Some thoughts, none profound.
The outpouring of support has been kind of overwhelming, certainly flattering and a much needed boost. I thank you all more than I can say. I should get laid off more often. And here I thought everyone hated music critics.
Many commenters want to see my layoff as another nail in the coffin of our culture. While there is some truth to that, I think there is something simpler going on, a structural problem.
There are probably as many, or more, readers of classical music criticism today as there ever was. But previously, music criticism survived as part of a printed newspaper, which was predicated on the “bundle” model, just like 500-channel cable. All the topics in the paper supported the others — from the bridge column to sports, from hard news to the funny pages — and all boats floated higher for it. No topic had to survive on its own. The paper was a community, even a team of rivals.
But as newspapers have moved online, a different model has been adopted. Now, every topic has to survive on its own, because online readers don’t generally read the paper as a bundle. They pick and choose topics, from different publications, all over the internet. Each topic is an island. Think of it as a “streaming” model. What’s more, now newspapers can see exactly how many readers click on a story, and they see that music criticism has a relatively small online readership, though, as said, probably not that different in terms of numbers than it ever had.
The tone of eulogy in many of the comments I’ve read is understandable, but disconcerting and depressing. I’m still here and I have some ideas. Let’s see what happens. Let’s not let the bad guys win.
Lastly, the “blockhead” quote from yesterday was from Samuel Johnson. You can look it up … online.
Classical Life 
Sad for you and sad for Orange County. I know you will land well and I look forward to reading you here and elsewhere.
Tim, I have an experienced employment lawyer I can refer to you (San Diego based) who successfully helped a friend through a severance situation. What’s the best way to share the name/number with you?
I am deeply saddened by your layoff. Alas, it would seem that thoughtful criticism – not just of classical music – is dead. Yelp reviews now replace legitimate restaurant writers. Rotten Tomatoes posts more amateur movie reviews than professional. Amazon invites buyers to post reviews. Even Consumer Reports Online posts consumer reviews in additional to its professional ratings of products. I’m not interested in uninformed opinions passed off as critical information. I subscribe to a newspaper or review magazine to read what an educated, informed writer thinks and to learn from their expertise.
Selfies, tweets, Facebook posts. No one else matters. I’m wondering if this is part of a generational shift toward narcissism.
I never did like the Register. Tim, your column was one of the few bright spots along with TJ Simers. (The letters to the editor were always good for a chuckle, come to think of it.)
18 years and they only gave you two weeks severance? In the words of a famous duck, “That’s despicable.”
Best of luck to you. Journalism of any sort is a tough racket nowadays. Your column will be missed.
I’m sorry to hear this news. To me, you will always be Classical Guy, and I say that with respect. I trust that in some fashion you will resurface still the proud bearer of that name.
I hope so.
Tim, I was very sad to hear that you were laid off. You’re one of the best journalists I’ve ever worked with. As a copy editor, you made my job remarkably easy. I don’t doubt that you’ll continue to be successful, and I wish you the best of luck. For whatever it’s worth, here is a link that you might find interesting: https://www.philharmonicsociety.org/Misc/?i=Employment-Opportunities
It was always a pleasure to work with you Brad and thanks for saving me more than once!
I’m sorry Tim. You made classical music thoroughly enjoyable for me. I always loved reading your stuff. I will miss it. But I’m sure I’ll be seeing it elsewhere soon.
Thanks, Maryanne. I was wonderful working with you and I hope you’re right.
Tim,
Music is particularly strange in that it’s the art that least innately lends itself to representation. Literature works within the innately representational world of language; film works within the innately representational world of images; painting easily lends itself to representation as well. Music, however, lacks this, and most concepts of musical “language” are abstract themselves (sonata form, eg). So it’s not apparent as to how well music can be illuminated through a representational medium like language. Even though we can understand certain abstract elements (sonata form, again, eg), it’s questionable as to what this understanding has to do with our experience of music in the abstract.
Does it better it, worsen it, or merely change it?
Likewise, we can certainly speak of how music affects us, perhaps scientifically, certainly metaphorically, but again, it’s questionable as to what extent either speaking is related to the experience. Of course, that music is a thing of mystery and wonder that eludes the grasp of words is a truism to which we all pay lip-service.
One of the things I don’t understand is that we all know that music is ‘radically other’ to the words with which we approach it, and yet, in their busy professional lives, where music becomes the object of their scholarly inquiry, critics and musicologists and work AS IF that were not so.
Why?
You are correct: “it’s not apparent as to how well music can be illuminated through a representational medium like language”. In fact, it is quite difficult to do. That is exactly why this can and should only be done by highly knowledgeable and very articulate music critics, such as Tim Mangan has been for nearly three decades now.
Precisely because words are so different from music, they can be most interesting and yes, illuminating, for translating musical ideas into language, when they are used well. This seems much more fascinating to me than, for example, discussing literature verbally which is nothing but an attempt to explain words with other words — sort of like explaining why a joke is funny.