Phoenix music critic, ethics

oh man - who cares. There is so little arts coverage in Boston, and so much of what there is is tepid and ingrown that this "ethics" issue doesn't even factor at all.

Absolutely correct. Remember poetry is a very clubby art and nowhere more so than in Massachusetts and Schwartz is one of the clubbiest. Don't forget he submitted his own pieces form the Phoenix to the Pulitzer committee. I suppose that is ok but his blog sounds like silly self promotion which he is not adverse too. Also don't forget the other ethical lapses in the poetry world: Jorie Graham selecting her own husband for a major prize at University of Georgia, a scandal reported from NY Times to L.A. Times to Chronicle of Higher Education to newspapers in Australia, United Kingdom and Israel. The fact is that some do care about ethics in the poetry/literary world. As for Mr. Schwartz he makes it sound like its his first time. Remember what Knute Rockne said: "When you get to the end zone act as though you've been there before." Was it Rockne or Parcells?

This is both a conflict of interest and a perceived conflict of interest. It is absolutely reasonable to think that Schwartz will modify his writing about the BSO in the future - both because he's grateful to the BSO for the experience of working with the organization, and because he will hope for another opportunity.
BTW, to suggest that what Thomson was working in was a "tradition" is to try to put the gloss of legitimacy on this. The only parallel to be drawn is this: Thomson had a conflict of interest, and now Schwartz does too.
It doesn't mean Thomson was a bad critic, and this by no means makes me think less of Schwartz as a music critic. But he has wounded an important aspect of what he has to offer as a critic - that is, absolute objectivity.
"Narrow minds?" Please. What an awful, snide tactic to take.

Schwartz's accepting the BSO's invitation isn't a conflict. It's his critically covering the BSO afterward that would be.

If the BSO wants to invite Schwartz--who's written both positively and negatively about the orchestra--to have his poems set to music by them, fine. Broadminded on the part of the BSO, I'd say. But any published criticism Schwartz writes about the BSO afterward will have greatly diminished credibility, if any credibiility at all.

A painter and an art critic, I'm expert in neither symphony orchestras nor poetry. But I do know that if the Museum of Modern Art gave me a retrospective in spite of pans like the one I wrote about its recent exhibition, "Color Chart," well, bully for its not letting my criticism affect its judgment of me as an artist. But if I wrote published criticism of any MoMA show after that, well, reader beware.

The art world being such a convoluted place, however, I can't say for sure whether or not I've never written so much as a single praising word about a museum that has one of my works in its collection or has put me in some anthology show at some time. It's hard to keep track. But that doesn't seem to be. Schwartz's potential problem.

Yes! Dangerous precedent, dubious morality. Another step backward for us critical dodos and fossils.

Ethical behavior doesn't necessarily derive from following a set of rules. The rules are developed to try to encourage employees to conduct themselves in an ethical way, to increase the chances that they will, but ultimately, it is the individual's behavior that matters. One can, on face, adhere to every rule in the book and still display favoritism. The opposite can just as easily be true. Most people in the arts I know have overlaps in their professional and personal lives and are involved in the scene at multiple levels and with multiple organizations. How a person handles those overlaps is the measure of their character.

Now, had the Phoenix had a rule against this, as the Globe does, breaking it would have been unethical in and of itself. Since that's not the case, though, I think the criteria should be whether Lloyd continues to give unbiased accounts of the BSO's performance.

What I want to know is, will Lloyd be reviewing the musical settings of his own poems? I really think he should, you know, just to bring the whole thing full circle. Obviously the pages of the Phoenix would be the most appropriate venue, as so many other publications can be so narrow-minded.

Lloyd Schwartz makes $120, 450 annually. He can't afford a hotel room? The point is that the art world is a small one and one hand washes another. Absolute corruption and has been documented. Money is funneled to certain artists and not others. Schwartz and the cabal of Lowell followers (Gail Mazur, etc.) have connections others do not and take the lion's share of opportunities. Why not have an open BSO poetry competition or a panel to nominate candidates. Why Schwartz? He is not a particularly accomplished poet -pedestrian at best. I assume that BSO is a non-profit and obtains some federal and or public funds and if so then there should be a higher requirement for ethics. If you are a poet and not connected to the Schwartz Lowell followers, Harvard, BU writing/Agni crowd just try getting a reading in Boston much less a grant. There are so many other better poets than Schwartz who should have been selected. $120, 450 of taxpayers dollars per year and he can't pay for his hotel room or gas money?

Far more insidious than real or perceived conflicts of interest among critics is the role played by paid advertisements taken out (mostly) by major performing organizations like the BSO.

Thus, it is understood by the Globe that a de facto quid pro quo requires that all BSO concerts will be reviewed regardless of whether the habitual trotting out of this or that major or minor warhorse or exercise in contemporary high-modernist tedium constitutes an artistic statement of any significance.

This arrangement has a lot to do, it would seem, with the deadly and stultifying lock of big money, establishment organizations on the musical climate of most major cities, Boston being, apparently, no exception in this respect.

I won't hold my breath to see a Boston Globe article addressing this question.

In large part I agree with comment 6 by Charlotte. At least we know what Lloyd Schwartz's possible conflict of interest is. Perhaps other critics have not accepted money from the BSO or other artists and organizations, but there is absolutely no doubt that many of the people who have written about classical music in Boston over the years have enjoyed very cozy relationships with the BSO and others whom they write about. We know it's an incestuous little community and I will judge Mr. Schwartz on the quality of his reviews which are, generally, the best in town.

One would think Mr. Schwartz would avoid the perception of ethical duplicity for fear that his word is only as good as his reputation. We are a society of relationships, networking and chumminess. You can't "buy off" all the writers. Now, all "unbiased" critics can sharpen their #2s and fairly assess the performance. Even Mr. Schwartz cannot avoid the truth...good or bad.

I've already commented once, but I wanted to add a little bit to my thoughts on this. Is Mr. Schwartz really any more compromised than all the Globe sports writers who cover the Red Sox even though the Globe is one of the team's owners? Or Roger Ebert who, until just a few days ago, was employed by the Disney corporation or Joyce Kulhawik who was employed by Viacom, owner of CBS and Paramount Pictures? Alex Ross wrote the liner notes for the BSO recording of "Neruda Songs". I assume (perhaps incorrectly) he was paid. Does that mean he can no longer review their performances?

In the third comment above, Peter references "an important aspect of what he has to offer as a critic - that is, absolute objectivity."

Alas, Peter, there is no such animal. Objectivity is a myth that has been crushed by the weight of evidence not only in the social sciences, but in so-called hard science as well. Unfortunately, there are those who cling to this antiquated idea that critics or any other people in the world can be "objective."

As a critic myself, I know I have biases. And whenever I can, I unpack those biases for readers, to try and help them understand the perspective from which I write. I doubt I can be fully aware of those biases, but I do my best.

So I'm with Mr. Morris (comment 10): It's better to know the biases than to have them hidden. It helps inform your understanding as a reader.