It was a bit shocking to read this very mean attack by NY Philharmonic trombonist David Finlayson on Gilbert Kaplan, a man who has devoted his later years to studying/conducting Mahler's Resurrection symphony.... And I don't care what Mr. Kaplan's shortcomings are as a conductor.... Was this really called for ?
It's only a piece of music for crying out loud !
Here:
http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes/2008/12/some-words-about-gilbert-kaplan.html
Can't really disagree with what he wrote though?
I read right through the item and the replies. I don't really see anything wrong with what he says, though I would agree it is hardly a life or death issue. I owned Kaplan's first recording. It seemed dramatically inert to me, dead in the water, I got rid of it. He is only there due to his money, anyone attempting this ego trip, without the entry fee, would get the brushoff. There ought to be things that money cannot buy.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 19, 2008, 01:05:11 AMHe is only there due to his money, anyone attempting this ego trip, without the entry fee, would get the brushoff. There ought to be things that money cannot buy.
Oops, I did forget about the money issue... :-[ But how do you know that ? And is it fair to simply call it an "ego trip" ?
This was the best response, I think:
I heard Gilbert Kaplan conduct the Mahler years ago, in Colorado, and it was a beautiful performance. I love Mahler, and especially this piece, and I'm no professional musician ... perhaps the players were the stars who shone and not the conductor. I'm somewhat astonished that you, a celebrated musician with one of the finest orchestras in the world, did not check out his conducting prior to agreeing to play under him. Why, with as many reviews as there have been on the man's work, did you not simply put your instrument down and refuse to comply? Or call in sick?
You are so disgusted with your management for renting out the conductor's post that you refused payment for your performance, right? And got your colleagues to do the same? Tell me you did so and my respect for your high and mighty attitude will increase.To wail and moan after the fact, and in such a mean-spirited way, seems not only unprofessional, it's just downright rude. The man may not be the pro you wished to play for, but he deserves some respect as a human being, nevertheless. Shame on you...
1) I seem to recollect that this is a conflation of two replies.
2) Why should the musician refuse payment for having done the work?
3) The only other person who had worked under Kaplan's batton had the same opinion as the NY player.
4) The second comment you quote above, is from someone who admits he has no idea whether it was the orchestra who carried the performance.
5) Yes, I have read about Kaplan and he is extremely wealthy. The items I read made it clear that the usual engagement arrangements in London were reversed, ie, far from being paid for his appearance, he paid to appear, and paid handsomely. He has also paid to be coached by people who I doubt usually coach non-professionals and bought Mahler's manuscript. Without his money, he would be writing on this site, not standing in front of orchestras while they make him look like he knows what he is doing.
6) Turning to the naive comment that the players ought to check out the capabilities of a conductor before engaging them; most players have no say in who is engaged, though I do know that for some orchestras there are informal bans on specific conductors. It depends on the dynamics in the management system. But most players are contracted to play for whoever the management stick in front of them. Not much different from being in a factory and deciding you don't intend to work on the cars that are being sent to Italy, it would not happen.
7) As to the unkindness of the comments; no one made Kaplan do what he does, it is very public, if the praise is OK for public consumption, then so are critical comments. They are harsh, but frank and probably accurate.
Mike
By the way, Eric...do you agree that there ought to be things that money cannot buy?
Mike
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.
Not that it much matters, but this feels Diner-ish to me.
Orchestral musicians have always been highly critical of conductors who don't measure up in their opinion, and no one is a better judge of them.
They can tell instantly whether a conductor knows his or her business, has a good ear, a good baton technique, can rehearse efficiently, and really knows the score etc.
Sometimes an orchestra will play well INSPITE of the conductor, not because of him or her.
The New York Philharmonic is accustomed to working under highly skillful professionals such as Maazel, Mehta, Colin Davis, Gergiev, Muti, Slatkin,Dutoit, and others. It's a drag working under some one who lacks their ability. Whenever a conductor appears for the first time with a US orchestra, the musicians fill out an evaluation sheet to rank his or her knowledge,and technical skill. Those who don't measure up are unlikely to be invited back.
Major orchestras don't re engage conductors the orchestra considers incompetent. Kaplan's engagement was a fluke.
I haven't heard any of Kaplan's Mahler 2 performances or recordings, but would definitely like to. Still, you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm,dedication and single-mindedness of this guy, and his generousness to orchestras.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E1DA163FF93BA25757C0A9649C8B63
I am afraid that the Montreal Symphony Orchestra fell out dramatically with Charles Dutoit!
Wonder how he will fair in Philadelphia?
And, the BBC Symphony Orchestra couldn't get along with Leonard Slatkin either ;D
Quote from: Dundonnell on December 19, 2008, 08:19:28 AM
I am afraid that the Montreal Symphony Orchestra fell out dramatically with Charles Dutoit!
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.
Well...Kent Nagano? Um...........in some repertoire perhaps?
Quote from: Dundonnell on December 19, 2008, 08:19:28 AM
And, the BBC Symphony Orchestra couldn't get along with Leonard Slatkin either ;D
It's my understanding that that had something to do with Slatkin making some appearances with Evelyn Glennie in the British tabloids...
Quote from: Brian on December 19, 2008, 08:51:20 AM
It's my understanding that that had something to do with Slatkin making some appearances with Evelyn Glennie in the British tabloids...
Not the only reason. Slatkin got some bad reviews and got accused of a lousy choice of repertoire. Mind you, the BBC Symphony Orchestra is not the easiest orchestra to work with!
Why would a relationship with Glennie that have upset the orchestra? There have been a number of partnerships between conductors and soloists of one sort or another, I have not heard these caused particular problems. Though, there did seem to be some kind of problem or other betwen Slatkin and the BBC Orch.
Mike
Quote from: Dundonnell on December 19, 2008, 08:55:58 AM
Not the only reason. Slatkin got some bad reviews and got accused of a lousy choice of repertoire. Mind you, the BBC Symphony Orchestra is not the easiest orchestra to work with!
I was in chorus for a performance being conducted by David Wilcocks. During rehearsal the BBC brass swapped instruments and the timpanist disappeared part way through. Wilcocks turned to cue him in, an empty space and silence.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 19, 2008, 08:57:49 AM
Why would a relationship with Glennie that have upset the orchestra? There have been a number of partnerships between conductors and soloists of one sort or another, I have not heard these caused particular problems. Though, there did seem to be some kind of problem or other betwen Slatkin and the BBC Orch.
Mike
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article481404.ece
It looks like the Glennie issue was a sideshow.
Quote: "However, his real sin lay in the kind of music that he liked to conduct. Although he could not be faulted for promoting English music, which the BBCSO performed more than most London orchestras, the players apparently looked askance at his love of contemporary American music at the expense of the core German repertoire.............................
He compounded this offence by ignoring the cutting-edge contemporary music that had become the BBCSO's standard fare. One critic said that this trend had become a "recipe for playing to half-empty houses" and Slatkin was clearly hoping to attract larger audiences."
The BBC orch can be variable, great one night and so-so the next, but it is a very busy orchestra indeed, especially during prom season.
Mike
"Love of contemporary American music at the expense of the core German repertoire"; the Kiss of Death!
Luckily, I've been listening to Schumann this week, so I'm inoculated at the moment.
I think that the 'Glennie issue' was the final straw ;D 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.
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 ;D But I am not sure that Slatkin would be the best conductor of some, more modern, contemporary music.
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.
Quote from: Lethe on December 19, 2008, 08:28:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 20, 2008, 07:09:50 AM
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.
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.
>:( :o ??? ::)
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 21, 2008, 12:25:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 21, 2008, 12:25:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 21, 2008, 12:25:04 PM
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.
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
Quote from: Lethe on December 21, 2008, 04:29:13 AM
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.
Quote from: knight on December 21, 2008, 04:45:17 AM
. . . 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
Quote from: Lethe on December 19, 2008, 03:51:15 AM
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
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.
Sarge, Thanks for the links, interesting items. You can never really tell which way Lebrecht will jump, but he is really running to his own agenda here:
"Over the past quarter of a century, hardly a week has gone by without Kaplan and I chewing over some Mahler theory or discovery, some clue that might take us closer to the composer's mission. Kaplan has, I believe, changed the way we hear this work and, more importantly, demystified the art of conducting to a point where no-one will ever again dismiss the performance of a determined amateur. He had, in a verb, democratised the maestro myth."
In what way have we been affected by Kaplan that alters how we hear this symphony?
What nonsense about the amateur; by pouring that time and money, having that influence by various means, there is probably not another such amateur around.
It does seem rather mean spirited of the orchestra; to the extent that this was a sellout performance to benefit their own pension fund.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 07:34:51 AM
Sarge, Thanks for the links, interesting items. You can never really tell which way Lebrecht will jump, but he is really running to his own agenda here:
"Over the past quarter of a century, hardly a week has gone by without Kaplan and I chewing over some Mahler theory or discovery, some clue that might take us closer to the composer's mission. Kaplan has, I believe, changed the way we hear this work and, more importantly, demystified the art of conducting to a point where no-one will ever again dismiss the performance of a determined amateur. He had, in a verb, democratised the maestro myth."
Show me a fine violinist who plays only the
Beethoven Opus 61, and nothing else, and we shall have found someone to 'democratize the virtuoso myth', too.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
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.
Superhorn, that's just patently nonsense. Koussevitzky studied with Nikisch, who was the most highly regarded conductor of his time. He came from a musical family and enjoyed superb training in Russia. His musical credentials are as good as anyone's working today. Your attempts at depicting him as a hack are comical.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
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.
Speaking of Munch... what would his career had been like if he hadn't had access to the wealth of the Nestle chocolate heiress to finance his conducting debut? My point being that how you get your foot in the door, so to speak, is irrelevant, if you have the talent and the musical insight and know how to communicate it.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
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.
Sure, it was good, but Koussevitzky vastly increased its profile. From the BSO's own website:
"Koussevitzky, legendary for his extraordinary musicianship and electric personality, began an unprecedented 25-year term as Music Director in 1924. During his tenure, the Boston Symphony began regular radio broadcasts and, in 1936, performed the first Boston Symphony summer concerts in the Berkshires. The orchestra moved into its permanent summer residence, Tanglewood, in 1937. Three years later Koussevitzky, who passionately shared Higginson's dream of "a good honest school for musicians," founded the Berkshire Music Center (now called the Tanglewood Music Center)."
Now can you stop beating up poor old Serge?
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
When Richard Strauss made his first visit to America around 1904, he claimed that the BSO was the greatest orchestra he had ever heard.
That was before he had made it over to Chicago where he said the same thing about the CSO (which had already played all of his tone poems and given most of their US premieres under Theodore Thomas). ;) "I came here in the pleasant expectation of finding a superior orchestra, but you have far surpassed my expectation, and I can say to you that I am delighted to know you as an orchestra of artists in whom beauty of tone, technical perfection, and discipline are found in the highest degree."
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
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.
You totally misunderstood my point. There were plenty of, shall we call them "ocean-liner-setters" - since we're talking about the pre-jet age - back in the days. But you simply have fewer conductors these days who stay in one place long enough to elevate it from backwater to musical prominence, and that is a real test of a conductor's mettle because that sort of orchestra building really trains you to lead an ensemble and improve its musical qualities. Anyone can conduct a world class orchestra and sound competent. Part of the reason, like I said, is that there are fewer "backwaters" and musical standards across the board have generally increased. Solti tells in his biography how much easier it was to audition musicians for the CSO towards the end of his career than it was in the 60s, due to the larger number of exceptionally technically and musically accomplished applicants.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 22, 2008, 07:26:06 AM
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.
PS: Why do you keep putting two spaces after each word? It is really annoying to try to read that.
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 07:34:51 AM
Sarge, Thanks for the links, interesting items. You can never really tell which way Lebrecht will jump, but he is really running to his own agenda here
I'm aware of Lebrecht's penchant for hyperbole but an "agenda" seems a bit harsh, Mike. That he's a friend of Kaplan's he's never denied. In the blog Slipped Disc he writes, "I make no secret of being a long-standing friend and admirer of Gilbert Kaplan's. I have published that disclaimer several times and have no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of it. Having watched him master the work over almost 25 years, I am convinced - and so are many musicians - that no-one alive has such detailed knowledge of the score."
I think that last point is correct. What other conductor, professional or not, has studied the score so extensively and conducted the work as often as Kaplan? Keen amateurs in many fields can put professionals to shame.
But Lebrecht isn't my point. My point was, and is, that Kaplan has given us two superb performances on disc of Mahler 2. (I would usually say "in my opinion" but in this case the critical consensus agrees with me.) That Lebrecht too agrees with me doesn't matter: I'd never heard of Norman Lebrecht until after I'd acquired both Kaplan performances.
Sarge
Well, we will differ to an extent on this issue. I don't think that matters. I could not get anything out of that first Kaplin performance, it felt mechanical to me and I missed the ebb and flow I look for. So, I got rid of it.
Lebrecht is a man with several missions; one of which is to suggest that there is nothing special about modern conductors. I think the concept of someone who can conduct the Mahler, but who is not a musician in the normal sense of the term, keys in very conveniently with his ideas. Why would he disclaim acquaintance with someone he feels backs up his polemic?
If people enjoy Kaplin, fine. I heard Sinopoli live in the piece and thought it was awful. I heard Rattle live and loved it, his studio performance sits on the shelves unlistened to. So, perhaps Kaplin can conduct this single piece, but I don't enjoy his fix on it, I don't accept the concept of the talented amateur as having much to say about music, if he is restricted to one single piece. How about where that Mahler sits in the great flow of pieces conductors learn and perform? Where can the resonances be that use that history of music to resonate in this piece? It is being performed in a vacuum. I am perfectly sure I could be easily fooled in a blind listening, I would not remember his turns of phrase or his particular take on it; but I imagine I still would find it like an autopsy, rather as the live Sinopili came across.
As was mentioned, he is a one trick pony; if folk like that trick, fine, but clearly there is nothing else in the stable.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 01:16:32 PM
Lebrecht is a man with several missions; one of which is to suggest that there is nothing special about modern conductors...
Okay...I understand your use of "agenda" now.
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 01:16:32 PM
As was mentioned, he is a one trick pony; if folk like that trick, fine, but clearly there is nothing else in the stable.
Has he, or anyone else, ever claimed otherwise? He's on record as saying he's never going to conduct any other work. He doesn't pretend to be a professional conductor; he has no such aspirations. Despite the claims of the tombonist, Kaplan seems remarkably modest about his accomplishments and future endeavors. He conducts Mahler 2, and he supports, financially, musicians. I fail to understand how anyone, especially a musician, can complain about that.
That you think his performance with the LSO is an autotopsy is something I'll never understand. As I said in my first post, I believe he gives us Mahler's authentic voice as well as or better than any conductor I've heard...and I've heard almost everyone. The
Resurrection has profound personal meaning to me and Mrs. Rock...it's a piece I expect to move me and when it doesn't, I'm pissed ;D But Kaplan's remain near the top of my list, never failing to generate the thrills and chills.
QuoteI am perfectly sure I could be easily fooled in a blind listening
I wonder if that is not significant? Perhaps you listened to the performance with a prejudiced ear? No matter. What I've learned after forty years of listening to and debating the merits of different performances is, no one will ever agree 100% of the time ;)
Just curious Mike...what is your favorite Mahler2? If you can, disregard the soloists. Your choice based on conductor only please. (Mine are Bernstein DG, Kaplan/WP and, weirdly and surprisingly, Maazel/WP).
Sarge
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 01:16:32 PM
I am perfectly sure I could be easily fooled in a blind listening, I would not remember his turns of phrase or his particular take on it; but I imagine I still would find it like an autopsy, rather as the live Sinopili came across.
Mike
I haven't heard the Kaplan recordings. From what I gather there isn't anything about how he conducts the piece that suggests that he doesn't know how to conduct other pieces. I guess you have to know something about Kaplan to
perceive that fact. If you didn't know the Kaplan story would you be able to detect an amateurish quality in his conducting? Being able to "fool" Sarge sounds like a strict test (stricter than fooling me). What other test would Kaplan have to pass to make his Mahler 2 equivalent to an expert performance as opposed to one you just don't personally find compelling?
Sarge, I really had no axe to grind on Kaplin. I bought into the hype, got the discs and expected to be swept away. So it was not predjuice.
I know he is not claiming to be able to deal with other pieces; but it seems like someone who can recite all of War and Peace, but has never read anything else. There is more to the Mahler 2 than the Mahler 2. It is a culmination of what lead up to it and we now find resonances of later pieces in it. But of course it is subjective, he moves you, not me. I don't think that means I lack discernment.
My favourite recordings.
A Klemperer Concertgebow performance; here it is, though my edition is from a different source.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PMeiaiVIL._SS400_.jpg)
This has the most remarkable sweep and despite what I said about ebb and flow, it at times sounds like some epic machine, unstoppable.
My other favourite is Mehta on Decca with the Vienna Phil. I feel he really has a grip on the piece, yet lets it breathe.
I have eight versions, including the live Lucern Abbado; but much as I want to like that one, it leaves me cold.
Mike
Quote from: drogulus on December 22, 2008, 02:01:54 PM
I haven't heard the Kaplan recordings. From what I gather there isn't anything about how he conducts the piece that suggests that he doesn't know how to conduct other pieces. I guess you have to know something about Kaplan to perceive that fact. If you didn't know the Kaplan story would you be able to detect an amateurish quality in his conducting? Being able to "fool" Sarge sounds like a strict test (stricter than fooling me). What other test would Kaplan have to pass to make his Mahler 2 equivalent to an expert performance as opposed to one you just don't personally find compelling?
Not once have I said I thought he was amateurish in his approach. Not once have I suggested it is less capable technically than the versions I do like. What I did not like was that I failed to respond to his approach, and I question the entire exercise. But those who like him and the performances; fine. No one is making me listen to them. The criticism of his actual performance on a technical level was from the blog writer.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 22, 2008, 01:00:26 PM
I'm aware of Lebrecht's penchant for hyperbole but an "agenda" seems a bit harsh, Mike.
His point is besides the point, though. Knowing the score well and being able to conduct an orchestra are two different things. That's like saying that knowing the road very well makes you a great race car driver. Kaplan has walked up and down that road many times, polished the traffic signs and trimmed the grass by the side, but he shouldn't be allowed in a Ferrari. Not, at any rate, when others are paying to see a good race.
But I am being too generous to the NYP. Make that a used 1985 Lincoln Towncar, not a Ferrari.
Aside, Lebrecht is Classical Music's [Bob] BILL O'Reilly. You don't take him seriously, you just watch it to be entertained.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 22, 2008, 02:11:37 PM
Aside, Lebrecht is Classical Music's Bob O'Reilly. You don't take him seriously, you just watch it to be entertained.
...Bill?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 22, 2008, 02:11:37 PM
His point is besides the point, though. Knowing the score well and being able to conduct an orchestra are two different things. That's like saying that knowing the road very well makes you a great race car driver. Kaplan has walked up and down that road many times, polished the traffic signs and trimmed the grass by the side, but he shouldn't be allowed in a Ferrari. Not, at any rate, when others are paying to see a good race.
I paid to see the race...twice. And I'm more than happy. Obviously we disagree...and many critics disagree with you also.
But I'm glad to see you return to the forum, Jens! I'm a faithful reader of IONARTS, enjoying especially your reviews of concerts and recordings. You've turned me on to many a recording I would have otherwise have passed up...and made me regret I don't travel to Munich more often to see and hear the Münchner Philharmoniker and the SOBR.
Sarge
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 02:02:56 PM
A Klemperer Concertgebow performance; here it is, though my edition is from a different source. This has the most remarkable sweep and despite what I said about ebb and flow, it at times sounds like some epic machine, unstoppable.
Yes, I'm a bit surprised by this choice, thinking, from your previous posts, that a more flexible conductor is what you had in mind. I see Ferrier, that darling of the British, is one of the soloists. Are you sure she hasn't clouded your opinion? ;)
Seriously, thanks for your answer. I'll have to check out the Klemperer (I have his EMI studio version). I own the Mehta too...and also own Jens' current favorite, Boulez. Both are outstanding performances I admire but haven't fallen completely in love with.
Sarge
Quote from: jlaurson on December 22, 2008, 02:11:37 PM
But I am being too generous to the NYP. Make that a used 1985 Lincoln Towncar, not a Ferrari.
Ouch! When was the last time you heard the NYP live?
Quote from: drogulus on December 22, 2008, 02:01:54 PM
I haven't heard the Kaplan recordings. From what I gather there isn't anything about how he conducts the piece that suggests that he doesn't know how to conduct other pieces. I guess you have to know something about Kaplan to perceive that fact. If you didn't know the Kaplan story would you be able to detect an amateurish quality in his conducting? Being able to "fool" Sarge sounds like a strict test (stricter than fooling me). What other test would Kaplan have to pass to make his Mahler 2 equivalent to an expert performance as opposed to one you just don't personally find compelling?
Bingo!
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 01:16:32 PM
So, perhaps Kaplin can conduct this single piece, but I don't enjoy his fix on it, I don't accept the concept of the talented amateur as having much to say about music, if he is restricted to one single piece. How about where that Mahler sits in the great flow of pieces conductors learn and perform? Where can the resonances be that use that history of music to resonate in this piece? It is being performed in a vacuum.
You seem to suggest that it is impossible to understand Mahler's context without having conducted the rest of the repertoire. Why should it not be possible to absorb that understanding on a theoretical level? I often go to operas or symphonic concerts that illuminate to me connections to piano works I may be playing, upon which I may revise my approach to those works, even though I have not personally conducted thos operas or symphonies. For Kaplan to perform Mahler 2 in a vacuum, he would have to have been kept in a soundproof closet, unexposed to any other music, which I find hard to believe.
Quote from: knight on December 22, 2008, 01:16:32 PM
I am perfectly sure I could be easily fooled in a blind listening,
Isn't that the ultimate test, though? If you can't tell amateur from pro in a blind comparison, then what could possibly be wrong with the amateur's approach?
Quote from: O Mensch on December 22, 2008, 03:06:02 PM
You seem to suggest that it is impossible to understand Mahler's context without having conducted the rest of the repertoire.
I cannot answer to what
Mike may or may not suggest. I have alluded to (rather than really having made) the point that a great conductor (as a great performer) learns his craft partly by mastering a wealth of literature.
Quote from: O MenschIf you can't tell amateur from pro in a blind comparison, then what could possibly be wrong with the amateur's approach?
A pretender can stand in front of a professional orchestra, and unless he gets spectacularly in the way (which a professional orchestra could likely work around anyway), it is unlikely that the p. o. is going to sound genuinely bad.
Kaplan is wealthy enough that he can buy his way out of this embarrassment, but I should find it instructive to watch three hours on DVD of Kaplan developing the piece with a semi-pro orchestra which has never played the piece before.
That would show you what kind of chops he has. Waving your arms in front of a world-class orchestra, they're going to make you sound good no matter if you lose your place (and not long ago I heard a funny story about a conductor, a fine orchestra, and a symphony in the standard rep . . . .)
Quote from: karlhenning on December 22, 2008, 03:17:18 PM
I cannot answer to what Mike may or may not suggest. I have alluded to (rather than really having made) the point that a great conductor (as a great performer) learns his craft partly by mastering a wealth of literature.
A pretender can stand in front of a professional orchestra, and unless he gets spectacularly in the way (which a professional orchestra could likely work around anyway), it is unlikely that the p. o. is going to sound genuinely bad.
Kaplan is wealthy enough that he can buy his way out of this embarrassment, but I should find it instructive to watch three hours on DVD of Kaplan developing the piece with a semi-pro orchestra which has never played the piece before. That would show you what kind of chops he has. Waving your arms in front of a world-class orchestra, they're going to make you sound good no matter if you lose your place (and not long ago I heard a funny story about a conductor, a fine orchestra, and a symphony in the standard rep . . . .)
I've heard a few stories about conductors following rather than leading the orchestra. I was watching a video of Bernstein conducting and noticing just how far ahead of the beat his gestures were. When I attend Spectrum Singers concerts I watch the conductor and I find it hard to imagine anyone replacing him who didn't know how to
lead the group. It wouldn't look the same at all. And of course the musicians would be perfectly aware. Have any of the many musicians who worked with Kaplan blown the whistle on him? I'm not convinced you could buy your way out of that.
Kaplan conducting a student orchestra unfamiliar with Mahler does sound like an interesting test. Has he passed that one?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on December 22, 2008, 02:26:21 PM
I paid to see the race...twice. And I'm more than happy. Obviously we disagree...and many critics disagree with you also.
Sarge
Well, I wasn't at this particular race - but I heard him with the NSO a few years ago. I was pretty generous, then, but really - it was just capable. But it is an awesome work, and it is difficult not to be impressed by it, when hearing it live.
Thanks for the kind, welcoming words.
Re:
O Mensch - "
Ouch! When was the last time you heard the NYP live?"
Most recently (and lots) in 2006 and early 2007. For example
this time (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/08/mostly-modest-mozart.html), that time (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/03/from-uchida-with-love-mozart-in-new.html), and and then. (http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2007/04/mitsuko-uchida-radu-lupu-in-concert.html)
Can't think of an orchestra that sounds and looks more ostentatiously bored than the NYPhil. (Well, the NSO takes its time-outs, too, I suppose. But not like that.) But I am very eager for them to prove me wrong! Especially coming May.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 22, 2008, 03:46:36 PM
Well, I wasn't at this particular race - but I heard him with the NSO a few years ago. I was pretty generous, then, but really - it was just capable. But it is an awesome work, and it is difficult not to be impressed by it, when hearing it live.
(Disclaimer :: the following remark is not specific to Kaplan)Great art will prove impressive, even in ruins.
Having just read the blog I'd say the whistle has been blown. Kaplan may have good things to say about Mahler. He may even have good things to say about conducting Mahler. It appears however that in important respects he can't actually do it. Unless doing it means making good recordings with orchestras that can play the work expertly without his assistance. Or maybe the blogger was just offended by his amateur status just like some here. But for me the odds just shifted towards empty-suithood, though of a knowledgeable variety.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 22, 2008, 03:17:18 PM
A pretender can stand in front of a professional orchestra, and unless he gets spectacularly in the way (which a professional orchestra could likely work around anyway), it is unlikely that the p. o. is going to sound genuinely bad.
Oh, fully agreed. And that was one of my points earlier. There are many conductors whose stage presence is mostly decorative. But while the orchestra might produce competent performances despite them, it is highly unlikely that they would produce a truly insightful or memorable one. For that they would need an actually more than just competent conductor. But that is a difference one should be able to hear in a blind listening comparison. A professional orchestra can competently slog through a standard repertoire piece despite the conductor. But they cannot produce a meaningful and coherent interpretation.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 22, 2008, 03:55:56 PM
Great art will prove impressive, even in ruins.
I think Havergal Brian fans are all too aware of this... 0:)
Quote from: Lethe on December 23, 2008, 01:12:43 AM
I think Havergal Brian fans are all too aware of this... 0:)
Ouf! The unkindest cut of all! You
know you will be on certain persons' lists now.
When I said I could be fooled on a blind test, that was with reference to not knowing who had conducted the piece, but I still maintain, I would find it flat. I well remember my keen disappointment with that first recording after equally keen anticipation.
As to amateur: there are lots of really good amateur musicians around, but they have been trained widely and in depth in music; not trained like a dog to manage one piece. So it is not really an issue with me. I am an amateur singer and when I said on this site that I had done the Mahler 8th with Boulez, one reply was to the effect; I did not think he worked with mere amateurs. Without the freebie folk, a work such as Mahler 8 is not going to happen. So amateur as such is not the issue, rather the completely artificial way Kaplan has been trained for one piece.
I also watched at close quarters a lot of conductors and I observing some very poor behaviour and a number of times I saw the orchestra pull the conductor's chestnuts out of the fire, even for some well known names.
So, to clarify yet again; as one or two here seem to be determined to misunderstand me....
The issue that I did not like Kaplan's Mahler 2 is nothing to do with his amateur status, I simply did not respond well to it.
Along side that, I don't admire the way he buys himself a hobby. No doubt there are amateurs who could give a fantastic M2 with some study; but without the money, no chance....he buys his way into this privileged position.
If I liked his Mahler 2, I would remain suspect of his methods of getting what he wants.
I agree, the orchestra seem mealy mouthed, as I pointed out, it was a benefit, a sell out and I assume he was willing to provide his services without eating into their pension fund.
It is possible that such a prestigious concert, 100 years from when it was first presented in NY, has been the real catalyst here. Perhaps the orchestra felt they deserved a chance to celebrate that piece with a conductor they felt was at the top of the heap, rather than a part-timer.
As to looking bored; I am often surprised how often this happens. I should think the occasions I saw the Jerusalem Phil. would offer a challenge to the NY folk as to who was showing it most obviously.
Mike
To be fair to Koussevitzky, his conducting technique appears to have improved somewhat after some years in Boston, and the musicians got accustomed to his quirks.
But playing under him was not easy, and written evidence, such as in"The Great Conductors" by the late Harold Schonberg (an indispensable book for any one interested in conductors and conducting, and the biography by Moses Smith,which was so unfavorable that Koussevitzky reportedly tried to have it suppressed, confirms this. I have read the long out of print Smith biography, and it is very unflattering at times,though very interesting.
Kopussevitzky was also not that well trained musically, except as a bass player, and could not play the piano.(Neither can I because of problems with hand co-ordination which are apparently innate.)
He hired the famous music historian,conductor , composer and pianist Nicolas Slonimsky to play reductions of orchestra scores to get practice conducting and familiarizing himself with music, as he was apparently not very good with score reading.
My point is that if he were starting out today, without a rich wife to support him, he might not have been able to make a career,let alone being appointed to the BSO.
Been catching up here...
Found some interesting responses on the matter at this forum (http://myauditions.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2256096313/m/6331033526) from other orchestral musicians.
Of course NYP trombonist Finlayson and the orchestra have a right to speak out about who gets in front of them, but the irony here is that this Kaplan concert in question was actually to benefit their own pension fund. Was it really the right thing to air the grievances so publicly?
It has however brought the question of "pay-to-play" very much back into limelight though. As seen at the above link, some orchestras auction off a chance to conduct the anthem or such at a gala for a fundraiser - though once, as a Minnesota violist describes, "the poor drunken sod paid north of $14,000 for the honor, and judging from his inebriated state, I'm betting he doesn't even have any memory of the experience..." Ouch. At what point, does it become musical prostitution?
Obviously, Kaplan was not right for the NYP - he may work out fine for some orchestras, but just not that ensemble. They have a certain, shall we say, famous grit that will hold a conductor's feet to the fire, and snippy though they may be, it is one of the orchestra's characteristics.
No matter how much study Kaplan has done on the Mahler 2, from what I've read on Finlayson's blog (and other anecdotes from musicians under him that have surfaced), clearly Kaplan's lack of deep musical training has found him wanting in rehearsal to many professional musicians. Money can perhaps buy you everything tangible, but not the intangible, such as respect.
On one hand the concept of money buying the way to the podium irks me, though it would irk me more if Kaplan did it in poor spirit, simply for the power and glory. Although from all I have read, he is truly attempting to further the scholarship of the work and is rather, in love with it, making it sincerely his life's work. So all this is very honorable, and his story is even inspiring.
With enough study on ONE work, you, me or anyone could probably get to know it quite well over many years, well enough to produce a decent performance I am sure. I have not heard Kaplan's recordings, but apparently they are anywhere from quite decent to very good from reviews. Naturally, when you have the LSO and WP at your disposal! But it still bothers me that money can buy the way to a position that would normally take someone's life work to get there.
Is there nothing sacred, nothing sacrosanct about the podium anymore? Has the maestro myth truly crumbled? And are these good or bad things? These are questions that will continue to rage on in debate through this new century...
Senta, What interesting stuff. Here is Lebrecht trying to knock down a point made by someone who took issue with his view of the matter.
"NL to Rudolf Grainger: There are professional conductors, too, who struggle to conduct. The instance that springs to mind is Serge Koussevitsky, who was unable to find a beat for The Rite of Spring until Nicolas Slominsky wrote the score out for him without bar-lines. Leonard Bernstein, Slonimsky told me, needed to use the same bar-less score."
I find it hard to believe that Bernstein had to use a Janet and John score. I don't find it hard to believe Lebrecht would adopt this dubious stance in bolstering his friend and his opinion.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 24, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
Senta, What interesting stuff. Here is Lebrecht trying to knock down a point made by someone who took issue with his view of the matter.
"NL to Rudolf Grainger: There are professional conductors, too, who struggle to conduct. The instance that springs to mind is Serge Koussevitsky, who was unable to find a beat for The Rite of Spring until Nicolas Slominsky wrote the score out for him without bar-lines. Leonard Bernstein, Slonimsky told me, needed to use the same bar-less score."
I find it hard to believe that Bernstein had to use a Janet and John score. I don't find it hard to believe Lebrecht would adopt this dubious stance in bolstering his friend and his opinion.
Mike
Perhaps Bernstein preferred to use it. If he thought the bar lines hindered more than helped then that also may be true for other conductors wise enough not to express an opinion.
Quote from: Senta on December 24, 2008, 10:23:51 AM
On one hand the concept of money buying the way to the podium irks me, though it would irk me more if Kaplan did it in poor spirit, simply for the power and glory. Although from all I have read, he is truly attempting to further the scholarship of the work and is rather, in love with it, making it sincerely his life's work. So all this is very honorable, and his story is even inspiring.
With enough study on ONE work, you, me or anyone could probably get to know it quite well over many years, well enough to produce a decent performance I am sure. I have not heard Kaplan's recordings, but apparently they are anywhere from quite decent to very good from reviews. Naturally, when you have the LSO and WP at your disposal! But it still bothers me that money can buy the way to a position that would normally take someone's life work to get there.
I guess I don't understand the issue. For me it only matters how recordings/concerts come out. I can't imagine throwing anything worthwhile out on the grounds that the conductor bought his way in. I don't expect to know all the reasons why conductors have their jobs. When something works I can try to find out why, and the same goes for failures. Maybe Kaplan contributed nothing to the good of his conducting appearances, or maybe just a little. Considering the stories one hears about Koussevitsky it's clear that one needs to satisfy certain requirements minimally but not all of them maximally. There are many ways to bring about great performances, it seems, with no set pattern for how responsibility for them can be allocated to the various participants.
Quote from: knight on December 19, 2008, 01:51:09 AMBy the way, Eric...do you agree that there ought to be things that money cannot buy?
Yes of course.
Mike, what really ticks me off is this idea that in order to have any special insights into a piece of music one must be a trained, professional musician... Why do we have such little respect for the discernment of the 'mere' listener ?
In my case, I'm absolutely dying to get in front of an orchestra and make a special recording of Debussy's
Prelude to The Afternoon Of A Faun. It is by far my greatest personal wish! BUT, I would approach the musicians in a spirit of complete humility and tell them:
"My dear friends, Debussy's early masterpiece fascinates me to NO END. In my mind, the slightest change or vulgarity in tempo or phrasing or accent in this work, one of the glories of Western music, totally kills it, for me... May I share with you my ideas on how I believe we can make it more beautiful ? And perhaps we can look at making some revisions in the triad of the coda, etc. and so on"
****
Folks, before you jump on my case for being 'presumptuous' or 'arrogant' please understand that I am one of the most self-effacing persons you could ever meet. It's only when the topic is Debussy's
Faun or
Pelleas that I get wildly enthusiastic and believe I could make a very interesting contribution.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 26, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Folks, before you jump on my case for being 'presumptuous' or 'arrogant' please understand that I am one of the most self-effacing persons you could ever meet. It's only when the topic is Debussy's Faun or Pelleas that I get wildly enthusiastic and believe I could make a very interesting contribution.
People like us should -- in our pipe dreams, for we shall remain confined to them, I am afraid -- work *with* professional conductors in rehearsal. He can do the mechanics, we do the inspiring talks... the pointing out of subtleties... the "flavor". ;D
Suggesting that Debussy could stand some revision on your part, is neither humble nor self-effacing.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 26, 2008, 01:32:49 PM
-- work *with* professional conductors in rehearsal. He can do the mechanics, we do the inspiring talks... the pointing out of subtleties... the "flavor". ;D
Right; how would a professional conductor have any possible insights on subtleties or "flavor"?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 26, 2008, 01:32:49 PMPeople like us should -- in our pipe dreams, for we shall remain confined to them, I am afraid -- work *with* professional conductors in rehearsal. He can do the mechanics, we do the inspiring talks... the pointing out of subtleties... the "flavor". ;D
Wait, I like that arrangement!
;D
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2008, 01:51:58 PMRight; how would a professional conductor have any possible insights on subtleties or "flavor"?
Again, you're missing the point. Why is it that the perceptions of the "mere listener" cannot also be considered ?
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2008, 01:51:58 PM
Right; how would a professional conductor have any possible insights on subtleties or "flavor"?
The point is not to bring
any "flavor" to the work [
of course the conductor could bring
his], the point is to utilize the skills of a professional conductor to bring one's own perceptions to the work, despite the technical and professional handicap that an amateur has. In other words: someone to execute our wishes to the orchestra.
Are you perhaps not getting some of the jocular element in this discussion on a purely hypothetical situation?
Quote from: jlaurson on December 26, 2008, 02:05:13 PM
The point is not to bring any "flavor" to the work [of course the conductor could bring his], the point is to utilize the skills of a professional conductor to bring one's own perceptions to the work, despite the technical and professional handicap that an amateur has. In other words: someone to execute our wishes to the orchestra.
Are you perhaps not getting some of the jocular element in this discussion on a purely hypothetical situation?
Possibly not, since The Ardent Harp began this line of discussion with "what really ticks [him] off"; when Eric gets in Whinge Mode, he is one of the most humorless creatures on the planet. In which case,
Jens, I appreciate your efforts at injecting humor.
Eric is a kind of musical Lenin, envious of those in possession of what he lacks, and convinced that if only the streets ran red with the blood of the qualified musicians who "tick him off," he would Musically Rule. Ha-hah!
Eric,
Quote
"My dear friends, Debussy's early masterpiece fascinates me to NO END. In my mind, the slightest change or vulgarity in tempo or phrasing or accent in this work, one of the glories of Western music, totally kills it, for me... May I share with you my ideas on how I believe we can make it more beautiful ? And perhaps we can look at making some revisions in the triad of the coda, etc. and so on"
I can absolutely assure you; professional musicians do not want to be lectured and would rarely put up with it. What they want is someone who will conduct to the marks and make clear what is wanted in precise and brief technical instruction. You have to have earned their respect to get the right to 'explain' things.
You would be dog-meat after three minutes.
Mike
And thank you, Jens, for the reminder that the idea of Eric in front of an orchestra, attempting to conduct the Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, is pure delirium mere hypothesis ;)
Karl,
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2008, 02:12:43 PMPossibly not, since The Ardent Harp began this line of discussion with "what really ticks [him] off"; when Eric gets in Whinge Mode, he is one of the most humorless creatures on the planet. In which case, Jens, I appreciate your efforts at injecting humor.
Eric is a kind of musical Lenin, envious of those in possession of what he lacks, and convinced that if only the streets ran red with the blood of the qualified musicians who "tick him off," he would Musically Rule. Ha-hah!
And thank you, Jens, for the reminder that the idea of Eric in front of an orchestra, attempting to conduct the Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, is pure delirium mere hypothesis ;)
My only response to all this is:
Where does this come from and why are you such an insecure person ?
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2008, 02:17:53 PMI can absolutely assure you; professional musicians do not want to be lectured and would rarely put up with it. What they want is someone who will conduct to the marks and make clear what is wanted in precise and brief technical instruction. You have to have earned their respect to get the right to 'explain' things.
You would be dog-meat after three minutes.
Mike,
It's not a lecture... It's a collaboration or suggesting on how to improve an aesthetic product.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a kind, gentle and unassuming professional musician ?
Eric, You live in a world of your own. Of course as it is pure fantasy, run whatever scenario you want through your head. But I have been in probably hundreds of orchestral rehearsals with professional orchestras, the only conceptual chatting beyond an odd phrase or two was addressed to us in the choir. Sinopoli is the only one I ever heard give the orchestra a lecture. Even he did not attempt re orchestration. By the way, he talked the performance to death on that occasion; it was stillborn.
Anyway, as I said, pure fantasy, so as it is yours, have it any way you want.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2008, 03:21:49 PMEric, You live in a world of your own. Of course as it is pure fantasy, run whatever scenario you want through your head. But I have been in probably hundreds of orchestral rehearsals with professional orchestras, the only conceptual chatting beyond an odd phrase or two was addressed to us in the choir. Sinopoli is the only one I ever heard give the orchestra a lecture. Even he did not attempt re orchestration. By the way, he talked the performance to death on that occasion; it was stillborn.
Anyway, as I said, pure fantasy, so as it is yours, have it any way you want.
Mike,
Let me make myself clear:
I would never dream of re-orchestrating
The Prelude To The Afternoon Of A Faun. I am concerned solely with tempo, phrasing and accent.
However, I must admit that I've always been
very disappointed that he (Debussy) cadences on a triad at the end: the piece seems to demand the infinite continuation of that pitch.
Anyway, now let's say I had the financial resources to rent out a fine orchestra, stand on the podium (or have someone else there) and explain to them exactly what I wanted them to do, how to play, etc... Remember, I am paying them handsomely for their time.
Are you saying that even if I were to approach them in a spirit of humility, they'd be annoyed by this whole endeavor ?
Eric, This is not a meeting of minds.
Mike
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2008, 04:07:19 PM
Eric, This is not a meeting of minds.
Again, why is it that you believe aesthetic sensitivity and perception resides only in the minds of professional musicians ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 26, 2008, 03:43:23 PM
Now let's say I had the financial resources to rent out a fine orchestra, stand on the podium (or have someone else there) and explain to them exactly what I wanted them to do, how to play, etc... Remember, I am paying them handsomely for their time.
Are you saying that even if I were to approach them in a spirit of humility, they'd be annoyed by this whole endeavor ?
Even I have to burst that bubble. Absolutely, positively, 100% yes. And you'd be lucky if they were only annoyed. :)
Convince one person, sure. If you are lucky even one section. But 100 people? You can't even find 100 people on this forum to agree with you, and for writing anything here, you need no special skills. So, I am afraid, it is a pipe-dream. Goodwill on part of the orchestra members can only be bought by respect or sheer skill. Great musicians have failed, if they were not good conductors, also. Heck, most of the times, even good conductors fail to REALLY tickle the last bit out of a performance.
Cheers -- & best
jfl
Quote from: jlaurson on December 26, 2008, 04:52:33 PM
Even I have to burst that bubble. Absolutely, positively, 100% yes. And you'd be lucky if they were only annoyed. :)
Convince one person, sure. If you are lucky even one section. But 100 people? You can't even find 100 people on this forum to agree with you, and for writing anything here, you need special skills. So, I am afraid, it is a pipe-dream. Goodwill on part of the orchestra members can only be bought by respect or sheer skill. Great musicians have failed, if they were not good conductors, also. Heck, most of the times, even good conductors fail to REALLY tickle the last bit out of a performance.
Cheers -- & best
jfl
Thanks anyway Jens... You're a gentleman.
(logs off in a downcast mood)
:(
Of course, one cannot be genuinely indignant over Eric's 'offer' to 'improve' any of Debussy's triads, as it is scarcely possible he knows what he's talking about.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 26, 2008, 04:52:33 PM
. . . You can't even find 100 people on this forum to agree with you, and for writing anything here, you need special skills.
I am sure this is a reading which mistunes your intent . . . but I am sure you will agree that one needs special skills to conduct an orchestra, no less 8)
Quote from: JensSo, I am afraid, it is a pipe-dream. Goodwill on part of the orchestra members can only be bought by respect or sheer skill.
Excellent good sense, i' faith. To the frank confession, "You know, I have no qualifications to be at this podium," the perfectly sensible reply is going to be, "Then there must be some other place for you to be, better suited to your skills.
"Get along there; that's a good fellow."
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2008, 06:39:31 PM
"Get along there; that's a good fellow."
Well Karl, that's a nice sentiment, but from observation, the inevitable dismissal would be much more Anglo Saxon than that.
Mind you, Eric might get away without
actual loss of blood, since there is no brass in the Debussy piece.
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 26, 2008, 05:07:01 PM
Thanks anyway Jens... You're a gentleman.
(logs off in a downcast mood)
:(
The prerequisite of dreaming [without getting beat-up for it by certain (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?action=profile;u=56)others] is to have a glimpse of reality. :'( But that doesn't mean we stop dreaming, of course. My dream is to be brought in as "idiomatic consultant" on a performance of Mahler's First. Of course I just happen to be present at the rehearsal, when the conductor turns to me... and I do it only very reluctantly (or so I'll make it seem)... and then - because they asked me to do it, and because the conductor has transferred his authority unto me - the orchestra (well, half of it, anyway - the others continue to read magazines) listens with rapture to my impassioned speech about getting that friggin opening just right. (See Abbado doing it to near-perfection in Lucerne. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cwbGBFyEQ)) :)
But hey, it's my dream - and I conduct when I want to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4)!
Thanks for the link to the Abbado performance. I thought it was interesting to see that the orchestra plays a beat behind; obviously not late, but they have agreed on that option as against playing on the beat.
I have heard various conductors mention this; some say that the best orchestras play with the beat; but I don't think that is true. Rather it might be that some less able ones perhaps cannot. One I heard say that although he used the straight up in the air entry signal for the opera house as an on-the-beat entry to the singers, he expected to be able to use it in a concert setting despite the prevalent behind the beat method he used there.....we just had to watch him especially carefully.
Here is a performance with the Berlin Phil where they play on the point of Abbado's beat.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CSL3xNi9OLQ
Mike
Quote from: jlaurson on December 27, 2008, 01:30:30 AM
. . . But hey, it's my dream - and I conduct when I want to!
And without wasting anyone else's time; for which consideration, you are to be commended.
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2008, 11:32:56 PM
Well Karl, that's a nice sentiment, but from observation, the inevitable dismissal would be much more Anglo Saxon than that.
Mind you, Eric might get away without actual loss of blood, since there is no brass in the Debussy piece.
Mike
Just two pair of
horns, but not the sort apt to gore him.
Quote from: knight on December 27, 2008, 01:50:02 AM
Thanks for the link to the Abbado performance. I thought it was interesting to see that the orchestra plays a beat behind; obviously not late, but they have agreed on that option as against playing on the beat.
Actually, the audio is just a tad behind the image.
Perhaps a little behind the beat, but not a full beat.
Karl, yes, I can hear the horns in my head now. Quite right.
Mike
I thought I remembered just a pair of horns, but on checking the score . . . .
Quote
I thought I remembered just a pair of horns, but on checking the score . . . .
Quote from: jlaurson on December 22, 2008, 02:11:37 PM
Knowing the score well and being able to conduct an orchestra are two different things.
And, just liking a piece a
whoooole lot, is yet a third different thing.
Quote from: O Mensch on December 22, 2008, 07:12:24 PM
Oh, fully agreed. And that was one of my points earlier. There are many conductors whose stage presence is mostly decorative. But while the orchestra might produce competent performances despite them, it is highly unlikely that they would produce a truly insightful or memorable one. For that they would need an actually more than just competent conductor. But that is a difference one should be able to hear in a blind listening comparison. A professional orchestra can competently slog through a standard repertoire piece despite the conductor. But they cannot produce a meaningful and coherent interpretation.
This is a problem with the present jet-setting practice. Guest conductors fly in, have one or two rehearsals, and conduct a program. Not much opportunity for "getting to know you," musically.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 27, 2008, 05:58:16 PM
This is a problem with the present jet-setting practice. Guest conductors fly in, have one or two rehearsals, and conduct a program. Not much opportunity for "getting to know you," musically.
And very easy for the orchestra to ignore you completely, unfortunately. Just not enough rehearsal time to make a real impact. There have been a few one-off guest conductors who've come through Chicago recently, that I have been impressed with precisely because they managed to make an audible difference in the sound of the orchestra and pull off very fine performances despite being airdropped in for only three or four rehearsals. In particular, Morlot, Dudamel and Luisi have been outstanding.
Quote from: jlaurson on December 27, 2008, 01:30:30 AMMy dream is to be brought in as "idiomatic consultant" on a performance of Mahler's First
Sounds great... I too am very fond of the D-major symphony.
:)
Quote from: knight on December 26, 2008, 11:32:56 PMMind you, Eric might get away without actual loss of blood, since there is no brass in the Debussy piece.
Mike,
I would be much less worried about the french horns than those beautiful antique
cymbals which Debussy calls for towards the end of the piece. Since they resemble small metal disks the percussionist could very easily chuck them in my direction.
;D
Quote from: karlhenning on December 26, 2008, 06:39:31 PMThe perfectly sensible reply is going to be, "Then there must be some other place for you to be, better suited to your skills.
"Get along there; that's a good fellow."
Could you please tell me why my wishing to conduct Debussy's
Prelude to The Afternoon of a Faun bothers you ? Why do you feel the need to make these derisory remarks especially given the fact that I had not addressed you at all in the thread up to that point ? Moreover, this particular composition isn't even a favorite of yours the last time I checked.
Again,
WHY do you care in the least about my passion for this music ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 28, 2008, 01:53:08 PM
Could you please tell me why my wishing to conduct Debussy's Prelude to The Afternoon of a Faun bothers you ?
This isn't about anything
bothering me, Eric.
No one who is incompetent to conduct, has any business wasting the time of seventy musical professionals.
Some competency in music theory would be a plus, too.
Tell us about this triad which you imagine you can improve upon, Eric.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 28, 2008, 02:45:33 PM
Some competency in music theory would be a plus, too.
Tell us about this triad which you imagine you can improve upon, Eric.
I kind of want to cause a distraction of some kind, so allow me to mention my theory that Beethoven's Violin Concerto would have been better as a cello concerto. 8)
Quote from: Brian on December 28, 2008, 02:47:29 PM
I kind of want to cause a distraction of some kind, so allow me to mention my theory that Beethoven's Violin Concerto would have been better as a cello concerto. 8)
.....and written by
Brahms >:D
Quote from: Dundonnell on December 28, 2008, 03:50:40 PM
.....and written by Brahms >:D
I have a plan to make
Brahms's scoring in the symphonies more transparent . . . .
My justification for wishing to do so, of course, is that they fascinate me no end.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 28, 2008, 03:54:04 PM
I have a plan to make Brahms's scoring in the symphonies more transparent . . . .
How about the Symphony No. 1 for wind band and percussion ensemble?
Quote from: Brian on December 28, 2008, 05:21:33 PM
How about the Symphony No. 1 for wind band and percussion ensemble?
You know, you get a whimsical idea, and it takes on a life of its own. Just before nodding off to sleep (and the fact that I had just been listening to the Bonzo Dog Doo/Dah Band was probably an absurdist factor) I thought of that C major tune from the finale, played three octaves higher by a picc, accompanied by spoons.
QuoteSome competency in music theory would be a plus, too.
Not necessarily since all I need is to hear the sounds as they are played.... My sensitive ears are sufficient
for this particular work only.
Quote from: karlhenning on December 28, 2008, 02:25:07 PMNo one who is incompetent to conduct, has any business wasting the time of seventy musical professionals.
The abilities of the conductor are totally overrated, o.k. ? I believe that kindness, gentleness, humility and above all, LOVE for the composition are most important when communicating with a group of musicians.
Another thing: music is not science or philosophy or medicine or some life and death situation. You and other musicians need to stop taking yourselves so seriously.
The Freud biographer Peter Gay said it best:
"The creative artist, that most cherished of human creatures, appeared in some psychoanalytic treatments [i.e., written treatments both by Freud and by other psychoanalysts] as nothing better than an adroit and articulate neurotic duping a gullible world with his clever inventions. Freud did not merely dispute the "creativeness" of creative artists, he also circumscribed their cultural role. Shouting out society's secrets, they are little better than necessary licensed gossips, fit only to reduce the tensions that have accumulated in the public's mind.
Freud saw the making of art, literature and music, as well as their consumption, as human pursuits much like others, enjoying no special status. To his mind, aesthetic work, much like the making of love or war, of laws or constitutions, is a way of mastering the world, or of disguising one's failure to master it. The difference is that novels and paintings veil their ultimately utilitarian purposes behind skillfully crafted, often irresistible decorations.
Appearances to the contrary, Freud did not take his view of the arts in order to discredit them wholly. Whether it is made of wit or suspense, of dazzling color or persuasive composition, the aesthetic mask hiding primitive passions provides pleasure. It helps to make life tolerable to maker and audience alike. Thus, for Freud, the arts are a cultural narcotic, but without the long-range costs that other drugs exact"
*******
Quote
Another thing: music is not science or philosophy or medicine or some life and death situation. You and other musicians need to stop taking yourselves so seriously.
That's the only way to go. Imagine a non-serious Wagner or Debussy. What would you have to listen to, then?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 29, 2008, 06:55:59 PM
Another thing: music is not science or philosophy or medicine or some life and death situation. You and other musicians need to stop taking yourselves so seriously.
Music is a language. Not knowing the language means that the message, no matter how sincere or pure, will inevitably get lost in translation. Your good intentions will be suffocated by your inability to communicate them effectively.
Quote from: knight on December 19, 2008, 01:05:11 AMI read right through the item and the replies.
Mike,
Did you read this one:
I've never heard one of Mr. Kaplan's concerts, but your post raises an interesting philosophical question.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that Kaplan was as inept in rehearsal as you say, but that the performance on the night was good (thanks to the efforts of the orchestra, let's suppose, rather than the conductor).
Does it matter that Kaplan can't lead a rehearsal or hold a beat if the audience members still have a good experience?
Furthermore, consider the possibility that some audience members even experienced the music more intensely because of their awareness of Kaplan's story, his "obsession" or his amateur status. Perhaps they would have had a less intense reaction to, say, a Maazel-led concert, for purely extramusical reasons.
Does this mean that Kaplan would actually have been a "better" conductor, for this particular concert, than Maazel?
Discuss.****
Oh Eric, you draw me back in when I really do not want to post constant disagreement!
OK....several issues here.
I am not sure we ought to entertain philosophical discussions, when we are trying to clarify rather than obfuscate the issues. I don't think what the guy posited amount to suggestions on philosophy.
If the concert was good despite the conductor; I am not for going with the praise for theincompetent. This is a profession, not a hobby. There are plenty of performances at a hobby level. Let those who don't cut the mustard move aside and go for the hobby option. There, expectations and tickets are lower, people are doing it for love, not to earn a livelihood and I don't see why a conductor who can't conduct should be landed on the pros. who devote their reputations and livelihoods to ensuring quality on all levels.
If it was just the orchestra who managed to hold it together, though I would always be sceptical such a thing could be achieved over an entire symphony; then why should some semi competent upfront garner the praise?
I don't think someone's biography cuts any ice here at this level of the profession. Either they are superb musicians or they are not. On disc, I am not about to appreciate a blind pianist because he manages the music reasonably well.
BTW, I know about Freud's ideas on art, very odd; when art illuminates or reflects the artist and society. One might think he would find it a useful tool. But of course, his distain basically fits into his masturbatory theories. Remember that a lot of what Freud wrote is not seen as orthodox now.
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 29, 2008, 06:55:59 PM
Freud saw the making of art, literature and music, as well as their consumption, as human pursuits much like others, enjoying no special status. To his mind, aesthetic work, much like the making of love or war, of laws or constitutions, is a way of mastering the world, or of disguising one's failure to master it.
I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood that. The point is not that Freud thought that any amateur could make music as well as any professional. It is that Freud objected to the deification of artists in central European turn-of-the-century society. What he is saying is that an artist is no better than any other practitcioner of any other craft, e.g. carpentry or pottery. Yet you wouldn't ask an amateur electrician to do the wiring in your new house. You want a licensed pro to do it, so your house doesn't go up in flames because of an accidental short. Freud isn't saying that there aren't any difficult aspects of musical craftsmanship that an amateur can just ignore. He is merely saying that music and art are crafts like any other. Even that view is highly debatable, and just because Freud said it, doesn't make it so. But either way, Freud does not at all support your argument here.
Quote from: O Mensch on December 30, 2008, 08:27:02 AMI'm afraid you've completely misunderstood that. The point is not that Freud thought that any amateur could make music as well as any professional.
That is not at all how I construed it, Mensch. :)
QuoteIt is that Freud objected to the deification of artists in central European turn-of-the-century society. What he is saying is that an artist is no better than any other practitcioner of any other craft, e.g. carpentry or pottery.
Yes, I agree. That was my point.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 30, 2008, 08:37:35 AM
That is not at all how I construed it, Mensch. :)
Yes, I agree. That was my point.
In context with your qoutes below it sure doesn't seem that we agree:
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 26, 2008, 12:53:05 PM
Mike, what really ticks me off is this idea that in order to have any special insights into a piece of music one must be a trained, professional musician... Why do we have such little respect for the discernment of the 'mere' listener ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on December 26, 2008, 04:12:24 PM
Again, why is it that you believe aesthetic sensitivity and perception resides only in the minds of professional musicians ?
The point is - and here I think Freud wouldn't disagree, and that is where you misread him - that ability to produce coherent music does indeed require extensive training and honing of craftsmanship. An untrained amateur will not be able to technically measure up to a pro. Freud is objecting to genius-worship, not to the distinction between amateur and pro that exists in any other trade and craft as well. You may have the greatest ideas about L'après midi, but you will not be able to adequately translate those ideas into a sound that measures up to your mental concept because you are inadequately trained in musicianship and will not be able to teach your musicians how to produce the sound you want because you have no idea how all those instruments facing you are operated. Conducting may seem like a mere excersise in management where one guy with an idea tells others what to do and relies on their talents to put those ideas into action. And that may be the kind of conducting that Kaplan is practicing. But
real conductors get results not just because they have musical ideas, but because they know how their musicians should produce the sounds they want to hear. And that requires extensive study, skill and musicianship, You first have to have some first hand understanding of different bowings, attacks, etc. before you can even conceive how a particular sound should be made.
Quote from: O Mensch on December 30, 2008, 10:10:04 AMYou may have the greatest ideas about L'après midi, but you will not be able to adequately translate those ideas into a sound that measures up to your mental concept because you are inadequately trained in musicianship and will not be able to teach your musicians how to produce the sound you want because you have no idea how all those instruments facing you are operated.
O.k. Mensch, that does make sense to me now.
Mike,
Quote from: knight on December 30, 2008, 07:48:02 AMRemember that a lot of what Freud wrote is not seen as orthodox now.
Yes, and thank goodness for that.
In the 1940's and 50's the German-American psychoanalytic theorist
Karen Horney came much closer to the truth than Freud with her emphasis on culture:
Here is an excellent summary of her ideas: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/horney.html
It really is first-rate stuff.
Then later in the 1970's and 80's
Habib Davanloo a psychiatrist from McGill University pioneered Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy and discovered through extensive videotaping of therapy sessions how the unconscious can be "unlocked"
Now, when was the last time you heard the names of these two in American culture ? Never.
(And the United States has the highest concentration of 'mental health professionals' in the world)
By the way, I recently read a review on the web, I can't remember where, of a new recording of a transcription of the Beethoven violin concerto for cello.
I don't remember the performers; they were new names to me, but I recall that the orchestra was the Sofia Philharmonic of Bulgaria.
The review was favorable. You might check these sites for the recording;
arkivmusic.com, classicalcdreview.com, or classicstoday.com.
Quote from: Superhorn on December 31, 2008, 06:48:16 AM
By the way, I recently read a review on the web, I can't remember where, of a new recording of a transcription of the Beethoven violin concerto for cello.
Curiously, before there was any recording available (the premiere recording has since appeared on the Chandos label) of
Shostakovich's reorchestration of the accompaniment to
Schumann's Cello Concerto,
Gidon Kremer recorded it in an adaptation for violin. (A friend has lent me this, but I haven't yet listened to it . . . .)