This Week in Classical Music: July 21, 2025. The New York Times and Classical Music. Several days ago, Variety magazine, a purveyor of entertainment news, had a scoop of a different kind: it obtained a New York Times internal memo, which detailed the reassignment of several cultural critics. The critics in question covered TV, pop music, theater, and included Zachary Woolfe, who writes about classical music. As part of the “revamp,” all of them were offered new positions within the newspaper, and at the moment, this leaves the NY Times without a classical music critic. This void made us think (again) about the role of music in our society in general and the Times in particular. Some years ago, it would’ve been unimaginable for the NY Times not to have a classical music critic: it was deemed so important that the paper had several writers covering multiple events and publishing many articles a week (Woolfe’s output was minuscule in comparison). We still remember the names of some of the great critics of the past: Harold Schonberg, the chief music critic for many years, Donal Henahan, who replaced him, and then followed by Edward Rothstein and Bernard Holland. Paul Griffiths also worked there, as did the wonderful Alex Ross, who later moved to the New Yorker and is one of the few who still publish interesting articles and books on music.
Not only was classical music important, but even the critics had a place in our culture: when Andrew Porter, who had written about music for 20 years at the New Yorker, resigned his position to move back to the UK, Edward Rothstein wrote a poignant article about him and his work. Some of the old coverage is unimaginable these days: for example, when, during a recital at Carnegie Hall, Kirsten Flagstad announced her retirement, the news made it to the front page of the Times. Yes, the front page.
It seems that two processes are working in parallel here: for one, classical music is losing its place in our culture, but secondly, newspapers are trying to get away from it at an even faster pace. For the lovers of classical music, the first trend is unfortunate but inevitable. We don’t live in the first quarter of the 20th century, when the parlor of every middle-class home was expected to have a piano, and piano manufacturers existed in every large city in the country (300,000 pianos were produced in 1924 when the US population was 1/3 its current size). Eventually, active music-making was replaced by passive listening: the radio and the phonograph killed the piano. Still, for a long time, music retained its cultural significance, and it was only at the end of the 20th century that the slide began in earnest. Whether this only coincided with the rise in identity politics or both processes fed on each other isn’t clear. But what we do know is that at some point, the cultural elites (and the NY Times is part and parcel of it) embraced identity politics and ran with it. During the worst days of wokeness, in 2020, Anthony Tomassini, then the chief (and by then practically the only) classical music critic of the Times, called for an end to blind additions, because, as he said, “the audition process should take into account race, gender and other factors,” not simply the talent or abilities of the performer. This absurd and pernicious notion was endorsed by many musical organizations and, what is worse, by foundations and endowments that constitute the financial base of classical music. In the meantime, classical music itself became associated with “dead white men,” a double offence when, for many in the cultural establishment, “white” became a sin, and “men” were linked to “toxic masculinity.” No wonder the Times decided to shy away from classical music.
Even though it seems that the worst of wokeness is behind us, what we have is classical music as a diminished art form, and the NY Times is partly responsible for the damage. Combine this with the paper’s past strong tradition in support of music, and you have an institution in a highly ambivalent position. We don’t expect the changes at the Times to improve on the mediocrity of the current state, but we’ll certainly watch the developments.
On NY Times and music, 2025
This Week in Classical Music: July 21, 2025. The New York Times and Classical Music. Several days ago, Variety magazine, a purveyor of entertainment news, had a scoop of a different
kind: it obtained a New York Times internal memo, which detailed the reassignment of several cultural critics. The critics in question covered TV, pop music, theater, and included Zachary Woolfe, who writes about classical music. As part of the “revamp,” all of them were offered new positions within the newspaper, and at the moment, this leaves the NY Times without a classical music critic. This void made us think (again) about the role of music in our society in general and the Times in particular. Some years ago, it would’ve been unimaginable for the NY Times not to have a classical music critic: it was deemed so important that the paper had several writers covering multiple events and publishing many articles a week (Woolfe’s output was minuscule in comparison). We still remember the names of some of the great critics of the past: Harold Schonberg, the chief music critic for many years, Donal Henahan, who replaced him, and then followed by Edward Rothstein and Bernard Holland. Paul Griffiths also worked there, as did the wonderful Alex Ross, who later moved to the New Yorker and is one of the few who still publish interesting articles and books on music.
Not only was classical music important, but even the critics had a place in our culture: when Andrew Porter, who had written about music for 20 years at the New Yorker, resigned his position to move back to the UK, Edward Rothstein wrote a poignant article about him and his work. Some of the old coverage is unimaginable these days: for example, when, during a recital at Carnegie Hall, Kirsten Flagstad announced her retirement, the news made it to the front page of the Times. Yes, the front page.
It seems that two processes are working in parallel here: for one, classical music is losing its place in our culture, but secondly, newspapers are trying to get away from it at an even faster pace. For the lovers of classical music, the first trend is unfortunate but inevitable. We don’t live in the first quarter of the 20th century, when the parlor of every middle-class home was expected to have a piano, and piano manufacturers existed in every large city in the country (300,000 pianos were produced in 1924 when the US population was 1/3 its current size). Eventually, active music-making was replaced by passive listening: the radio and the phonograph killed the piano. Still, for a long time, music retained its cultural significance, and it was only at the end of the 20th century that the slide began in earnest. Whether this only coincided with the rise in identity politics or both processes fed on each other isn’t clear. But what we do know is that at some point, the cultural elites (and the NY Times is part and parcel of it) embraced identity politics and ran with it. During the worst days of wokeness, in 2020, Anthony Tomassini, then the chief (and by then practically the only) classical music critic of the Times, called for an end to blind additions, because, as he said, “the audition process should take into account race, gender and other factors,” not simply the talent or abilities of the performer. This absurd and pernicious notion was endorsed by many musical organizations and, what is worse, by foundations and endowments that constitute the financial base of classical music. In the meantime, classical music itself became associated with “dead white men,” a double offence when, for many in the cultural establishment, “white” became a sin, and “men” were linked to “toxic masculinity.” No wonder the Times decided to shy away from classical music.
Even though it seems that the worst of wokeness is behind us, what we have is classical music as a diminished art form, and the NY Times is partly responsible for the damage. Combine this with the paper’s past strong tradition in support of music, and you have an institution in a highly ambivalent position. We don’t expect the changes at the Times to improve on the mediocrity of the current state, but we’ll certainly watch the developments.