the liberty of questioning my judgment as well as my appreciation for the journalism profession. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much!" Why the unhealthy enmeshment if you are in fact a neutral observer?

Please look in your closest dictionary for the various uses of "Brave" as an adjective. Woodward and Bernstein did not come under gunfire, were they not brave?

The final comment I have is courtesy of the lovely older lady the row ahead of me, brought to the performance by a Grandson.

At the conclusion of the show she was quietly weeping, when she composed herself she was asked by her Grandson what she thought her reply: "He (Zalis) made a joke of it!"

A more honest or heartfelt review I have never heard!

PP, before you respond with more personal attacks, think deeply about your motives, and WHO and WHAT you are so vigorously defending.

Thank you

I guess for myself, I’m unsure why BK should apologize for feeling offended by ZZ’s work. In his column, he states why he disliked “I Believe.” However he also mentions that it was well received by others in the audience.

I re-read the column and was unable to find any slight towards Shelley Faintuch or the WSO. The way it read to me, BK felt sympathy for their roles in the piece.

It is understandable though for those that were touched deeply by “I Believe,” would feel that BK has offended them and would confuse an opinion-based column with a news article.

Also, thank you for directing towards the Yad Vasem website. I was able to find the abstract for Zalis’ presentation at the International Conference on the Holocaust and Education last year.

“As a composer/educator I created a large scale musical work that presents that Holocaust from inside the minds of the victims and the perpetrators.” – Zane Zalis

I guess the main difference is that some people feel that is impossible, and others feel Zalis was able to accomplish what he set out to do.

Alec: What you've said has indeed been concise, intelligent, and thoughtful. And yes, you're absolutlely entitled to your opinion. However, if your idea of being "mature and positive" is being measured vis a vis Bartley's article, that leaves me to question your definitions in that regard.

It is not Bartley's "picking apart" of the work that I'm opposing with such passion. It is his hateful attack on the producer himself and others involved.

Again, I reiterate - this is not about the production itself or its merits. Bartley's article crossed the line of reasonable, fact-oriented journalism and I wholeheartedly agree with "too old to blog" that an apology of some sort should be in order.

The holocaust was long before my time, but I am certain that it was a hell so inconceivable that most attempts to describe it unintentionally down-play reality. When someone comes closer to capturing it, others cannot comprehend how a horror like that is even possible and label it "over-the-top" or "embellished".
[edited]
"I Believe" was created with the intent of educating future generations. You mention the profound experience of having "visited Yad Vashem". Were you aware that Yad Vashem, the foremost authority on Holocaust remembrance and education, has endored the I Believe project? If they, and the survivors, feel that I Believe accurately imparts the legacy, then I'm sorry, but I'll take their word over yours.

Mr. Bonner, I absolutely agree - time will tell!

PP: Quoted: [I do, though, appreciate your intelligent comments - a great deal of this controversy has involved mud-slinging and your comments were (almost) free of that, with the notable exception of calling "I Believe" a "cheesy, ham-fisted tribute."]

Expressing my opinion is not mud-slinging. I'm not saying that to hurt anyone's feelings, its an honest expression of what I think of the work.

I can appreciate that you and others have a different perspective. I'm not saying that your perspective is necessarily wrong. But if you get offended by someone simply stating that they found something you liked cheesy and unnecessarily over the top, you're going to be very upset a lot of the time.

The problem is that you're viewing this column and related comments as some kind of "personal" attack. (in that you have some important personal connection to the work, or if not - feel it attacks an opinion that you have. its clear that you have some important connection to the work based on how much energy you're putting into defending it)

I think its a much more positive response to try to understand why people feel the way they do, rather than rail against it immediately. You run the risk of distancing more people than you intended to if you assume everyone is trying to attack you. (you'll become overly defensive and counter-offensive)

I learned this lesson the hard way by being overly defensive of things I worked or liked a lot on when I was younger. To whit, I can completely understand how crushing it feels to have someone pick apart something you feel connected to. But its an important experience - and its important to be able to respond to it in a mature and positive way.

Mr Kives,
If you had expressed yourself in your column, the way you have now done on line, I suspect reader reaction would have been minimal. You are, of course, entitled to an opinion. However, you crossed the line when you asked readers to "imagine the talented members of the WSO struggling to conceal their contempt for the work they were obligated to perform" and labelled the composer's intentions as "vainglorious" and the narrator as "Snidely Whiplash". You acknowledge having never met Zane Zalis- yet you feel comfortable in attributing the worst to him. You did not speak with any members of the WSO, yet you feel free to carefully manipulate your language to suggest their discomfort in performing the work. I suspect you also do not know that the only emotions expressed by the narrator were those of someone who has keenly felt the pain of Holocaust from a closer distance than you.

Because of the personal nature of your attack, your explanation is worthless without a more public apology to Zane Zalis and the others that you have maligned.

Living in the UK, I haven't been able to see this play - so can't comment on it specifically. What I can say is great art tends to travel, and be performed repeatedly, whereas less worthy art is usually quickly forgotten.

With this work, time will tell...

Bartley: I'm impressed that you've followed the comments on your article. As you can see, this is less about "I Believe", the Holocaust or its meaning.

This stemmed from your very personal attack on Zane Zalis, Shelley Faintuch and the WSO which bordered on libellous (thanks again for the correction KBT).

Column or review, the defenders posting here and a great deal more people believe you crossed the line. Some do not feel that way. Many people thoroughly enjoyed "I Believe" - some did not. Everyone, even you, is entitled to their opinion - but your very personal comments damaged your journalistic credibility with a great deal of readers.

Your comment posted here was insightful and well-written, and I thank you for that. I also thank you for making an important point - "...and most horrifically, numbers." "Numbers" was an important movement of "I Believe" oratorio, and when Ms. Cowie was reciting a number at the beginning of that movement, that very number belonged to a survivor in the audience. It was HIS request that SHE say HIS number, as the chorus also recited numbers of victims of the Holocaust.

Your other comment "As a species, we still haven't confronted what we have done to each other and continue to do to each other, in vivid, painful and horrific detail" really resonates well. You probably don't believe you stepped over the line with your column, but I guarantee you that Zane Zalis took your words very personally and I'm sure it hurt - and, as a species, we can and should be more caring and constructive than you were.

Hi, everybody. Thanks for all the comments.

Just a couple of things I'd like to add, seeing as people continue to comment:

1. I wrote a column, not a review. Gwenda Nemerofsky wrote the review, which appeared May 23.

2. I've never met Zane Zalis.

3. I am easily reached at bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca, should any of you seek to contact me.

4. Since I wrote this column, I've been made aware of Holocaust historian Lawrence Langer's work. In a nutshell, Langer is highly critical of any philosopher or artist who attempts to derive some sort of meaning from the Holocaust, whose horrors defy reason. He is particularly critical of those who contrive a message of hope from horrific genocide. Like many Holocaust historians, he is concerned with remembering the who, what, when, where and how ... not the why.

This is instructive. To me, interpretation is unimportant when you consider the Holocaust, the Holodomir, the Khmer Rouge horror, the nightmares in Burundi and Rwanda, the aftermath of European contact with North America's indigenous population and every other genocide that has afflicted humanity. There is no justification or rational explanation for genocide.

As a species, we still haven't confronted what we have done to each other and continue to do to each other, in vivid, painful and horrific detail. Perhaps we can focus on the why once we confront the past, and respectfully, we have yet to do so. That's what's meant by the term "remembrance."

In 2001, I visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial on the edge of Jerusalem. It was a profound experience. There is little in the way of poetry there: Just names, dates, places, photographs and most horrifically, numbers.

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but the Holocaust does not require embellishment.

Bartley Kives

I absolutely agree that freedom of expression means that people are "free to criticize your work as they please", but we can go around in a circle with that. Composers are free to write the music and perform in the venue of their choice, critics are free to not like it and write about it, and I am (and others are) free to write about not liking the critic's so called journalism.

I also agree that criticism is necessary to learn and grow, but as an adult educator, I can tell you with absolute certainty, that you will lose the receptiveness of your audience if your criticism is not constructive. If Kives can't even come up with ONE good thing to say about the composition, it tells me that he wasn't actually watching the performance with an open mind, and that his article was never intended to be an UN-BIASED review.

I continue to be bothered by the fact that the WFP would publish a review where the "journalist" used fiction to support his review. ("one imagined the talented members of the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra...") THAT is fiction, NOT journalism! If society had more journalists who actually told the truth, THEN newspapers might actually be worth reading!

KBT: Thank you for the correction re: libel vs. slander - and this is not about freedom of speech at all. Just as Bartley is free to write whatever he wishes, I am free to disagree with it. Zane Zalis is free to express himself in whatever manner he chooses, whether people like it or not. Bartley calling the work "vainglorious" is insulting enough to discredit his entire article, not to mention many other points that were simply his personal opinion.

Alec: As mentioned above, I don't anything against freedom of expression is being suggested. I think that Bartley's article would have engendered far less criticism had it been more technical and objective, and less personal opinion and attack on the composer himself.

I am also not suggesting that critics must create their own Holocaust-themed symphony - only that anyone critiquing the piece should have _some_ musical credentials.

Nobody is being FORCED to praise anything - the controversy here is not about the merits or quality of "I Believe" - it is about Bartley Kives being called a "brave journalist" for his attack on Zane Zalis (AND Shelley Faintuch, the Jewish Federation and the WSO as a whole.)

As an aside, a lot of (very important) people have publically gone on record to praise and commend "I Believe".

I do, though, appreciate your intelligent comments - a great deal of this controversy has involved mud-slinging and your comments were (almost) free of that, with the notable exception of calling "I Believe" a "cheesy, ham-fisted tribute."

Lastly, and I have mentioned this before - the only thing I had to do with the production of "I Believe" was buying tickets to see it.

musiclvr:
"I Believe" was clearly designed to have the widest reach possible to all walks of life and musical tastes. Personally I think this was well achieved with the manner in which it was presented, giving new life and exposure to a topic of humanity's past which should never be forgotten.

You should consider further demonstration of "Canadian politeness" and exercise better judgement by not lending support to an critic like Bartley - whose article was no honest review of the performance but a complete assassination of its composer in the worst possible taste.

If you consider his article "brave journalism" you clearly have not read and indeed do not appreciate some of the accounts of those journalists who have covered and indeed died in war zones. THAT is bravery - not publically bashing another human being's creative work in a forum where the creator has absolutely no defense.

I agree with skydancer - the only metric that matters is the reaction of the Holocaust survivors in attendance, and Bart's "journalism" should be condemned, not praised.

PP and others seem to suggest that one must write a holocaust musical before being allowed to criticize another holocaust musical.

I'd be willing to do that, actually. It'd be fun to write a cheesy, ham-fisted tribute to one of the most complex and tragic events in recent human history.

The critics of this review seem to imply that it is against freedom of expression. I'm sorry, but freedom of expression means others are free to criticize your work as they please.

I don't think anyone thinks "I Believe" shouldn't have been allowed to be made. But nobody should be forced to praise it just because its about the holocaust. Just because an artist choses to create a work about a serious and tragic event does not mean its immune from criticism. (it also doesn't mean that the work itself is necessarily moving in a serious or tragic way - it depends on the merits of the work)

I worry about what students at Miles Mac are learning, judging by the comments here. (I'm assuming they're coming from people close to the production) It can be really hard to take brutal criticism for something you spent a lot of time and effort creating - but its necessary. Its necessary for becoming a better artist and a better person.

Its also necessary to be able to respond to negative feedback in a positive and productive way. I'm not saying its easy, its never easy. But its a reality of the world, and its important to take in what you can from the response and make the best of your next project.

PP: Bart's review cannot be slanderous, since it is a written piece. It would be libellous, not slanderous.

That said, it is neither: Bart does not present any untruths that besmirch Zalis' character. He merely presents his opinion about how he was offended by the piece, offended enough to not sugar-coat his feelings in some politically correct bit of namby-pambyism.

Just goes to show that freedom of speech only applies until you have the temerity to actually say something.

If society had more journalists who don't feel the need to pander to popular opinion, newspapers might actually be worth reading!

Thank you Mr. Kives for this forthright and excellent review! During most of this performance I sat thinking that this work was more suited to a high school gymnasium or Rainbow stage, well before I learned of Mr. Zalis' professional pedigree! The use of the Holocaust as a vehicle for a musical (IT WAS A MUSICAL) was ill planned/produced and poorly executed. By the rumblings of the audience around me it was clearly not unanimously well accepted, but like any polite Canadian I and others stood to applaud with my hands if not my heart and mind.

Thank you again Mr. Kives for your bravery in journalism.

I note that Kives is writing about something else he is an expert on in the June 6 issue of the paper - pork. How funny is that! I'm the one giggling now.
On listening to I Believe Kives says it's a bad idea to munch popcorn at a funeral. How about extolling the joys of the pulled pork sandwich 1 week after mounting a personal attack on the composer of a piece about the Holocaust based on your personal outrage as a Jew and as the great-nephew of someone who died in the camps. Imagine the angry reviewer choking on the pulled pork sandwich he snuck into the concert hall when the crowd rose in applause. Guess he should have brought in some milk to wash down the snack.

Maybe his new assignment was divine intervention, [edited]

Taste is purely subjective. Whether its art, music or food, people’s opinions will differ. Bartley Kives is entitled to not like “I Believe,” but I resent his vicious attack on a work that was applauded by survivors, their families, and the general public. When did he become the self-appointed mavin of what we should all like? Of what should or should not be written or performed? If he had written such a scathing article about a local athlete or sports team, would anyone be thanking him for his honesty or praising his cojones? Not likely.

freepreader:

- "I Believe" is not a musical.
- Bartley's review is not honest, it is slanderous.
- If you weren't there, you have nothing to base a judgement on.

Bartley,
It took a lot of cajones to give an honest review of the musical, considering the self-patronizing nature of the arts scene in Winnipeg. Thank you!

One last posting... For anyone who wants to hear the words right from the mouth of a survivor:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/saying-the-inexpressible-42843332.html

Maybe archives should be checked next time before one writes such a scathing article, Bartley.

Apples and oranges. You can't compare Pendrecki's atonal, symphonic piece (which he only dedicated to the victims of Hiroshima after he heard it) to "I Believe". That would be like comparing Shel Silverstein to Tennesee Williams. Both pretty good writers, but you can't compair their works. Bowing on the tailpiece of a violin doesn't do it for me. If you're going to use music to educate young people about the holocaust, you've got to present it to them in a form that they will listen to. Show me one person under 20 who will listen to Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima. There were hundreds of students in the audience for "I Believe" who loved it. I agree with skydancer. Let the survivors decide.

When it comes to music that tries to express the horror of crimes against humanity, this one really hits it on the nail for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOb3UhPmig

What I heard so far of "I BELIEVE" simply doesn't measure up.

The style of music in which the concert was performed is secondary. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative. There is no right or wrong when it comes to music, or any kind of art, appreciation. One could look at a Picasso or a Jackson Pollock and not understand why anyone would think it worthy of public display. Just because one doesn't like it, doesn't mean that the canvases should be burned for fear that some unsuspecting person will have their eyes burned from looking at "such an atrocity in the name of art". Let people experience it and form their own conclusions. If they don't like it, they are welcome to get up and leave - just as you were, but yet, you chose to stay. Clearly it wasn't as "offensive" as you would lead others to believe.

On behalf of all the others who loved the concert who may have also read this and didn’t know where to step in, or those that (luckily) may not have even seen this article. Let me just say, congratulations again to Zane Zalis, the WSO, the vocalists, and all the others behind the scenes that made this event a success. Bravo on a job well done! You have much to be proud of, and many supporters who will be proud to stand behind you as you share your masterpiece with the rest of the world!

I actually attended the concert (unlike many here that have left comments) and I thought it was amazing! But honestly, I'd say that the only reviews that really count are the reviews from the survivors themselves. If the holocaust survivors in attendance at the concert felt that it accurately portrayed the emotions surrounding the events, and they feel that it was done in a respectful and appropriate way, then what other opinion really matters?

So what if an hour and a half concert doesn't capture the entirety of the holocaust? The stories are out there, but many people will not take the time to search out those stories and learn the history for themselves. For many, if you don't bring it to them in an accessible, condensed format, they will not learn about it at all. So any amount of understanding that they gain from experiencing this concert is a victory. For others, it will compel them to learn more - also a victory. No matter what the circumstance, I don't think this concert does a disservice to the memory of those lost in the holocaust, because in every instance it results in greater understanding and renewed memory.

So, according to Bartley, this is a AAA rating??

It is with shock that I read Bartley Kives' review of "I Believe." Having been in attendance and having enjoyed the performance immensely, I will simply say that I disagree with Mr. Kives' assessment. Surely someone so well versed in history, musical composition and the arts in general (at least if you believe Mr. Kives' self-inflating air) could prepare a true musical masterpiece. I look forward to hearing it. Hopefully the reviews will not be so rude and presented as arrogantly.

For those who wonder about the harsh tone of the article, maybe it's time to wonder aloud if there's more to the story. Is it possible that what goes around comes around?

Thanks PP,

The CBC links helped and it does sound much better than the rehearsal videos I saw. Unfortunately, I still think the music sounds too commercial for the topic. With the extra voices and symphony, much of opening reminds me of a soundtrack to a Bruckheimer film, and the melodies of the solo singers make it sound like a musical. If it was based on anything else I'd say it was pretty good piece of work. But because its about the Holocaust, I honestly think the music doesn't do it justice. Though this is just my opinion based on the videos I've seen. I'd be curious to hear the rest of the piece.

Thanks PP for the link.

I listened through it all, and I take it back. Its not awful...its laughable! HAHAHA! The choral parts were very nice and harmonious, but everytime the singers come in with their "Idol"-inspired solos I laugh. It SOOOO cheesy! Its like a multi-million dollar Walt Disney soundtrack to an animated feature. Makes me think of Princess Jasmine or Aladdin singing. Either that or its a concept album for one of those boy/girl-bands.

I have to go deeper.
I didn't go to the concert and have no interest in whether it was good or bad, I just happened to read this article. What does fascinate me is the fact this is written by an arrogant so called journalist filled with criticism that goes far beyond the point of reasonable.
You twice reference your assumed feelings of the symphony members involved in an effort to give the impression that people with a better understanding of music and art are backing up your personal attack. Yet there is no direct quote from a symphony member. Great journalism.
You then go on to mention your Great Aunt and state "I may never forgive Zalis for creating a clumsy and vainglorious tribute not just in her name, but in the name of six million Jews and nine million other Europeans who died in ghettos and trains and camps and marches and gas chambers." We are all very sorry about your Great Aunt - you must have been very close. That statement should be saved for people like Heinrich Himmler or someone that actually pulled a trigger or opened a gas valve not for a musician or somebody trying to pay tribute to those people no matter how bad you thought the concert was.
This article should be viewed exactly as it is, a shameful personal diatribe by a sensationalistic so called journalist. Maybe next time you should leave your personal feelings out of it and just criticize the concert. We would have gotten the point just as well without that.

To those of you who think you've got the expertise to ridicule Zane and "I Believe." There's an old saying, "Don't show a fool a job half done." By rating a rehearsal early in its develpment, you think you've seen the big picture and are ready to condemn the finished product based on it. Mozart, Mendelssohn, Brahms, and many others had critics who hated their works. Many people hated The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson, in spite of their huge success. Let's face it. Judging by the number of people who gave a standing ovation at the end of the concert, those of you who were actually there and didn't like it are in a very small minority. You can be stubborn and insist you're right, but eventually, when the piece has been performed around the world and becomes a huge success, you can either keep deluding yourselves, or admit that you were wrong.

Horrible article

Ace - let me respond in kind:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/cod/concerts/20090427belie

This is a recording of three choruses from the project done by CBC. This is much closer to the actual production than the link you posted - clearly you saw BOTH links on the website and chose to post the one that would most clearly defend your position, without bringing this link to the public's attention.

IF, for those of you who weren't there, after listening to the clips produced by the CBC, you still don't care for it, that's your opinion and it will be respected. Just keep an open mind and remember that you're not getting the full picture, and judgements based on less than all the facts have resulted in far greater casualties than the like or dislike of a symphony production.

For anyone who watches the link posted by Ace of the rehearsal of "I Believe":

It's a REHEARSAL. Held in a small auditorium. Trying to compare that to the production on the stage of the Concert Hall is impossible. It was an attempt to show the creative process and clearly is not being received as intended... So please realize this is NOT representation of the FULL production heard on May 21.

...and trying to compare it to the other video link that Ace posted is simply ludicrous.

If you weren't at the performance, for the love of all things holy, don't base your judgement on a short video clip of a vocal rehearsal without the symphonic components.

Hi:

I just checked out the I Believe website (wasn't at the show, sorry). When I saw the video clip of the rehearsal, I thought I went to the wrong page. It looked like they were working on a high school musical. Then when I realized it really was a rehearsal of the I Believe show...I cringed. Boy did this look like a terrible idea.

Sorry PP, but the concept of turning the Holocaust into a musical didn't sit well for me. Though I'm happy you enjoyed it.

Yup - Ace, you guessed it, I'm Pane Palis - whoops, I mean Zane Zalis...

You and gnome888 - grow up. Why is it so hard for you to believe that someone could defend something so passionately that is not their own? Maybe because you have indeed lost faith in humanity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I feel sorry for you.

You want to know who I am? Just ask. And don't start attacking me personally by calling me arrogant - that just shows you've run out of reasonable debate material and are now resorting to childish name calling, just like ol' Bart there. If I have shown any arrogance, sir, it is but a sad shadow of your glowing example of what true arrogance is.

After all this, the "We Believe In Winnipeg" campaign must just chap your butt...

Based on your arrogant responses, detailed knowledge of the show, and hyper-commitment to Zalis' show (borderline teenage-fanaticism), I can only conclude that you must be Zane Zalis himself. The posts you've shared makes so much more sense now in this light.

Ace - your powers of deduction are truly staggering! You've discovered my secret. I'm 11 years old with an 18-month old daughter, I own a successful business, and I've been to 24 countries on five continents around the world... Gosh golly gee, that's some early puberty I'm going through!

Wish me luck - guess I'm going to need it!

PP = ZZ = Zane Zalis

Way to go Bart!

Sensitive material handled insensitively does not art make. Casting I Believe as some kind of Holocaust Les Miz is entirely inapproppriate.

I'm glad someone had the cojones to speak out against the brainwashed who believe every piece of art that pays homage to the Holocaust must be good.

Do not apologize for writing the truth!

I believe isn't about the holocaust, it is about the Zalis Ego.

I didn't see the show, but I did manage to check out those clips Ace provided.

God, that was AWFUL! Bartley was right about the music. Even though it was just a rehearsal, the music made me think of bad Broadway musicals and Canadian Idol wannabes. I'm glad I didn't spend money to see that.

PP:

You're so cute when you're annoyed :-) I understand your position. I was 11 once myself.

Ace - thank you for so handily assisting me in proving your purely combative nature without an ounce of substance. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The rehearsal video of Feburary 12 is OVER THREE MONTHS before the premiere, and clearly posted to show a part of the creative process that the public doesn't often get to see.

By drawing any comparison between these two videos, even your supporters must now conclude that your credibility is worthless.

Thanks for your contribution!

To bug - Lest we forget, art is in the eye of the beholder. Many think I Believe is a fantastic work of art. Some do not. Somebody even once paid $1.4M for a large white canvas with one black dot on it - because she thought it was art. My 18-month old daughter LOVES to paint - I of course think it's art - but the public at large might disagree with me.

The proceeds from the sales of the CDs will be properly handled, you can rest assured of that. NOBODY is "attempting to profit from the holocaust." As well, nobody is trying to compare Zane Zalis to Andrew Lloyd Weber - all art is different as are all artists.

Lastly, for the record, I am not family, performer, or survivor, or relative for that matter. I'm just a believer.

I find this review grossly unnecessary and cruel, to say that Mr. Zalis' Oratorio, that he has been working on for so many years. Is " an amateurish, offensively lousy work." this is not a professional opinion, but a personal opinion of one (Kives) Who obviously did not understand (or did not want to understand) the larger meaning to I Believe, That for events like the holocaust to not happen again, we must not forget those whose lives were taken in the holocaust. That we must not hate, but constantly strive to attain peace, and with that, we can eventually live without hate. As Zalis wrote in the narration to I Believe. " ..Peace is not a conclusion, but a continuous journey.." I feel sorry for you, Mr. Kives, for not understanding the full message of I Believe. And that you were not able to be so emotionally moved by it as many in the crowd, like myself were. Lastly, you said that we shouldn't praise rubbish in this town, hopefully then no one praises your article.

PP (any of you who are still wondering):

Compare the following two and I dare you to tell us that Zalis' work lives up to the same level in capturing the soul of humanity:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=plMd6K4_ENY
www.ibelieveproject.com/movies_video/Feb12_rehearsal/Feb12_I_Bel_reh.html

Ace, oh Ace... I've only two words for you - "what-evah." If you think Zane Zalis set out to manipulate an audience for two hours, I truly, truly feel sorry for you. Your comments are not worthly of further response. You and Bart need to go have a beer together and toast to your success at roundly trouncing a piece of another human being's soul right into the ground.

altariste - Sorry, you had to be there. Don't believe everything you read, especially from a critic with a personal vendetta.

Frobozz and LoBrow - Well done, and well thought out. Thanks for your support!

Wow! Now there's a brave guy.

Kives has said what needed to be said, even if it was extremely blunt.

Unfortunately, too many people who attended this are unable to:

1. Separate their emotional reaction to the Holocaust from the "piece of art" this was supposed to be.

2. Adequately discern good art from bad.

3. Realize that just because it was done by a local high school teacher with a successful career in jazz, musical theatre etc, at a HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL does not a truly professional production make!

Had this been a high school musical, it would have been considered top notch. As a professional production with a professional orchestra, it cannot and did not measure up to the earlier writers' comparisons - Zalis is no Andrew Lloyd Weber and if we don't realize that, we have been brainwashed by too many episodes of American Idol.

Yes, Zalis has talent, as did all of the performers. They were just out of their league on the concert hall stage with the WSO and the high ticket prices. It wouldn't matter what the musical was about. It just happened to be about the Holocaust.

No one should dare use the Holocaust for fame and profit. Are all proceeds for the concert and subsequent CDs going to survivors - or to the new Human Rights Museum?

As a Jew with family who survived the camps, this did nothing to represent them or their experience. If others felt it did - I'm glad for you. To call the work an artistic success on the other hand - leave that up to people who know about art - not overemotional family members of performers and survivors who liked the show before they even heard one note.

You are entitled to your opinion, Bartley. However, was it necessary to be so condescending and nasty? Do you think that lends credence to your article? In fact, it reduces it to something tabloid-worthy, and makes this reader wonder if you have a personal vendetta against the artist himself. It was your article that was offensive, not "I Believe".

I look forward to hearing the WSO perform YOUR next illustrious composition with great eagerness.

From the tone of Barley's column, you might have thought that "I Believe" was a desecration of the Jewish soul worthy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

All that one can say in the end is that Zalis's work just wasn't Bart's cup-of-tea. If Zalis chose to use a musical language that was more akin to Andrew Lloyd Webber than to Steve Reich, well, so be it. Just because "Jesus Christ Superstar" is not Handel's "Messiah," is one entitled to dismiss it as "inappropriate" to its weighty subject matter? I guess many fine God-fearing folk thought so at the time.

I and other fellow lo-brows seemed to find that "I Believe" provided us with a moving and inspiring experience. Zalis was respectful of his subject matter and sincere in his intent, and in no way deserves the kind of righteous indignation that Bartley musters. (By the way, how does Bart know that the orchestra members found the music so appalling and were only playing it under duress? Did he do a survey? God knows, they perform enough 'schlokola' at their pops concerts and manage to suffer through that.) "I Believe" spoke to a particular audience in the same way that Joni Mitchell speaks to some audiences and Rita MacNeil to others. Lighten up Bart - different strokes for different folks!

Finally, someone who has the backbone to say what many of us thought. Mr. Kives, you speak for those of us who had to suffer through that "crime against art"...and believe me there were many of us.

BTW, it was NOT an oratorio. It was a commercial show set in the language of Broadway musicals. After 50 years of musical activities, I know the difference between the two. As Mr. Zalis' bio states, he was a commercial writer for CBC and took part in the BMI Musical Theatre Workshops on Broadway. Musicals are all he knows. The choice of applying this form to this show may have been a practical one being that the majority of the singers were high-school students, not professionals.

Secondly, it is the majority of the audience who simply did not get it. They were being manipulated from the first downbeat by all the standard formulas known to most theatre/musical connoisseurs. Right down to choosing a sensitive topic as the thesis of the show; so it may protect it from any critical examination (aka its about the Holocaust so you're not allowed to criticize it).

I know the difference between hearing something that is honest and truly from another person's heart to that of something that attempts to manipulate my emotions. "I Believe" was the latter.

For these reasons (and many more), I absolutely agree that it was "an amateurish, offensively lousy work." It was one of those events where years from now people will look back while listening to these recordings and ask "What were they thinking?!"

...additionally, who reviews an event that occured 9 days in the past? Human memory tends to forget the good and concentrate on the bad, which will colour anyone's writing. However, in Bartley's case, his heresy makes me consider demanding proof that he was actually in attendance at the concert to witness the massive, extended ovation that the work received from the audience.

Certain members of the audience, with significantly more critical experience than yourself commented that this production could have indeed easily come from New York or Los Angeles, and was absolutely World-Class in every way. Indeed, many who saw its excerpts and the full concert wondered why it was not being premiered in those cities. Zalis wanted to premiere it here FIRST, because he is a Winnipegger, first and foremost. We should all be so proud to have someone so talented AND loyal in our midst.

This article is a farce of fiction, and the WSO should ban you for life, Bartley, for your inane slander and severe insult to the entire staff, orchestra, and indeed to the brilliant Alexander Mickelthwate.

_I_ Believe that you should be made to publically apologize to Zane Zalis AND the WSO, for not only insulting his work, but also for insulting him personally and his LIFE'S work as a composer and educator.

_I_ Believe that you have not only insulted the memories of Harold Buchwald and Phillip Weiss, but I don't think your Great Aunt would be very pleased at your conduct in this manner either.

_I_ Believe you absolutely crossed the line.

Oh Bartley, how the mighty have fallen. I used to have great respect for you, but never again - and I hope the public at large that read this pedantic piece of crap you call a critique feel the same way.

IF you have been so affected personally as you say, then the concert should have spoken to you on the same personal level. But, like other critics, you feel the need to "balance" the praise being lavished upon "I Believe" and ignore the brilliance in favour of technical deconstruction.

Just because you don't "believe" doesn't mean you have to attack Zane Zalis' work - which, I might add, has won numerous prestigious awards - unlike your writing... The board of the John Hirsch award should be severely reprimanded for even suggesting you as a finalist!

You may have written this article, but it never should have seen the light of day - your editor must accept partial blame on this one, and they too should have exercised some restraint and just let a brilliant, moving creation remain so without being smeared in this fashion.

Your writing belongs in the same class as "Rusty Bedsprings" and "Brown Spots on the Wall" - surely you know of the authors of those pieces... Maybe you have some great things to say about THEIR work, because yours, sir, is in the same class as Mr. Freely and Mr. Pu.

I have not been a big fan of Bartley Kives in the past, especially when he was entertainment reporter. However I have to give him great credit here for having the courage in risking the ire of Mr. Zalis' fan club and quite likely the Jewish community to offer his honest and I suspect quite accurate critique of this performance. Although I did not attend the performance in question I am not unfamiliar with the composer and Mr. Kives comments ring very true to me. One can only speculate that in this case Mr Zalis' talent has perhaps been exceeded by his ambition and ego.

A word of advice to Jason in his impassioned defense. When submitting a comment a spell checker and a basic knowledge of grammar would go a long way to lending credibility to your comments, (check out aloud and allowed in the dictionary).

Alatriste

I'm glad you wrote this article Mr. Kives. I think you nailed it!
This is not the way to educate a public on the Holocaust as so many seem to think was Zalis' goal.
I also think it in bad taste to record it and sell CD's for profit

haha this is harsh. I wasn't there so I don't really have an opinion, but wow, this Kane dude really laid it to Zalis. I would agree though that we shouldn't give every Winnipeg artist attention just cuz there from here. Although Kane I must say, I do get a kick out of this. Even if it was totally awful Zalis still had balls for doing it... i appreciate people who still go big even with all the rude and arrogant critics out there.

This is inapropriate [edited]!!!! the symphony loved playing in this concert. It is eye opening, and people can learn a lot. Zane is talented and did an amazing job. You should not be aloud to publish this. You aare just trying to make it sound bad. Zalis asked the symphony they couldl have said no.

I find this review grossly unnecessary and cruel, to say that Mr. Zalis' Oratorio, that he has been working on for so many years. Is " an amateurish, offensively lousy work." this is not a professional opinion, but a personal opinion of one (Kives) Who obviously did not understand (or did not want to understand) the larger meaning to I Believe, That for events like the holocaust to not happen again, we must not forget those whose lives were taken in the holocaust. That we must not hate, but constantly strive to attain peace, and with that, we can eventually live without hate. As Zalis wrote in the narration to I Believe. " ..Peace is not a conclusion, but a continuous journey.." I feel sorry for you, Mr. Kives, for not understanding the full message of I Believe. And that you were not able to be so emotionally moved by it as many in the crowd, like myself were. Lastly, you said that we shouldn't praise rubbish in this town, hopefully then no one praises your article.

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Poll

Would you pay more to supersize your garbage bin?

View Results