"Fussy" conducting?

[M forever]

I refuse to answer that question.  You have a reputation for scorning anyone with less knowledge and experience than yourself, and tonight I don't feel like dealing with it.

That actually answers my question. But I don't "scorn" people with less knowledge and experience than myself. How could that be "measured"? I do "scorn" people though who talk about things they don't know or understand. Does that apply in this case here?

[imperfection]

And sorry for typing Kempff in my last post with a missing f, for those who are extraordinarily picky on spelling, especially when it comes to German words.

[imperfection]

  Imperfection, your comparison between Lang Langs"immaturity" and Kempff's "maturity" is unfair. Lang Lang is only about 26. Give him time to mature. I admire Kempff too, but just about all our recordings of him are by a seasoned pianist in his 60s to 80s.  And I HAVE heard some really fine performances from the constroversial young Chinese pianist, such as one of the Mendelssohn piano concertos from Mostly  Mozart on PBS, and a live recording from London of the Rachmaninov 3rd with Temirkanov and the St.Petersburg Philharmonic.
  Our reactions to different performers are often like the way we describe people we like or dislike personally. If you like some one, you admire that person's "frugality". But if you can't stand him, you call him"stingy" and "cheap".
  Or some one's "gift of Gab" if you like him, and his "diarhea of the mouth" and "motor mouth" if you don't. Or his assertiveness if you like him, and his obnoxiousness if you don't.
   Therefore, we often criticize musicians we dislike for making the same
interpretive choices as the ones we admire and praise.

Unfair? I'm sorry, it's called competition. The minute an "artist" gets signed by a recording company and starts producing CDs, he better have a reason for the public to buy his products. It just so happens that in this case, Lang Lang is obviously not my preferred choice of pianist when it comes to Beethoven's piano music. In that regard, Lang Lang already "lost". Your idea of how one should not compare a 26 year old performer with a legendary figure like Kempff does not apply here. And BTW, how do you know if Lang Lang would actually mature in 10, or 20 years, when he's as old as Kempff when the German virtuoso became famous? You don't know that. Talk to me about the unfairness of comparing the two when LL actually noticeably changes his current circus monkey style.

It could also be due to the fact that since many "artists" know they are not much of a deal when compared to many before them, recording companies behind them have to use a different way to sell people like Lang Lang. That is why you got cover photos of him in fancy pajamas and shades with punky spikes on his head, in his Beethoven PC 1&4 album.

[knight66]

That actually answers my question. But I don't "scorn" people with less knowledge and experience than myself. How could that be "measured"? I do "scorn" people though who talk about things they don't know or understand. Does that apply in this case here?

Well, you can cut out the scorning here, whether you think it justified or not.

Knight

[M forever]

There is no scorning in that post. I just had a simple question: if you know so much about Maazel as a conductor, and even what he "feels" while he s conducting, how often have you seen him live? That is a very valid question as we aren't talking about a musician who is long gone and whose work we can only judge from recordings, but someone who is still around and who has been very active in the concert world for half a century. And seeing musicians live in concert gives you a much better idea of how they play or conduct and interact with other musicians than just listening to their recordings.
So that was a very simple and basic question which is relevant in this context. How come he won't answer it?



Sarcastic remark removed by Knight

[knight66]

There is no scorning in that post.

I did not say there was, despite my warning however, you could not resist a dig. We have now lost two valued members in a couple of weeks, at least in part through your abrasive and aggressive behaviour. Someone has already told you that he has no intension of answering your question, whether or not it was a reasonable question. However, you feel the need to press the point further.

You are going to find your room for maneuver somewhat restricted now. Any posts the Mods don't like the look of will be deleted entirely, not edited. I will spell this out. It will not just be about whether there were insults, but whether the tone was aggressive or hectoring or snide.

Also, don't anyone assume it is open season where you can try to annoy this poster and hope he rises to the bate, such posts will likewise be deleted.

Knight

[M forever]

How often have you seen Maazel live?

You are right. That was really mean an uncalled-for of me to ask.

You are going to find your room for maneuver somewhat restricted now. Any posts the Mods don't like the look of will be deleted entirely, not edited.

What do you mean, "now"? It's always been like that.

[knight66]

If it had in fact been like that, we would not have lost two members recently. If you want to fight with like minded individuals, do it behind the scenes, do without the grandstanding.

However folks, that is not an invitation to bully in private. Rob has taken action where an unwilling participant was being abused via PMs.

Knight

[M forever]

So have you seen Maazel live? Have you sung under with him?

I hope that's not offensive to ask.

[knight66]

Both M; I watched in rehearsals how he would set a tempo, for instance, during Beethoven's 9th and it would remain in place until the prescribed tempo changed. I followed the Mahler 8 score in a live performance and noticed he did the same in that. For instance, the Boulez performance I was in and which I found on CD and was therefore able to analyse to an extent, is a great deal more flexible than the way Mazzel did it. Similarly, in the Missa Solemnes, I noticed Maazel smoothed out some of the tempi and ignored some of the fluctuations.

I am not suggesting he was rigid, but I think in the music in which I have heard him and paid proper attention, he plays a pretty straight bat. I observed him very carefully get the players to play to the score. He frequently made reference to it as against, just asking them so do such and such. But he is not really a conductor I usually warm to and I prefer more adrenalin, less as was rehearsed. I did not get the feeling of his interpretations taking flight.

He seems quite different to Sinopoli who looks for ebb and flow. I find some of his conducting gear changes too extreme, but when it worked for me, I loved his approach. I was in his Mahler 2 and we were terrifically excited about him. However, on that particular occasion, he was ultra analytical and the result seemed and felt flat. In contrast, his CDs of Salome are my favourites of the work. There his interventionist approach with heavy rubato and frenzy pays wonderful dividends.

He used often to be accused of mauling the music. I did not like his CDs of Rigoletto, which felt driven then slowed down in turns. I know you admire him a lot, so I assume you don't feel he mauled the music. Alternatively, were there pieces where you felt his approach did not work and in the things you do like, is he prone to gear changes?

Mike

[Kuhlau]

As the discussion seems now to be centring on Maazel, I'll contribute this. I saw him conduct a rather splendid performance of Brahms' A German Requiem at the Royal Festival Hall in London earlier this year. I had a pretty good seat (a regular told me it was among the best in the house), and could see Maazel's conducting very clearly.

Now, I'm a non-musician, so I can't comment on the specifics of his technique or how these related to the score. But what I observed was a rather conservative style* which nonetheless yielded a performance that was arguably more polished than his 1976 recording of this work. It didn't raise the roof - and some of the sopranos didn't seem to gel - but OTOH, I didn't leave the room feeling that Maazel had been fussy, nor with any wish for my money back.

FK

*Conservative when compared with the drama one witnesses with Rattle or, much to my surprise at a BBC Proms concert in 2007, Masur. This latter conductor's style was somewhat distracting to watch, however pleasing the results.

[knight66]

I don't think we should get confused between what we see and what we hear. In the Brahms, there are many things to listen for, as against watch for. But technique or showmanship can be distracting.

Also, a conductor can be fussy without it being aparant to the audience and he may flail about, but be almost ignored by the players.

Mike

[Kuhlau]

I don't think we should get confused between what we see and what we hear. In the Brahms, there are many things to listen for, as against watch for. But technique or showmanship can be distracting.

Also, a conductor can be fussy without it being aparant to the audience and he may flail about, but be almost ignored by the players.

Mike

Now, here we see the limits of my understanding, Mike. Obviously, I appreciate that more goes on behind the scenes before a performance is given, and therefore, any fussiness may well have already taken place. But surely, there must be times when that intended fussiness (otherwise known as a conductor's interpretation) becomes visually apparent in his or her physical direction of the players. Or is that a further misunderstanding on my part?

FK

[knight66]

Oh, no you are quite right, yes you might well be aware of it visually. There is the idea that a lot of young conductors learn their moves in front of a mirror, then show off on the platform, to relatively little effect. I can't off hand think of anyone who does that. But also, a flamboyant conductor can galvanise an orchestra in all the right ways. I have a Mahler 2 DVD with Bernstein and you can see that all the gestures are genuinely expressing something he wants to convey about the music, the musicians play their socks off.

But the big gesture is not vital to ensure a good interpretation. Sir Adrian Boult hardly moved, likewise Klemperer in his late years, but the orchestra played wonderfully for them both and as far as I know they played what the conductor was wanting to express.

Mike

[Superhorn]

   Imperfection, management agencies and record companies don't just take untalented young people and manufacture careers for them with slick publicity and record contracts. No untalented or mediocre person has ever made a great career. With all due respect, your withering dismissal of Lang Lang is not only unfair but appallingly cynical.
  And I did not say that Lang Lang is sure to mature into a great and profound musician; all I did was say let's give him a chance to mature, and not write him off cynically.  But there is a widespread tendency among critics and commentators on classical music to assume that just because so and so is young and good-looking, and has had a lot of publicity and gotten a recording contract, that he or she can't be any good and deserving of being taken seriously as a musician.
  But young musicians such as Gustavo Dudamel, Lang Lang, Hillary Hahn, and so many other great young talents have made successful careers so far purely on talent and promise.
  With all due respect, it really annoys me how appallingly cynical your comments about young talents are. There is a wealth of really gifted young classical musicians today; please don't deny it.

[imperfection]

   Imperfection, management agencies and record companies don't just take untalented young people and manufacture careers for them with slick publicity and record contracts. No untalented or mediocre person has ever made a great career. With all due respect, your withering dismissal of Lang Lang is not only unfair but appallingly cynical.
  And I did not say that Lang Lang is sure to mature into a great and profound musician; all I did was say let's give him a chance to mature, and not write him off cynically.  But there is a widespread tendency among critics and commentators on classical music to assume that just because so and so is young and good-looking, and has had a lot of publicity and gotten a recording contract, that he or she can't be any good and deserving of being taken seriously as a musician.
  But young musicians such as Gustavo Dudamel, Lang Lang, Hillary Hahn, and so many other great young talents have made successful careers so far purely on talent and promise.
  With all due respect, it really annoys me how appallingly cynical your comments about young talents are. There is a wealth of really gifted young classical musicians today; please don't deny it.

Dudamel and Lang Lang might have "talent", but they are both highly controversial in their style and approaches in their interpretation of music. It just so happens that I don't enjoy either of the two. I don't really need to "give them a chance to mature" if I didn't want to either, as I have far more interesting and substantial pianists and conductors to listen to. How is that preference "unfair"? I like to eat apples instead of oranges, so I go eat apples instead of oranges. Is that unfair to the orange? Hello?

Even if I did give LL a chance to mature, I would not be able to appreciate him until maybe 50 years from now, because from what I saw recently, he really isn't anything more than a circus monkey with Attention Deficit Disorder that gets multiple orgasms playing Mozart.