I am utterly amazed that in a 422-word review of a concert dominated by a choral masterpiece, you can barely muster 12 in discussion of the chorus that performed this work (and two of those words were naming the chorus). To say no more than you found fault with the tenors "at times", you do a tremendous injustice to the choristers who worked long hours to create this work; not to mention exposing an enormous lack of respect for choruses in general. I've noted your dismissal of choral concerts, not only in your lack of interest in reviewing them, but even your lack of interest in promoting them as well, in the past. You seem to find no shortage of space to write about anything and everything opera-related, even going as far as attending and reviewing an opera performance in D.C. instead of a local choral concert. I would hope that at some point you would grant our area choruses some measure of grudging respect and perhaps write a few words about us (more than 12, at least). Somehow, I expect that hope will have to go unfulfilled, as I have yet to see any movement on that front.

Dear Tim,

I think this is fair review. I think the soprano prepared this piece to pay special attention to the text but as is often the case the diction in the upper register requires some sacrifices.

And, like I said (or tried to), the sacrifice was fine with me, given the loveliness of the result. TIM

Wow, who gave Mr. Wright the Cup O' Grumpy for morning coffee?

How much can you possibly expect Tim to fawn over choral contributions? I think "...She summoned considerable beauty of expression -- and plenty of power... from the BSO and the Washington Chorus" counts as a pretty decent evaluation (with one minor, non-acidic critique) and is downright complimentary, to boot!

Likewise, when he reviewed the NSO and the same chorus in Verdi's "Requiem" back in March, he wrote: "Not that [Eschenbach] didn't unleash brute force as well, and draw from the NSO and superb Washington Chorus an equally involved response in the process." His chief complaint concerned the quality of the soloists, whereas the chorus is qualified collectively as being "superb." And the problem is???......

Tim may be brief in these evaluatuions, but he certainly isn't hurling invectives and spittle at any choral forces. Quite the opposite!

I'm expecting neither fawning nor invective, simply analysis beyond "beauty of expression" and "superb". Perhaps my complaint lies not as much with the evaluation of the chorus as much as with the respect due to a major choral work. Compare Mr. Smith's reviews of just about any symphonic work with any review of a choral work to get my meaning: in the former he discusses the music, and specifically the degree to which the performing forces convey that music. In the latter he throws off a couple of adjectives and calls it a day.
Compare any soloist he reviews with a chorus (why can't a chorus be considered the "soloist" of a concert?): analysis vs. adjectives. I would like to see a bit more depth in the discussion, not fawning (truth be told, there were a number of problems I had with the chorus in this concert).

I must agree with those who would like more coverage of the choral pieces. but I have noticed that Mr. Smith is a symphonic person to the expense of vocal work (as Ms. Alsop is an symphonic person almost to the expense of opera). Perhaps we need a different music critic for choral works.

I also find rather uninteresting the comments about the darkness of the hall. Why in the world would anyone be following a text during the concert? It is much better to read beforehand and listen during. And why devote so many lines in a review about music to text reading?