"Welcome to Shorworld": the rise of wealthy dilettante composer Alexey Shor

[Brian]

The first time I ever thought about corruption in the classical music world, many years into my fandom, was seeing Kaija Saariaho setting up her children as nepo-babies, taking advantage of the fact they have a different surname than her. There was definitely a feeling of innocence lost.

When I was about 14 I saw a pretty bleak concert where Itzhak Perlman's child attempted the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto without the strength or stamina to be heard above the orchestra. That was my introduction to that concept!

[Karl Henning]

When I was about 14 I saw a pretty bleak concert where Itzhak Perlman's child attempted the Tchaikovsky First Piano Concerto without the strength or stamina to be heard above the orchestra. That was my introduction to that concept!

The success story is John Corigliano, son IIRC of the NY Phil's concertmaster, who is a genuine composer.

[San Antone]

I don't think there is anything wrong with this guy paying top dollar to get recordings of his compositions.  So he won't set the classical music world on fire.  It brings him joy to both write the music and hear it performed by top tier musicians.

He is doing no harm.

[Karl Henning]

Satie, anyone?

Of course, Satie's spare style was a reaction to High Romantic excess. As to Shor, I think of the old critique of a punk band, "Are they "primitive," or merely inept?

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't think there is anything wrong with this guy paying top dollar to get recordings of his compositions.  So he won't set the classical music world on fire.  It brings him joy to both write the music and hear it performed by top tier musicians.

He is doing no harm.

Perhaps not. But how many of these top tier musicians would be playing his music were it not for the money? Musicians care about the repertoire they choose to perform and record; this is their artistic legacy and they want to be thought of with respect. The article suggests at least an ambivalence on the part of these top tiers:

The musician, who requested anonymity for fear of professional repercussions, had no artistic interest in this composition. But like many freelance musicians at the time, he was still feeling the financial anxiety of the pandemic closures. Despite his reservations, he took the gig.

Many aspects of the concert felt slapdash. "It was clear that the focus wasn't on putting on an excellent concert," he said. Looking back, he felt ambivalent about the experience. On the one hand, he worried about compromising his artistic principles, and said that if he hadn't been available for the Shor concert, he "wouldn't have spent a second regretting it." Still, he had seen online that many famous musicians . . . . were not just performing the composer's music, but praising it enthusiastically.

"If the saints allow themselves to be bought," he thought to himself, "then so can I."

[Todd]

But how many of these top tier musicians would be playing his music were it not for the money?

None.  But it was a lot of money. 

As to legacies, a lot of serious and great conductors have recorded a lot of crappy Strauss waltzes, and no one cares.  Likewise, a lot of serious and great pianists have put out encores recordings which no one pays any attention to.  Shor looks to be equivalent to that.  Perhaps if someone can point out his magnum opus to date, I may listen and see if it is bad or terrible.

[Karl Henning]

He's also a multimillionaire ....

So, not an oligarch, then, and no, Russian oligarchy is not necessarily equivalent to mafiosi. After all, there are hundreds of honest hard-working Russians who have become huge successes in the free-market capitalist society which has flourished especially in the Putin era. We can be sure his money is clean. Why wouldn't it be? This would be nothing like that old popular fiction of the singer who was hungry for a film role, so his Godfather pulled strings, and apart from a decapitated horse nobody got hurt.
No, I couldn't imagine any scenario in which principle might possibly suggest that there's a sniff test this doesn't pass. He's just a rich bloke who happens to have leverage on some major Russian musical talent.

[Brian]

He's just a rich bloke who happens to have leverage on some major Russian musical talent.

Well, he made his fortune in the United States, although he then used it to buy Maltese citizenship. His politics seems nakedly opportunistic: he is cozy with all the Russian bureaucrats and hangers-on who can benefit his career, but also (according to his own account) supports Ukraine and paid for a Kyiv orchestra to leave the country.

[(poco) Sforzando]

None.  But it was a lot of money. 

As to legacies, a lot of serious and great conductors have recorded a lot of crappy Strauss waltzes, and no one cares.  Likewise, a lot of serious and great pianists have put out encores recordings which no one pays any attention to.  Shor looks to be equivalent to that.  Perhaps if someone can point out his magnum opus to date, I may listen and see if it is bad or terrible.

Yet some serious and great musicians have esteemed those Strauss waltzes very highly. You remember what Brahms wrote on a visiting card when quoting a passage from the Blue Danube: "Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms." Sure, some pianists have put out encore recordings too. Even Charles Rosen did it. The difference here (per the article) is that some musicians performing Shor have felt a distinct sense of unease about this music. We can debate this back and forth forever. Yet when I see Daniel Lozakovich performing a Sher violin concerto with the solo part in front of him, that's as if to say, "I don't esteem this music enough to memorize it."

[Karl Henning]

Well, he made his fortune in the United States, although he then used it to buy Maltese citizenship. His politics seems nakedly opportunistic: he is cozy with all the Russian bureaucrats and hangers-on who can benefit his career, but also (according to his own account) supports Ukraine and paid for a Kyiv orchestra to leave the country.

Well, that last speaks well of him.

[Florestan]

I don't think there is anything wrong with this guy paying top dollar to get recordings of his compositions.  So he won't set the classical music world on fire.  It brings him joy to both write the music and hear it performed by top tier musicians.

He is doing no harm.

Agreed.

[Florestan]

(per the article) is that some musicians performing Shor have felt a distinct sense of unease about this music.

The article mentions exactly one such musician, who is anonymous and whose statements and actions raise lots of questions about his own morality/principles, or rather lack thereof. Many of the musicians nominally mentioned are quoted as having praised Shor's music. Is their praise sincere? I don' know, but why would it not be? Maybe they are tired to play only serious music and immortal masterpieces and find in playing Shor's music a relief from the stress and exhaustion of their usual schedule.  And if they make good money in the process, all the better for them.

I wonder how many of us would uncompromisingly turn down Shor's offer if we were in their shoes.

when I see Daniel Lozakovich performing a Sher violin concerto with the solo part in front of him, that's as if to say, "I don't esteem this music enough to memorize it."

And yet Lozakovich is quoted in the article as having written "the music of Alexey Shor is a source of light." 

[Todd]

The difference here (per the article) is that some musicians performing Shor have felt a distinct sense of unease about this music.

If they are uneasy about the music but take the dough anyway, then the artists who perform and record his music are as opportunistic as Shor.  Which is perfectly fine.  Poverty is not better than purity.  If Shor's music is as bad as folks claims, his music will fade into the ether.

[San Antone]

Perhaps not. But how many of these top tier musicians would be playing his music were it not for the money? Musicians care about the repertoire they choose to perform and record; this is their artistic legacy and they want to be thought of with respect. The article suggests at least an ambivalence on the part of these top tiers:

I do not understand your objections.  What does it matter to you whether this rich amateur composer is able to make it lucrative enough to persuade famous musicians to play his music that they would otherwise ignore?

If any of these professional musicians has serious reservations about playing this music they ought to refuse the fee and let this wealthy composer find someone else for his project.  But to take the money, play the concert, and then complain about how compromised they feel ... is in bad taste.

[Todd]

But to take the money, play the concert, and then complain about how compromised they feel ... is in bad taste.

If the artists who take the money are serious people with serious convictions, and if they are actually uneasy about their deeds, they would donate the fee they earned to charity.  Otherwise, they are just opportunists who took the gig and are now virtue signaling to ensure future gigs with polite society. That's fine.  My listening decisions will not be influenced by who recorded Shor's music.

[Todd]

Any such "moral" stance would be silly. Reminds of the Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock sketch on Saturday Night Live when all the whites thought that Trump getting elected was the worst thing ever.

A classic skit. 

I see Mr Shor's clout buying as the classical music world equivalent of pop stars taking seven and eight figure paydays from sheiks and emirs with human rights violations and then either ignoring what they did or claiming they didn't know about the abuses.  Just take the money and say it was a gig, and that a gig is a gig.  It's not like Hitler paid them.

A less contentious example was Gilbert Kaplan using his money to produce his own mediocre recordings of Mahler's Second.  Classical music recordings and performances are literally all about money.

[Florestan]

@Brian made me re-listen to Shor's piano suite Childhood Memories. Yes, I still find it charming --- in the same way as any number of salon pieces written in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Actually, I wonder: if this music were published as a newly-discovered work of, say, Cecile Chaminade, Nikolai Rubinstein or Anatol Liadov, how many people, including Shor's fiercest critics, would notice the hoax?

[Florestan]

We used to pull that trick on a literature forum I used to go to back in the 1990s. We used James Joyce, and the ploy always worked. Hell, you could attribute Shor's work as an early work of a "great" composer, and that would dramatically transform what people thought of the work.

Precisely. I doubt Childhood Memories would attract much devastating criticism if presented as a Tchaikovsky juvenilia. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

But to take the money, play the concert, and then complain about how compromised they feel ... is in bad taste.

But that is apparently what some of them are doing. Bad taste indeed.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Precisely. I doubt Childhood Memories would attract much devastating criticism if presented as a Tchaikovsky juvenilia. 

I think Tchaikovsky's "Seasons" ia on the whole a crushing bore. (Though not as bombastic as his Piano Sonata.) And "Memories" is more bearable than Mr. Shor's 4th violin concerto.