Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship EU Music The Internet The Media

Pianist Asks Washington Post To Remove Review Under "Right To Be Forgotten" 257

Goatbert writes with word that pianist Dejan Lazic, unhappy with the opinion of Post music critic Anne Midgette, "has asked the Washington Post to remove an old review from their site in perhaps the best example yet of why it is both a terrible ruling and concept." It’s the first request The Post has received under the E.U. ruling. It’s also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work. “To wish for such an article to be removed from the internet has absolutely nothing to do with censorship or with closing down our access to information,” Lazic explained in a follow-up e-mail to The Post. Instead, he argued, it has to do with control of one’s personal image — control of, as he puts it, “the truth.” (Here is the 2010 review to which Lazic objects.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pianist Asks Washington Post To Remove Review Under "Right To Be Forgotten"

Comments Filter:
  • its terrible (Score:5, Informative)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:17PM (#48297147)

    when the pianist succeeds. This is clearly a case where the "right to be forgotten" conflicts public interest.

    • Re:its terrible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:44PM (#48297355)

      It won't work. We have a First Amendment here. Any law seeking to restrain the press from reporting news can't be enforced.

      • Re:its terrible (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @04:53AM (#48299441)

        It wont work because the whole summary and story is 50 shades of wrong in the first place.

        Time and time again the same FUD against the 1995 European Data Protection Directive (that often being referred to incorrectly as "the right to be forgotten") seems to get parroted here on Slashdot but it's completely wrong.

        A review of someone's work is not, has never been, and will never be classed as personal data, and hence eligible for removal under the data protection directive, or even the proposed actual "right to be forgotten".

        It'd be nice if the people bitching about this whole thing actually understood it but time and time again the only arguments against it are from those people who think it's something that it's categorically not so we end up with summarys on Slashdot like this which are just completely wrong.

      • actually the right to be forgotten doesn't apply to news organisations in the EU - just search engines
      • Re:its terrible (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo@NOSPAM.world3.net> on Monday November 03, 2014 @08:38AM (#48300055) Homepage Journal

        It won't work in Europe either. He sent the request to the newspaper, not the search engine. Newspapers are protected by the public record defence. Google would tell him to sod off as well, because the article is clearly relevant and current.

        We really need to stop reacting to every idiot making these requests. I get hundreds of moronic DMCA requests a year from mindless fools who don't even realize that I'm not in the US and the law doesn't apply to me. I don't even have a .us domain name. I don't post articles to Slashdot about how my rights are being infringed by spam DMCA requests that I don't even read, even though it's a stupid law and violates many of the freedoms we enjoy in Europe.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      I think it's clearly a case where somebody feels like they can't trust other people to make up their own mind about him without controlling what information others are allowed to see or hear.
    • so terrible that i'll remedy it myself by forgetting it.
    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      The what?

    • when the pianist succeeds. This is clearly a case where the "right to be forgotten" conflicts public interest.

      That is every case. The winners rewriting the history books is a bad thing, period, the end. There are no exceptions.

      • we accept similar 'right to be forgotten' in other areas.

        e.g. juvenile criminal record is sealed, e.g. minor criminal offences no longer appear in criminal record check after x years.
        Now a private investigator may be able to dig up dirt by trawling old newspaper archives - but for the most part, (pre internet), the person is able to move on without everyone knowing about these past mistakes.

        There is an analogous argument to be made here. Is it really fair that when you search for info on 50yr old electrici

        • I'm not for a moment saying that the eu 'right to be forgotten' makes sense, just saying that you can make a reasonable argument for a limited right.

          If we're going to continue to draw an arbitrary line defining maturity, then you're right, it does make some sense to put it there.

  • by cirby ( 2599 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:19PM (#48297161)

    Sure. Remove the Google link to the bad review.

    And every other link to the guy. Forever.

    No more searches on him, for the entire rest of his performing career.

    It's the only way to keep that review from sneaking back into future search results.

    • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:54PM (#48297437) Journal

      Sure. Remove the Google link to the bad review.

      Your reading skills are seriously lacking. The pianist has asked the Washington Post to remove the review. Not google. The Washington Post.

      From what I read of the orginal ruling that created the right to be forgotten, it is not applicable to the original publisher (in this case the WP), only search engines like Google.

      I suggest that Mr. Lazic has a discussion with Ms. Streisand. He might find it enlightening.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I was going to write:

        Subject: Two Words

        Comment: Two words: Streisand Effect.
      • Providing a link to the review was genius.

        • A course of action that is obvious to an intelligent observer is not usually considered a work of "genius".

          And yes, it was an obvious thing to do... and perhaps you're new here.

      • by cirby ( 2599 )

        Actually, my reading skills are fine. It's his legal skills that are in a world of hurt.

        For one thing, the actual complaint is that the bad review keeps turning up on the first page of his Google results. For another, the "right to be forgotten" was aimed at search engines, not content providers. Asking the Post to remove the review is, of course, way off base, legally.

        He decided to use it to try and lose a bad review through using the RtbF as a censorship tool.

        So everyone - yes, EVERYONE - should oblige hi

      • by Xest ( 935314 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @05:47AM (#48299567)

        No that's not even close to what the ruling is about. The ruling doesn't relate to the right to be forgotten, contrary to the media repeatedly getting this wrong.

        The ruling relates to the 1995 European Data Protection Directive which EU member states have all I believe implemented. The UK's implementation for example is the 1998 Data Protection Act for example.

        What the act says, is that organisations (such as companies, charities) cannot hold personal data on people unless there is:

        1) Prior agreement- e.g. you agree to let your bank hold your personal details when you open your account.

        2) An exception under law, such as the police doing investigations, or credit reference agencies holding credit reference data.

        3) A public interest/public record defence, such as a newspaper reporting on the bankruptcy of a public figure.

        The data protection has existed and been applied this way to most companies since it's creation - i.e. in the UK since 1998 for example. When I worked with some recruitment agencies previously I gave them my CV, phone number, name, e-mail address etc. some years back. I have since had contact from other agencies whom I did not give these details too, likely someone stole them when they left and took them to their new employer or similar as is typical in that industry. Because I wasn't interested in these other recruiters the data protection act is what allowed me to tell them to cease all contact and delete every bit of information they have on me - I had agreed to no relationship with them, and I had made clear to those I originally gave my details to that they were not to be passed on under any circumstances. This is a good thing, the law empowered me to deal with data theft that resulted in me being pestered against my will.

        The only thing that the recent ruling changed is that the judge simply ruled that the law does in fact apply to Google- for some reason Google has until this point felt that it's above the law and that because it uses lazy algorithms to simply harvest as much data as possible, slap adverts on that data and profit off of it that somehow the law didn't apply to it. The original newspaper article about the bankruptcy did not have to delete it because a newspaper can perform public record duties. Google on the other hand has no such protection, it does not produce public record, it simply harvests data from other sites (including those that do produce public record) and profits off of it to the tune of many billions in ad revenue.

        This is why the ruling went against Google- because it's not special, the law does apply to it, because it's not creating public record content but simply copying it from those that do, and because in doing so it was storing personal data that the subject in question did not agree to let Google have.

        If Google simply provided a blind link to the article in question there would've been no ruling against it, but the fact that it takes a copy of the article and provides a snippet alongside the link is where it fell foul - at this point it was clearly holding personal data without any legal right to do so.

        The actual right to be forgotten is a proposed provision in an update to the European Data Protection Directive that is not yet law. If Google wishes for a search engine exemption the time to lobby for it is now, but criticising existing law which is 16 years old and which just about every other company has implemented and followed is monumentally stupid. Google is not and should not be above the law. The proposal in the 2012 refresh of the law (2012 is just when the process started, it's not finished yet) explicitly lays out the fact that the right to be forgotten cannot be used to censor arbitrarily such that although that's how the law is being applied now, it proposes making it more explicit in law.

        So it's not about creating the right to be forgotten, it's not about publisher and links, it's simply a reiteration that yes, the law applies to Google like it does everyone. You can think

        • by rioki ( 1328185 )

          Your retelling of the legal situation is accurate, but it does not make it right. For starters Google (in the context of the search engine, not plus or ads) is not collecting data about you but about the websites. This includes the indexed content of the website. This is the only way a search engine can work. Search engines are an essential part of the internet, without it would barley work. (It will work, but you will not find much.)

          To make a real world example. Say I produce some widget and sell it wholes

    • by easyTree ( 1042254 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:35PM (#48297691)

      It's nice that there's now an official mechanism for invoking the Streisand Effect.

    • Some one never heard of the Streisand Effect. This otherwise forgettable pianist shouldn't have been such a penis.
  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:21PM (#48297169)

    Overwhelmingly you are going to have people with mis deeds wanting to have those deleted from history. Just imagine the Enron principals decide to emigrate and have their histories expunged ?

    • by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @02:39AM (#48299051) Homepage

      A lot of people with similar histories have asked Google the same thing, and have been denied.

      http://www.google.com/transpar... [google.com]

      We received multiple requests from a single individual who asked us to remove 20 links to recent articles about his arrest for financial crimes committed in a professional capacity. We did not remove the pages from search results.

      An individual asked us to remove links to articles on the internet that reference his dismissal for sexual crimes committed on the job. We did not remove the pages from search results.

      ...

    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      Except it doesn't work this way. A review of a performance isn't personal data and isn't protected by any law in the EU hence the summary is completely wrong.

      The right to be forgotten similarly doesn't allow Enron execs to erase their history because it's a prominent piece of historical public information.

      The ruling and law do not in any way demand that this information to be censored, any suggestions to the contrary are simply FUD. If anyone is censoring this information on their service then that's wholly

  • by Technician ( 215283 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:22PM (#48297181)

    I wonder if they are knowedgable of the Streisand effect and the Slashdot effect. If not, they will know now. LOL. The news of the request is more important news than any old review they were trying to escape.

    • by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:28PM (#48297231)
      That is only true because this is still a novelty. When other people and companies jump onboard, google will be deluged with hundreds of thousands of requests from everything from microsoft to restaurants to politicians. At that point no one will be paying attention. This needs to get fixed, ASAP.
  • Then you were unknown; now you're universally known as The Bad Pianist.

  • No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:22PM (#48297187)
    Who would ever have thought that people would use "right to be forgotten" as a way to eliminate any and all negative comments about themselves, and turn the internet into their personal P.R. machine? This wasn't even an unforeseen consequences, it was a dead lock that people would attempt to squelch any opposition.

    I'm shocked, I tell you.

    • Alessandra Mussolini [wikipedia.org] will petition the EU for the right of her grandfather (Benito [wikipedia.org]) to be forgotten? Lots of negative comments out there about him.

      Cheers,
      Dave

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      It's not the "right to be forgotten", that's something else entirely. It's the media that called it that, and the media that has lead people to believe that they can use it to get things they don't like removed from the internet.

      The truth is that it is actually quite a narrow, and well established principal that has applied to all companies for over 15+ years now. It's just that Google was ignoring it, until told not to by the court. It can't be used to remove random negative comments or reviews, it has a v

  • by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:26PM (#48297219) Journal

    Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.

    Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.

    His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.

    It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.

    Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.

    Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.

    The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:55PM (#48297441)

      Am I the only one who actually laughed out loud at the utter pretentiousness of this review?

      detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet.

      Amazing. It tells me absolutely nothing except that the writer is in love with her own prose. It's a shame Mr. Lazic couldn't see this review with the proper humor and irreverence it deserves. I think I'd wear it as a badge of honor if I was criticized with this sort of pomposity. Instead, he's gone and done something for which he should be rightfully shamed - much worse than an apparently decent but lackluster performance.

      • by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:24PM (#48297625)

        But Midgette's pretensious prose parrots Lazic's performance, presumably.

    • That's a little bit more than fair use, and you didn't credit your source. So I guess it's copyright violation and plagiarism. That may have to be removed from this website, if the Washington Post objects to it.

    • by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:42PM (#48297753) Journal

      I've heard Lazic's recitals, and I must say, this review perfectly describes them. All of them. The man is talented, certainly, but fails to produce even the slightest musical effect on the listener. His play is a waste of great pianistic control - all that control and virtuosism bring about nothing of substantial value.

      • I've always heard that classical music is judged on two merits, both technical expertise, and how evocative it is played.
        A combination of hitting the right notes at the right time properly, and a personal touch that inspires emotional responses.

        I'm not that discriminator (or anal) and put it into the category of how much I like it or not.
        It sounds to me like that reviewer was saying his technical skill is high, but his ability to inspire emotions is either lacking, or sometimes aimed at the wrong ones.

        Heck,
        • by paiute ( 550198 )
          What defines 'evocative'? And what defines a 'personal touch' other than an intentional or unintentional deviation from the score as written? Is there a variant of the Turing test in which we judge if a piece of music is played by a human or a machine?
          • The music as it is written is an imprecise rendering of the composer's intent. He or she intends it to be played a certain way and can't fully describe it in musical notation. It's like the script of a play. How the artist plays the notes or says the words matters. The performer that plays it is supposed to discern the intent and represent it, but is (perhaps by intent but unavoidably anyway), evoking the style and expression that were in the composer's mind. It is possible for an expert performer to e

            • by olau ( 314197 )

              I think a perfect example is the recordings of Wilhelm Kempff of Beethoven sonatas. You can find some with video on Youtube - on those there's an occasional misplaced note (it's an old man playing), yet the music is... beyond this world.

              Take a MIDI-playback directly from the notes written by Beethoven and compare that to Kempff's performance.

              Technical ability is the means to an end.

        • A combination of hitting the right notes

          But not necessarily in the right order. [youtube.com]

      • I've heard Lazic's recitals, and I must say, this review perfectly describes them. All of them. The man is talented, certainly, but fails to produce even the slightest musical effect on the listener. His play is a waste of great pianistic control - all that control and virtuosism bring about nothing of substantial value.

        You'll be getting RtbF notice next.

    • It's the pompous writing about the self-important.

  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:35PM (#48297303)

    ... I want /. to take down any posts where I have been called an asshole.

    tyvm

  • You do NOT have a RIGHT to control your public image. A public image is something that emerges from HOW you perform in public.

    You do NOT have a RIGHT to not have your religion, beliefs, politics offended.

    You CAN be just as misguided, idiotic, self absorbed as you want to be as long as I am not forced to change my behaviors to accommodate your stupid world views.

    The way I see it, I DO have the RIGHT to see, believe, read, write, learn, say, do what I want want if it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to do the same. If you do not agree with that, then we have a problem.

    • I don't know ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:00PM (#48297485)

      ... you do make some BOLD uppercase statements.

    • True, you do not have a right to control the view of your public image. However, though I think âoeRight to be forgotten" is not how he should be going about ie, it would be okay for him to sue her for slander.

      That should be a heads-up to her, that he grandiloquence is out of control. It also occurs to me that if anyone should be suing to be forgotten, it should be her: her essay was not only graceless, it went overboard with gracelessness. She could have been much more discreet -- praised his skill, n

      • by fnj ( 64210 )

        Only someone very clueless would think slander has the slightest bit to do with OPINION.

        • Slander? What statements were made that were a) facts and b) untrue? Also, I believe you meant 'libel', as this is in print.

          • Whoops. I missed the part where the person you were replying to said slander. I thus interpreted your comment exactly backward--it should apply to the person you responded to, not you. Sorry about that!

      • by msobkow ( 48369 )

        Guess what? He's not in elementary school, where everything he does gets a gold star. He's in the real world now, where people are free to dislike what he does, and to report on why they didn't like it.

        Suck it up, buttercup.

        Life isn't kind, it isn't pretty, and it isn't fair.

    • People hire organizations to control their public image all the time through social media and the press. Anyone with significant funds most definitely can control their public image if they do so wish.

    • ah so how come that guy in spain with court orders against him for debts - gets to remove things from the public record
  • by sk999 ( 846068 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:45PM (#48297365)

    .. "What a completely forgettable performance!"

    There - no more need for Dejan to file "Right to be forgotten" requests.

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:50PM (#48297401) Homepage

    It's also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work.

    Yes, but not of how it does work. Libel law could work exactly the same way, but it doesn't.

    It is important to find cases where this ruling does cause problems, so we can amend or reverse it. Pointing out cases where it could result in legally enforced removal of information that is in the public interest, but almost certainly won't, is crying wolf and is harmful to the goal of reforming the ruling.

    • by silfen ( 3720385 )

      It is important to find cases where this ruling does cause problems, so we can amend or reverse it. Pointing out cases where it could result in legally enforced removal of information that is in the public interest, but almost certainly won't, is crying wolf and is harmful to the goal of reforming the ruling.

      Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.

      • Whether something "is in the public interest" is not a valid criterion for restricting free speech.

        Of course it is. Everything is weighing up various consequences. There is the right of the public to be informed, the right of free speech, the right not to be slandered, and they have to be weighed up against each other. (Slashdot objection: But who decides? Answer: A judge who probably has a few more braincells than you).

  • by Potor ( 658520 ) <farker1@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday November 02, 2014 @08:59PM (#48297475) Journal

    Sparks but no flame: Pianist Dejan Lazic at Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater

    By Anne Midgette

    Washington Post Staff Writer

    Monday, December 6, 2010; 5:32 PM

    Grandiloquence is an occupational hazard for a solo musician. There you are, alone onstage, playing works that are acknowledged to be monumentally great with breathtaking ability. It can be hard to avoid assuming the trappings of greatness.

    Exhibit A is Dejan Lazic, who made his Washington debut Saturday afternoon as part of the Washington Performing Arts Society's Hayes Piano Series at the Kennedy Center's Terrace Theater. Lazic, 33, is a pianist, composer and sometime clarinetist. A few years ago, he made a strong mark as a performing partner of cellist Pieter Wispelwey. More recently, his claim to fame was turning Brahms's violin concerto into something dubbed "Piano Concerto No. 3," which he recorded with the Atlanta Symphony earlier this year. The feat ranks somewhere on the "because it's there" spectrum of human achievement: attention-getting, large scale and a little empty.

    His recital of Chopin and Schubert on Saturday was unfortunately on the same spectrum. The selection of those two composers is usually a way to demonstrate a pianist's sensitivity as well as his virtuosity. This performance, though, kept one eye fixed on monumentality. Some of the pieces, such as Chopin's Scherzo No. 2, sounded less like light solo piano works than an attempt to rival the volume of a concerto with full orchestra. This scherzo became cartoon-like in its lurches from minutely small to very, very large.

    It's not that Lazic isn't sensitive - or profoundly gifted. The very first notes of Chopin's Andante Spianato and Grande Polonaise Brillante at the start of the program signalled that he can do anything he wants at the keyboard, detailing chords with a jeweler's precision, then laying little curls of notes atop a cushion of sound like diamonds nestled on velvet. Again and again, throughout the afternoon, he showed what a range of colors he could get out of the instrument, switching from hard-edged percussiveness to creamy legato, crackling chords to a single thread of sound. The sheer technical ability was, at first, a delight.

    Soon, though, all of the finesse started to seem like an end in itself. Every nuance of the music was underlined visibly with a host of concert-pianist playacting gestures: head flung back at the end of a phrase; left hand conducting the right hand; or a whole ballet of fingers hovering over keys and picking out their targets before an opening note was even struck at the start of Chopin's Ballade No. 3. There were fine moments, but they stubbornly refused to add up to anything more than a self-conscious display of Fine Moments. The final movement of Chopin's Second Piano Sonata was in a way the most successful part of the program: sheer virtuosity, and perfectly unhinged.

    Schubert's B-flat Sonata, D. 960, was a chance to shift into another gear and show a more reflective side, but it was a chance Lazic didn't quite take. The notes, again, were exquisitely placed, and there were things to like, but the human side fell short. All of the precision didn't help bring across the lyricism of the first movement's theme, or the threat of the bass growl that keeps warning off ease from the bottom of the keyboard. The second movement, instead of being a searching, tugging quest, was reduced to merely very pretty music.

    The pianist was received with reasonably warm applause, but it didn't last long enough to draw an encore - which ought to get his attention. He's a pianist of prodigious gifts, and he's too good not to do better, to move beyond the music's challenges and into the realm of its soul.

  • by Prune ( 557140 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:11PM (#48297535)
    is that the review has within it significant amount of praise, and the criticism is mostly constructive. The pianist should have taken this as a learning opportunity more than anything else. The critic closes the review with what is basically an encouragement for the pianist to not limit his considerable aptitude at the keys to mere showmanship, and to strive for true greatness. I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has. If the former, he has no one to blame but himself, and more recent reviews would probably be in line with this one--so why single it out? If the latter, then this review should not be seen as a black mark on his career, but a historical point of reference and a symbol of his continued improvement--so again, why try to hide it? The trappings of the ego often end up working against its owner.
      • Well, obviously English isn't his first language, and second, I didn't see anything "defamatory" from an American standpoint in the review, which takes more than stating your opinion.

        Especially when it comes to reviews, actually. There are known reviewers out there who have a thing against giving a 'perfect' review, they feel the need to come up with something negative.

    • I don't know the current stage of professional development of this pianist, but there are two main possibilities: either he's not improved since the review, or he has.

      I have last heard him in 2013. At least up until that point, he has not improved. If anything, he's crystallized into that interesting, virtuoso but ultimately empty style that the review very well described. His recitals showcase his incredible control of the instrument, but leave the audience completely unfulfilled, with no real musical experience to speak of.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It wasn't even a bad review. I mean, it wasn't a *wonderful* review, but it still said that the pianist was incredibly proficient at his craft; he just needs to stop being fixated on impressing everyone with how good he is every single minute and allow for some calmness, some reflection, and some humility.

    So, appropriately enough, the self-obsessed twerp is complaining that the review wasn't good enough for his tastes.

  • by niftymitch ( 1625721 ) on Sunday November 02, 2014 @09:45PM (#48297779)

    If he wants to be forgotten then "forget him".

    Invoking the right to be forgotten should not be selective.
    Flush it all and let us not visit this again.

  • Did anybody notice...the linked article about the removal request...was a Washington Post article? And this article prominently displays a link to the original review. It doesn't seem the request for removal is having the desired effect.

  • by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Monday November 03, 2014 @01:51AM (#48298873) Homepage

    Dejan Lazic went from being obscure to being world famous for the wrong reason, now he will remain in the memories of people as a person not able to take criticism.

    How many did know of him before this story?
    Who will hire him for a concert now?

    If I wanted an obnoxious person-centered musician with an ego the size of Mount Everest I would hire Prince [youtube.com].
    If I wanted a piano player that is fun to watch I'd take Robert Wells [youtube.com] instead.

    • If I wanted a piano player that is fun to watch I'd take Robert Wells instead.

      That was quite the performance. Odd that some of the orchestra seemed to be like, "eh, screw this", while some of them were quite clearly enjoying themselves (being completely unable to suppress shit-eating grins).

  • Hopefully cases like this will spark a discussion about updating the ruling. Like a person trying to invoke the right to be forgotten having to show a thorough effort in removing his person from the internet himself - putting down his own homepage would be a start.

    This ruling was created for people in distress that are facing real-life mistreatment, stalking etc they'll be fine with shutting down their facebook profiles (that's the first thing they are going to do anyway). At the same time jokers like this

  • One day a man walks into a bar and to his amazement, he finds a tiny person playing a tiny piano. Stunned, the man asked the bartender where he got this amazing person. The bartender replied that inside the closet there is a genie that will grant him a single wish.

    The man dashed into the the closet and as the bartender said, there was a genie inside. Without hesitation the man wished for a million bucks.

    But instead, 1 million ducks instantly appeared, quacking up a storm and making a ruckus. Infuriated, the

  • Separate from the fact that the EU "right to be forgotten" is applicable to search engines and not the publishers; the Washington Post is a US publisher and thus not subject to EU laws.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Working...