Instead, Mr. Seeback chose to focus on what he perceived not to be happening. Rather than commenting on the caliber of the performance or the virtuosity of the performers, he focused on numbers. Mr. Seeback’s review asked, “Where did all those woodwind and brass players from the fanfare go?” and noted that “many of them were not seen again for the rest of the evening.” There were 70 musicians on stage for the fanfare. Of those 70, only three (trumpet, tuba and English horn) had singular appearances on the program and were paid for three services (one rehearsal and two performances) compared to six services (four rehearsals and two performances) paid to all other musicians. While we seek to balance programs based on instrumentation needs, it’s perfectly normal to have a few players who are not required for every work performed on a specific evening.

… if this really was in the review, it’s pretty ridiculous!

I read the above in a letter to the editor. So far I haven’t located the review. I’d like to verify that someone really was concerned that a few players left after the one work that used them. Surely reviewers don’t focus on that sort of thing. Do they?