That month, the orchestra was touring in Europe. Rosenberg, who had covered the orchestra’s international tours for years, went along. In Switzerland, the public relations director of the Lucerne Festival gave Rosenberg a copy of a Swiss magazine that featured an interview with Welser-Möst. An orchestra member translated the interview for Rosenberg.

Rosenberg was interested in some of the conductor’s comments. Welser-Möst referred to Cleveland audiences at Friday matinee orchestra performances as “blue-haired ladies.” [1] He touched on fundraising strategies, as well as his appreciation for Cleveland’s pastoral feel:

Asked what the ladies must donate to meet Welser-Möst personally, he answers: “For $500, you don’t get a handshake from the music director.” And for $5,000? “No, it has to be a little more than that. A few years ago, an enthusiastic middle-aged fan, in this case a man, moved a check across the table for $10 million. With such a person, of course, you go to dinner.”

How do you like Cleveland? “Cleveland is an island. Here we have a world-class orchestra in what I call an inflated farmer’s village. For me, who loves the country, it is wonderful to live there among the green. Recently in the street in front of my home, I found a huge turtle. It had not escaped from the zoo. It was just walking in the street.”

During the tour, Rosenberg periodically wrote a round-up column of interesting news items too small to justify an article to themselves. He wanted to use quotes from the Swiss interview in his round-up, but checked first with Arts and Entertainment Editor Michael Norman about whether that would be appropriate. Norman was enthusiastic and urged Rosenberg to lead with them. Rosenberg opted instead to start the column with a positive review of the orchestra’s most recent performance, in Frankfurt. “Then I put the Welser-Möst comments second, because I didn’t want [them] to draw attention,” he says.

Complaints. Nonetheless, they did. The orchestra and its administration were not pleased, and they made that known. When the orchestra returned to Severance Hall, Rosenberg found himself barred from using a small room where he usually wrote his reviews after performances. He also lost backstage access and was blocked from attending rehearsals. “They felt that I had betrayed the institution, which was not ever my intention,” he says. At the same time, he was not a flack: “I don’t work for the Musical Arts Association,” the nonprofit organization that oversaw the orchestra.

The orchestra’s administration also complained directly to the Plain Dealer . At the end of the 2004–2005 season, Musical Arts Association (MAA) Board President Richard Bogomolny wrote to Editor Clifton alleging that Rosenberg himself had become controversial. He said:

A legitimate goal of a great newspaper is to publish news with appropriate commentary. In the case of criticism, opinions can encourage discourse, even controversy. As a result of lack of credibility, Mr. Rosenberg has made himself the subject of… controversy. It has become all about Donald Rosenberg, not about the music where it legitimately belongs… Mr. Rosenberg’s bias runs the risk of damaging the credibility of the Plain Dealer . I, for one, would not like to see that happen. [2]

Clifton defended his critic. “My sense is that Don's criticism is based on an honest and strongly held belief that Franz is not up to the job,” he responded. “In the end… we must tread lightly on the independence of our critic. To overrule him in the face of protest would make a mockery of the critical process.” Still, there would be changes. Clifton informed the MAA that music and dance critic Wilma Salisbury henceforth would review one Cleveland Orchestra concert per month. Second, Rosenberg’s reviews of Thursday performances—opening night—would appear on Saturdays instead of Fridays. That would give the newspaper more time to edit his reviews prior to publication.

The Plain Dealer’ s ombudsman (known as reader representative), Ted Diadiun, also rose to Rosenberg’s defense. In a column on June 26, 2005, he addressed complaints from readers. He remarked that while readers tolerated unfavorable movie and restaurant reviews, the orchestra “is as close to an untouchable civic treasure as we have… Woe unto the cad who dares cast anything less than an admiring eye toward the Cleveland Orchestra. We guard it, and its reputation, jealously.” [3] Diadiun told readers to celebrate, not reject, Rosenberg’s criticism of the orchestra under Welser-Möst. Readers should not expect Rosenberg to praise music when he found it lacking.

Nonetheless, the orchestra continued its campaign. In August 2005, MAA Executive Director Gary Hanson and President James Ireland III (who had replaced Bogomolny), asked to meet with Clifton. During the meeting, they showed Clifton a chart listing 150 sentences written by Rosenberg about Welser-Möst, beginning with Rosenberg’s reviews of his performances as guest conductor. The sentences were rated “positive,” “negative” or “mixed”; the “negatives” outweighed the other two categories. The MAA officials rested their case: Rosenberg was biased. It was clear they would be pleased if he were removed from the orchestra beat.

But again, Clifton stood firm: “We don’t let news sources dictate who will cover them,” he later said. [4] Clifton also heard complaints from the Plain Dealer ’s publisher, Alex Machaskee, who was an MAA board member. But Machaskee never tried to tell Clifton what to do about it.

For a while, the matter died down, even when music and dance critic Salisbury retired in late 2006 and Rosenberg became once again the sole critic covering the orchestra (and took over the dance beat). His reporting provoked no special complaints for the first half of 2007. In May 2007, Editor Clifton retired. His successor was Susan Goldberg.