Reach and grasp
Sir: The latitude of irrelevance to his designated subject that you have always allowed Richard Ingrams is curious but has sometimes produced readable results. It seems to me, though, a remarkable (and happily unprecedented) piece of editorial clumsiness to allow him to defend himself in his column (18 April) against Hans Keller's curiously composed but totally justified complaint about his remarks on Bela Bartok, while at the same time printing Iwo crass letters echoing his complacent ignorance.
Ingrams, regrettably, is, like his friend Muggeridge, a philistine (surely he was too kindly treated by Mark Amory on another page in the same week. Muggeridge is only 'never boring' in the sense that really unpleasant people can never quite be) and they have both always demonstrated themselves in their writings not to be interested enough in any art for its own sake for their pronouncements on the subject to be worth any more than those of Sir Alfred Munnings's legendary taxi driver on Picasso. (Admittedly they have been clever enough in the past to spot talents like Beethoven's, Shakespeare's and Rembrandt's.) Bartok has tens of thousands of admirers in this country alone and is acknowledged by a broad consensus of people who really care and think about music to be one of the few great composers of this century, Could you, sir, please persuade Mr Ingrams to stick to his Berkshire organ, the Muppets and abusing TV personalities and discourage him from fatuous opinionations on subjects beyond his imaginative grasp. Even John Cleese could not make this kind of thing amusing.
Bruce Bernard 45 Wilmington Square.
London WC1
Previous page
