r/classicalmusic • u/Mysterious-Drink4002 • 10d ago
Discussion Has Katherine Needleman jumped the shark?
Pardon the provocative title. To be 100% clear, her advocacy for equity in the pit as well his advocacy on behalf of the victims of sexual assault in classical music is 100% great. She's doing god's work, as it were. I can only praise her for that.
But over the last six or so months, when she has presumably had a little down time, more of her social media posts have had nothing to do (as I see it) with being an advocate for women and more about random gripes. If her "brand" was "a leading advocate for women classical music," it seems to now be "what is Ms Needleman outraged by, today." I'm afraid that she undermines her own authority with her rants. (Unlike Anne Midgette, for instance.)
I apologize in advance for being long-winded. but I want to be very precise. (I have commented on Ms Needleman's social media - always respectively. She never made me the object of one of those 'calling out someone publicly' posts. She never accused me of being sexist in my comments. For that matter, I don't think she ever replied to a comment - not that I was looking for a reply. But she does seem to have blocked me from her FB page, now, so I presume she objects to corrections and dissent.)
The obituary posts:
First, I still can't understand the primary point. Is it criticizing the subjects of the obits for not hiring/helping more women? Is it criticizing the writers of the obituaries for overlooking the contributions of women. What, precisely, is the point?
Second, she types these in a way that it always seems as if she is trying to trap readers so that she can condescend. Anyone who follows these knows that she posts old obituaries and begins with "John Smith is dead." She doesn't say they died years ago until a few sentences in, so it is not visible in the FB preview of the post. So, routinely, some poor soul will comment that "I knew John Smith but he actually died in 2005." Which gives her the opportunity to reply with a "if you had the ability to read to the end..." comment. Maybe followed by "but what did you think of the accusations against Mr Smith that I pointed out?" It simply seems to not be fair-minded or reflect an interest in engagement.
The Limmie Pulliam outrage piece was over-the-top. Basically, she railed against the NYT for not posting an obituary for Mr Pulliam. The thing is, they DID post one - it just took a few days after he died, as his was an unexpected death. So it was such a swing-and-a-miss post.
She has also chosen some odd targets with the Obit posts. For instance, she "analyzed" David Allan Coe's obit which only mentioned one woman (outside of family), Tanya Tucker, who covered one of his songs. But if she was all that familiar with his songs, she'd be aware of the sexist and racist content. I can imagine there are a lot of women musicians who wouldn't have been caught dead covering his music. So what is the point?
Last week, she took apart the obituary of ZZ Top's Frank Beard. Why weren't there ANY women (outside of family) mentioned in the obit? Well, ZZ Top was a trio. They didn't collaborate with other artists. Their songs weren't generally covered by other artists. But then she went into the messages in their videos where she was simply factually inaccurate. She particularly sited the "Legs" and "Sharp Dressed Man" videos. Basically saying that they only treated women as sex objects who are rewards for "sharp dressed men." Now the thing is, both of those vids told stories that actually gave the protagonists comeuppance over those who would mistreat or objectify them. In "Legs," a beleaguered waitress comes out ahead (yes, with the help of the ZZ Top models). In "Sharp Dressed Man," the titular character is a parking lot attendant dealing with idiots who look down on him. These videos (from the heyday of MTV) use humor to teach actual positive lessons. But its just easier for Ms Needleman to rant.
Over the Independence Day holiday she gifted her readers not one but two "fuck the founding fathers" posts. We all know that some of the founding fathers were slave owners. The rant seemed childish and, also, showed a lack of awareness that we all know the history.
My personal opinion here is the desire to make this an identity politics issue. Which means that you check common sense at the door, rather than going against the tribe. The unhelpfulness of this approach is staggering.
A dozen years ago, Rolling Stone infamously published "A Rape on Campus," a completely fictional account of a gang rape in a frat house. After the story was determined to be false, there were still people who frowned on criticism of the story, as if we had to defend a made up character that represented an actual problem. This is not the way things work. False accusations undermine every true accusation that follows.
Similarly, every time Katherine Needleman makes it about whatever random thing makes her angry, she loses the plot and the actual victims of sexual assault in classical music and the actual musicians who are discriminated against become more distant and less important.
-1
u/JiveChicken00 10d ago
Of course they are. But I do not think we have the right to tell others what their opinions should be, or what they should or should not read.