Musicians Also Can Be Very Nasty

[Dundonnell]

I think that the 'Glennie issue' was the final straw The orchestra was looking for an opportunity to part company from Slatkin and the tabloid revelations and the publicity those attracted led to some musicians using the daggers they had been poised to strike.

[Dundonnell]

Don't get me wrong! I admire Slatkin's choice of repertoire in many ways. Lots of RVW and American composers' music would appeal to me But I am not sure that Slatkin would be the best conductor of some, more modern, contemporary music.

[Superhorn]

   The  conflicts  between   certain orchestras  and  prominent  conductors  such  as  Dutoit  and  Slatkin  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  whether  they  were  competent  or  not.  Their  musical  ability  was  never  in  question.  These  were just  personality  conflicts.  The members  of  the  Montreal    symphony  found  Dutoit  harsh  to  the  point  of  being  abusive  at  rehearsals. That  was the problem.

[MishaK]

I understand that standards are already dropping since he has left - the ousting seems like a shot in the foot, as the Dutoit/Montreal brand was quite a strong one in recordings as well - it brought in the money.

Indeed. And not just the money, it also brought in first rate soloists and guest conductors, while also putting Montreal on the musical map. If you look through the current season program and compare it to the soloists and guest conductors that used to come through during the Dutoit years, it unfortunately appears that the OSM has reverted to the provincial backwater status it had before Dutoit's arrival. Coincidentally, I heard both Dutoit (with UBS Verbier) and Nagano (with CSO) conduct Symphonie fantastique last season here in Chicago in farily short succession. The contrast couldn't have been greater. The former an accomplished master who puts all the details in perspective and brings together a passionate and unforgeattable performance even with a youth orchestra (!), the latter an incommunicative, uninspired and uninspiring mediocrity who failed to produce one moment of musical interest despite having one of the great virtuoso orchestras of the world at his disposal.

[Dundonnell]

   The  conflicts  between   certain orchestras  and  prominent  conductors  such  as  Dutoit  and  Slatkin  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  whether  they  were  competent  or  not.  Their  musical  ability  was  never  in  question.  These  were just  personality  conflicts.  The members  of  the  Montreal    symphony  found  Dutoit  harsh  to  the  point  of  being  abusive  at  rehearsals. That  was the problem.

You are perfectly correct

The only point that I was making-and it led to some further discussion-was that competence and musical ability are clearly required if an orchestra is to extend respect to a conductor but that sometimes even these will not be enough if-for whatever reason-the relationship goes sour.

[Superhorn]

   Unbelievable, O  Mensch !!!  How  any one  could  be  so  dismissive  of  an  internationally  acclaimed  conductor  like  Nagano  is  beyond  me.
  If he is  a  mediocrity,  then  Shakespeare  was  a  mediocre  playwright,
Casals  was  a  mediocre  cellist
,  and  Einstein  was  a  mediocre  scientist.
   You  don't  get  appointed  music  director  of  the  Montreal  Symphony ,  Bavarian  State  opera,  Berlin  Deutsches  Symphony,  Halle  orchestra, Lyon  opera, and  appear  with  virtually  all  the  world's  greatest  orchestras  and  opera  companies  by  being  the  kind  of  callow  mediocrity  you  describe.
   Great  composers  such  as  Olivier  Messiaen  wouldn't  have  anything  to  do  with  him,  nor  would  so  many  of  today's  leading  composers  entrust 
their  newest  works  to  him  if this  were  the  case.

[Lethevich]

Nagano's recording of modern music is valuble. I don't really want to trash him, but I also haven't heard too much of interest by him with older composers - a recent Bruckner 8th broadcast I heard came across as pointless, despite the great playing from the orchestra.

[knight66]

I don't know much about Nagano, so the following is not meant to apply to him. Lebrecht, who I tend to think of as a poisoned dwarf, writes quite a bit about how it is the agents who do the deals; with the conductors being commodities. Sometimes it is like investing an a futures market, it comes good, or it does not. But he suggested that a lot of conductors are collateral to the real big players, fictional examples; If you want Maazel, you will have to give Nagano two appearances. If you want Abbado, Welser-Most has to be employed too. He suggests that a number of real third raters have sustained careers through this system.

Mike

[MishaK]

Superhorn, sorry to burst your bubble. Knight is right as regards the music busienss. Unfortunately, there are not that many truly exceptional conductors at the moment (or you could say there are more excellent orchestras around today than in the past, vying for what is still a small number of good conductors). This is quite evident in the long search processes and temporary solutions a few great orchestras in the US have had to deal with recently in finding replacements for departing music directors (CSO appointing Haitink as interim principal conductor after Barenboim left, Philly the same with Dutoit, NSO with Ivan Fischer as temp after Slatkin left, etc. - none of these guys wanted long-term commitments, but there was nobody available at the level the orchestras wanted). In Europe, too, there isn't enough first-rate talent to go around. E.g. Philippe Jordan might have piles of potential, but he's not really at the level to be ready to lead the Paris Opera.  So there are a fair amount of opportunities for rather uninspired persons to take the podium of quite renowned orchestras. I concede that Nagano may know what he's doing in some 20th century repertoire, but all-around he's nowhere near the level of Dutoit. Keep in mind that Dutoit pretty much built the OSM from third rate backwater into first rate international ensemble. Nagano only ever took over well-established ensembles and nowhere was his tenure particularly memorable (and some of those ensembles you mention aren't that all that consistently great to begin with, e.g. Lyon and Halle). Comparing him to Shakespeare, Einstein or Casals is a bit ridiculous.

[Superhorn]

   What  Lebrecht  says  about  conductors  is  not  really  accurate.
The  fact  is  that  if  you  are  a  lousy  conductor,  you  just  don't  get  invited  back.  Therefore,  it's  virtually  impossible  for  a  lousy  conductor  to  make  a  major  career.
  I  don't  think are  any  fewer  great  conductors today than in  the  past.
Take  Koussevitzky;  he  was  in  fact,  a  hopelessly  inept  conductor  whose  rich  first  wife  basically  bought  him  a  career. But  he  projected  a  wonderfully  glamorous  image  to  the  public,  and he  did  a  great  deal  for the  new  music  of  his  time.
   He  was  appointed  music  director  of  the  BSO  without  ever  having  conducted  that  orchestra,  by  its  management.  The  orchestra  was stuck  with  him.
   Today, if  he  had  been  invited  as  a  guest  conductor  first,  he  would  NEVER  have  gotten  the  job.  The  orchestra  would  have  complained  bitterly  about  him.  Maybe  I  went  overboard  about  Nagano;  but  I  still  think  he's  a  terrific  conductor.

[MishaK]

   What  Lebrecht  says  about  conductors  is  not  really  accurate.
The  fact  is  that  if  you  are  a  lousy  conductor,  you  just  don't  get  invited  back.  Therefore,  it's  virtually  impossible  for  a  lousy  conductor  to  make  a  major  career.

If only the real world were as simple as that! My parents were professional musicians at a quite good orchestra but which isn't quite among the world famous top tier. Believe me. Not only is it very much posssible for extremely untalented hacks to have a career, but once they have a well-paid position at a decent orchestra, they are also notoriously difficult to unseat. I could rattle off names of dozens of conductors you probably never heard of and who are not worth your precious time and money, but who have quite reasonably successful careers. I have watched many of them and winced.

There is in the art of conducting an inherent set of intangibles that make judging conductors very difficult for outsiders, especially outsiders with no training as orchestra musicians, which is unfortunately the case for many members of management boards etc. who are responsible for making or breaking a conductor's career. The mere fact that a conductor makes no sound and is a step removed from the actual production of sound  makes it extremely difficult to parse what aspect of a performance is due to the conductor and what is due to the musicians, what problems are due to the conductor's ineptitude and what are due simply to imperfect interpresonal chemistry between conductor and orchestra, having nothing to do with musical issues.

  I  don't  think are  any  fewer  great  conductors today than in  the  past.

Nor did I say that was the case. Quite to the contrary. I think one part of the problem today is that on the one hand there are more ensembles of high caliber chasing not that much more conducting talent, so proportionally you have an insufficient number of great conductors to satisfy demand. Secondly, the job has become more demanding time- and travel-wise. It is common today for a major conductor to have two or even three major music directorships (each of which is usually a 14-week commitment per year), while guest conducting or leading workshops or festivals during the rest of the week. It is more rare today to have a conductor who is truly committed to one orchestra and spends most of his time there really building and moulding the ensemble.

Now, on the one hand, you could argue that technical and musicianship standards among orchestra musicians have increased, such that the orchestra building job is not quite as acutely needed as in the past. But, on the other hand, it is precisely that orchestra building experience that makes a talented conductor into a truly great one. I have always maintained that a truly exceptional conductor can make great music with a third rate orchestra, while a medicore conductor can't. My litmus test is watching conductors lead youth orchestras. If you see e.g. Dutoit with the UBS Verbier or Dudamel with the Simon Bolivar you really see a conductor's worth. A professional orchestra can autopilot through a demanding standard repertoire piece, a youth orchestra cannot. They need the rehearsals, they need every cue and they need to learn how to listen to each other. And when that youth orchestra then exhibits superb phrasing, ensemble coordination, coloration, rhythmic precision and is able to produce a coherent dramatic arc, then you start to understand just how much work went into producing that from a much lower basic standard than what would have been available in a professional ensemble. A great conductor can go to a backwater, like Stokowski did in Philadelphia, or Dutoit did in Montreal and raise standards to world class levels. A mediocre conductor cannot. But many conductors today have successful guest conducting careers going from one high-profile ensemble to another, all of which can competently play the repertoire with little input from the conductor. The orchestra makes a great sound every time, thus they don't get the sort of feedback for their work that they would if they had to train youngsters from scratch or build up a mediocre orchestra into a great one.

There are also fewer conductors today who follow the old German Kapellmeister career path, starting out as singing coach at an opera house. IMHO, that (or something similar) is a really essential experience if you want to conduct any of the classical and romantic repertoire that has a close relationship with vocal and operatic music. You have to learn how to follow a singer, when to let the singer breathe, how to help a singer phrase, if you ever want to develop a sense for creating a long line. But many conductors today start out with symphonic work with little exposure to the vocal repertoire, thus depriving them of a crucial experience which would vastly improve their symphonic technique.

If you ever have an opportunity to attend an open reheasral with a great conductor, drop everything and go. Many orchestras have open rehearsals to which you can get a limited number of tickets. It is one of the most fascinating things in musicmaking to watch. You might hear a run through that sounds perfectly good by any standard, but then the conductor stops, mentions issues you would have never heard, suggest things you would have not thought possible and restarts the piece and you hear a completely different sound. It's amazing. It is said that Haitink and Rattle once attended a rehearsal of Carlos Kleiber's and afterwards Haitink turned to Rattle and said: "you know, after all these years, we are all still total beginners at this." One of my most memorable musical experiences was watching Barenboim take apart Ravel's Daphnis and put it back together in a rehearsal with a youth orchestra (!). The subsequent performance was of a level that I yet have to hear topped by a professional ensemble.

Take  Koussevitzky;  he  was  in  fact,  a  hopelessly  inept  conductor  whose  rich  first  wife  basically  bought  him  a  career. But  he  projected  a  wonderfully  glamorous  image  to  the  public,  and he  did  a  great  deal  for the  new  music  of  his  time.
   He  was  appointed  music  director  of  the  BSO  without  ever  having  conducted  that  orchestra,  by  its  management.  The  orchestra  was stuck  with  him.
   Today, if  he  had  been  invited  as  a  guest  conductor  first,  he  would  NEVER  have  gotten  the  job.  The  orchestra  would  have  complained  bitterly  about  him.  Maybe  I  went  overboard  about  Nagano;  but  I  still  think  he's  a  terrific  conductor.

Have you ever heard Koussevitzky? Doesn't sound like you did. The BSO would not be a Big Five orchestra today, nor would Tanglewood exist without Koussevitzky. We might never have had Bernstein without Koussevitzky.

[knight66]

Well, although I don't like Lebrecht, he had plenty of detail about how the business is carried out. Like a chess game, he suggested that specific posts were filled on pretty much the basis I previously suggested. I don't recall the names, but the info sits in 'The Maestro Myth'. So far, all you seem to be able to put forward is a reasonable concept of how it ought to work; but I am far from certain that is how it does operate. Music is business, just like sport is business.

Mike

[karlhenning]

Nagano's recording of modern music is valuble. I don't really want to trash him, but I also haven't heard too much of interest by him with older composers - a recent Bruckner 8th broadcast I heard came across as pointless, despite the great playing from the orchestra.

It really ought to be possible (the tent ought to be large enough) for a conductor to flourish, who concentrates on new music, and leave the old stuff to others.

[karlhenning]

. . . Lebrecht, who I tend to think of as a poisoned dwarf . . . .

That particular metaphor had never occurred to me, Mike;  but it fits the facts.

[knight66]

Karl, I don't know what he looks like, but his writing comes across so....I wonder just what disappointed him so fundamentally about life at a young age?

Mike

[Dundonnell]

Koussevitsky?

Uncertain technique-agreed. Indifferent accompanist-agreed. As a conductor of the standard classical repertoire(Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven)-idiosyncratic and inflexible at times.

As a conductor of Berlioz, Debussy, Ravel, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Sibelius, Strauss, Roy Harris-an absolute genius! He elevated the Boston Symphony to be the finest in the USA in the years immediately prior to World War Two and indeed one of the finest in the world.

I DO take your point about his appointment to the orchestra and the very considerable difficulties the players had with him at first. I have read how difficult it was for the orchestra to follow his beat but for interpretations of romantic orchestral music of white-hot searing intensity and colour he was a hard man to beat then and now.

[MishaK]

Dundonnell, fine post. Koussevitzky's searing hot Sibelius 2 is still one of my favorite classic recordings. Which reminds me that I haven't listened to that in ages and should really dig it out.

But really, to get back to the original issue, there are plenty of examples of nominally unqualified amateurs with money to spare who had careers much greater than that of Gilbert Kaplan (whom I have never heard and on whom I therefore reserve judgment). From Frederick the Great to the present there are plenty of examples. Which doesn't mean that amateurs cannot make meaningful contributions to musical culture. Just think where the classical music scene in London would be today had it not been for Sir Thomas Beecham, his money and his zeal for bringing more music to wider audiences. I'll take an inspired amateur over a jaded professional plodding along on autopilot any day.

[knight66]

Beecham may have been rich, he may have poured his family money into the musical causes he loved, but he was no amateur. Although he was self taught as a conductor, he had formal composition studies.

Mike

[Sergeant Rock]

Read more about Kaplan, and the blogging controversary here (Kaplan answers some of the trombonist's charges in the NYTimes piece):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/arts/music/18kapl.html?ref=music

http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/081210-NL-Mahler.html

It may interest some to mention that our beloved M (may be rest in peace 0:)), who is rather harsh on conductors whom he considers inexperienced or overhyped, actually quite likes Kaplan. I or somebody else could dig up his quotes on it from RMCR if anybody cares - it put the guy on my radar, to be honest, as previously I hadn't taken him seriously enough to listen to.

I haven't read M's comments at RMCR but I recall his saying favorable things about Kaplan here (we seldom agreed on Mahler conducting). I've been a fan of Kaplan's recorded performances ever since reading the initial reviews (all favorable surprisingly) and subsequently buying the LSO CDs in the late 80s. I like the Vienna performance even more. They are among my favorite Resurrections, in the top three of the twenty or so I own. Whether he's a mediocre conductor or not, he gets what he wants from the orchestras and his readings are individual and unique in many respects. I think he balances the orchestra really well; I've heard details I've either not heard, or not heard as well, in other recordings. For example, that startling (in live performance anyway) col legno moment leading up to the recapitulation in the first movement. That percussive effect is either downplayed or buried (inaudible) in every other CD I own. It's a spine-tingling moment that goes for nothing in most recorded performances. Kaplan makes sure we hear it in both his recordings. I like too his tempo relationships, everything perfectly judged, everything sounding just right.

Kaplan may not be the most passionate (Bernstein?) or the most idiosyncratic (Maazel?) but he lets the music speak as well as anyone and, I think, better than most...among recordings anyway. I haven't heard him live. Maybe he's more effective in the studio.

No need to point out that audiences, and critics, love him:

Hurwitz (reviewing the Vienna CDs): "As to Kaplan's interpretation, it's mostly excellent. This first movement must be accounted one of the finest on disc...This is, then, a very fine (if a touch studied) Mahler Second, though not quite a first choice. Kaplan gets more authentic results from this recalcitrant orchestra than most other conductors."

Gramophone: "But having heard Kaplan at a concert and now on this recording, no one will persuade me that he cannot conduct Mahler's Second Symphony."

I fail to understand why the tombonist is so mean-spirited and contradictory (Kaplan "displays arrogance and self-delusion" BUT he asks the players for their help and cooperation...huh? Which is it?). I also question whether he was truly unprejudiced prior to that first rehearsal; I think he came in to it expecting the worst. Kaplan does need the players help; he knows that; he is still an amateur...but I think he's an inspired amateur and while not perfect (both third movements are a bit anemic), I wouldn't want to be without his recordings.

Sarge

[Superhorn]

   I'm quite  familiar  with  Koussevitzky's  recordings, and  some  are  excellent, but  it  appears  that  the  orchestra  was  able  to  play  so  well  INSPITE  of  him,  not  because  of  him.  My  point  was  that  if  he  were  trying to start  a  ceareer  today,  he  would  probably  not  have  made  it. 
   Yes,  working  in  an  opera  house as  a  coach  and  assistant  conductor  is  certainly  a  great  way  to  develpe  conducting  skills,  and  some  today  HAVE  done  this,  working  their  way  up,  such  as  Christian  Thielemann,  who  is  certainly  a  major  talent.  But  not  all  great  conductors  have  started  this  way, such  as  Mengelberg,  Stokowski, Ormandy, Beecham, Koussevitzky, Munch  and  others.
   And  the  BSO  WAS  a  world  class  orchestra  before  Koussevitzky,  having  been  led  by  the  likes  of  Monteux  and  Karl  Muck. Although  largely  forgotten today,  Muck  was  a  very  important  conductor  and one of  the  first  to  make  recordings.
   When Richard  Strauss  made  his  first  visit  to  America  around  1904,  he  claimed  that the  BSO  was   the  greatest  orchestra he  had  ever  heard.
   Also,  the  notion  that  great  conductors  were  "more  devoted"  to  their  orchestras  in  the  past  and spent  more  time  with  them,  incostrast  to  the  allegedly  superficial "Jet-Set"  conductors  of  today  is  a  myth. 
   Today,  orchestra  seasons  are  much  longer  than  in the  past,  and  often include  residence  at  Summer  festivals  which  did  not  exist  previously.  It's  simply  impossible  for  one  conductor  to  lead  150-200  concerts  a  year,  and many  great conductors  of  the  past  did  a great  deal  of  guest  conducting.  For  example,  Erich  Kleiber  did  a   vastly  greater amount of  work  and  appeared  with  far  more  orchestras  and  opera  companies  than  his  late  and  eccentric  son  Carlos.