Das Neujahrskonzert der Wiener Philharmoniker

[MishaK]

The "rug" concerts were an attempt by Boulez to make the orchestra the "Boston Pops South". It didn't work, because the WRONG sort of music was programmed.

Nonsense. Boulez would never do any "pops" stuff. He was doing what other European capitals like Amsterdam were doing as well: more informal concerts of music of living composer. Clearly, you completely misunderstood the concept.

[M forever]

It is only partly an issue with New York as such... ... ... ...

Thanks for the explanations. That does seem to make a whole lot more sense now.

As odd as it sounds, places like Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, LA, San Fran have much more vibrant home grown local cultures

Dunno about LA really, there doesn't seem to be much there except for the LAP which is pretty good, but not narly as much as hyped to be in live concerts. The new hall is quite nice, but it does have some serious acoustical problems. Overall, not the worst setup to listen to music though. But there isn't quite as much new music stuff going on there either as they make it out to be. I don't have the comparison with other major US orchestras though when it comes to that. Looking on their websites, I see new music items, too. The two times I heard other ones in their home halls actually had interesting new music, Lutoslawski's Chain in Chicago with Haitink and the CSO, and in Boston, music by Golijov with Yo Yo Ma and some dude named Harth-Bedoya conducting the BSO.
BTW, how do you evaluate the music scene in Boston?

[Iago]

Nonsense. Boulez would never do any "pops" stuff. He was doing what other European capitals like Amsterdam were doing

Exactly the problem. And partially explains why Boulez was not generally popular with NY audiences. He was NOT the man for the NY scene. You don't seem to realize that when people pay their hard earned money for tickets to a concert, they want to hear music with which they are "comfortable". They want most to be entertained and (in effect) catered to. For those (apparently, like yourself) that want something a bit more esoteric and off the beaten path, recordings are the path you should take. IMO, Boulez had alot of nerve giving NY audiences the programs he gave them.

[M forever]

Well, as we have already established, it seems then that the problems were more with the "scene" than with Boulez. He has been highly successful in a lot of other places. Not much good and relevant has come from the NY since Bernstein, and in fact, Boulez. Some of his NY recordings (e.g. Daphnis et Chloé) are still very interesting. I can't think of anything right now from the Mehta and Masur eras that we really need to have.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Well, as we have already established, it seems then that the problems were more with the "scene" than with Boulez. He has been highly successful in a lot of other places. Not much good and relevant has come from the NY since Bernstein, and in fact, Boulez. Some of his NY recordings (e.g. Daphnis et Chloé) are still very interesting. I can't think of anything right now from the Mehta and Masur eras that we really need to have.

Part of the problem is that New Yorkers don't really connect with Boulez, Mehta or Masur. We don't really see him as one of us. We see Bernstein as one of us, we see James Levine as one of us. This has nothing to do with being xenophobic it is just that Levine and Bernstein connect with us but the first three gentlemen not really. Mehta can be likeable at times - he does have a great smile and gives some really nice interviews. Masur on the other hand seems to strike NY audiences as a real bore, along the lines of a competant central-European kapellmeister but nothing really exciting.

I can't think of too many great recordings with the NYPO with either Masur or Mehta. This one is pretty good:


which means it can be extremely loud but at times extremely moving and featuring some really fine solo playing which can also describe this one:



I also rather like this one:


and this one:

which is more for the fine playing of Midori than for Mehta's contribution.

In fact I don't think Mehta made THAT many recordings commercially with the NYPO, compared to Masur at least anyway.

[MishaK]

Exactly the problem. And partially explains why Boulez was not generally popular with NY audiences. He was NOT the man for the NY scene. You don't seem to realize that when people pay their hard earned money for tickets to a concert, they want to hear music with which they are "comfortable". They want most to be entertained and (in effect) catered to. For those (apparently, like yourself) that want something a bit more esoteric and off the beaten path, recordings are the path you should take. IMO, Boulez had alot of nerve giving NY audiences the programs he gave them.

Cuddles, as has been already established, you should confine yourself to speaking for yourself rather than making untenable generalizations about presumed audience taste, which you know nothing about. If your statements about NY audience taste were true, then Levine would be playing Carter and Babbitt to an empty hall at Carnegie, which isn't the case.

I can't think of too many great recordings with the NYPO with either Masur or Mehta.

I am rather fond of Masur's Brahms cycle with the NYPO. Interpretively not particularly off the beaten path or revealing, but gloriously played. The NYPO sounds positively Central European on that set.

[M forever]

Really?

[PSmith08]

Exactly the problem. And partially explains why Boulez was not generally popular with NY audiences. He was NOT the man for the NY scene. You don't seem to realize that when people pay their hard earned money for tickets to a concert, they want to hear music with which they are "comfortable". They want most to be entertained and (in effect) catered to. For those (apparently, like yourself) that want something a bit more esoteric and off the beaten path, recordings are the path you should take. IMO, Boulez had alot of nerve giving NY audiences the programs he gave them.

First of all, that is an argument lacking any sort of economic merit, as a person willing to pay to hear Webern or Stockhausen is likely willing to pay as much as someone who wants to hear Mozart's 41st for the thousandth time. Also, by balancing the programs, you can have both audiences, if only half for each. Though, someone who wants to hear Webern can likely enjoy the Mozart, if not vice versa. People might not show until intermission, or they might leave right after. You've still got their money. It seems to me like a smart business would cater to as many audiences as possible with the intent of snaring as many ticket sales as possible.

Seems like you have it backward about recordings. If a person wants their season to begin with Beethoven's 5th and end with his 9th with pleasant dollops in-between of Mozart, Bach, Mendelssohn, Wagner (overtures and preludes), Schubert, Schumann, Bach, and - when feeling particularly spicy - a bit of Mahler or Bruckner, it seems to me like you could accomplish that through recordings for much less than a season's subscription to the NYPO.You could also get better performances than anything Zubin Mehta could churn out on an average day.

You are right, it does take a lot of nerve to try to expose people to new material. Who listens to music to hear something new these days?

Apparently not the NYPO target audience.

[Iago]

Cuddles, as has been already established, you should confine yourself to speaking for yourself rather than making untenable generalizations about presumed audience taste, which you know nothing about.

Having lived the first 65 years of my life in NY (on Long Island) and subscribing to the Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera for 40 of those years. I think I know quite alot about the tastes of NY audiences.  In fact, more than YOU will ever know.

[M forever]

Having lived the first 65 years of my life in NY (on Long Island) and subscribing to the Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera for 40 of those years. I think I know quite alot about the tastes of NY audiences.  In fact, more than YOU will ever know.

How come O Mensch's posts are much more interesting to read than yours then? Not that I find all of his posts *that* interesting, and we disagree about most things anyway, but your posts really are totally uninteresting in general. What happened all those years? Didn't you pick up *anything* interesting to say or tell about?

[Don]

Having lived the first 65 years of my life in NY (on Long Island) and subscribing to the Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera for 40 of those years. I think I know quite alot about the tastes of NY audiences.  In fact, more than YOU will ever know.

Don't audiences know the concert programs before they shell out their money?  Well, of course.  So if a night's program is popular Beethoven and Mozart, the folks who show up will be the ones who want that type of programming.  What Iago simply found is that the people who showed up at concerts he attended had similar preferences to his own.  That has nothing to do with the issue of overall NY audience tastes.

[Iago]

your posts really are totally uninteresting in general.

So, since my posts are clearly identified as being authored by me, why don't you do both yourself and me a favor, and not bother reading them?

[M forever]

I usually don't, since I know there is rarely (if ever) anything of interest in them, but sometimes, my eye just slips. It doesn't make a difference anyway.

That doesn't answer my earlier question though:

How come O Mensch's posts are much more interesting to read than yours then? Not that I find all of his posts *that* interesting, and we disagree about most things anyway, but your posts really are totally uninteresting in general. What happened all those years? Didn't you pick up *anything* interesting to say or tell about?

[PSmith08]

Don't audiences know the concert programs before they shell out their money?  Well, of course.  So if a night's program is popular Beethoven and Mozart, the folks who show up will be the ones who want that type of programming.  What Iago simply found is that the people who showed up at concerts he attended had similar preferences to his own.  That has nothing to do with the issue of overall NY audience tastes.

Self-selection is part of it, but our correspondent has, more or less, quoted the old saws about Boulez' tenure in New York up and down the line. Critics, some players, and the dinner-jacket crowd were fairly vocal about their disapproval of Boulez. The interesting thing is, if our correspondent is correct about how generally unpopular Boulez was, how he managed to survive in such a hostile environment for six (or so) years. Gustav Mahler didn't even last that long, and he had just come off the Hofoper post, which had some stick, one would hope.

I suppose my comment would be this, by way of summary: Is it really any surprise that an audience that wouldn't really accept Gustav Mahler didn't really accept Pierre Boulez? Frau Mahler, who raises her own issues, was fairly blunt in laying at least some of the blame for her late husband's demise squarely on the steps of the NYPO muckity-mucks. I'll stick by my guns and say that any audience that gave both Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez the business and took to Mehta like a duck to water has more serious issues than a desire for conservative programs.

[M forever]

That was really 60 years earlier. It doesn't make much sense to compare that.

[PSmith08]

That was really 60 years earlier. It doesn't make much sense to compare that.

Well, tradition is tradition. Also, similar cases can be applied equally, no matter what the intervening duration may be.

[Iago]

I usually don't, since I know there is rarely (if ever) anything of interest in them, but sometimes, my eye just slips.

For a person that "doesn't usually read my posts". you respond to them quite regularly. Maybe your eye slippage requires the services of an opthamologist?

[MishaK]

Having lived the first 65 years of my life in NY (on Long Island) and subscribing to the Philharmonic and the Metropolitan Opera for 40 of those years. I think I know quite alot about the tastes of NY audiences.  In fact, more than YOU will ever know.

And evidently in those 65 years you never bothered to step outside those two reactionary temples of cultural backwardness to see what other cultural offerings NY, let alone the world, presents and therefore have no idea what other musical audiences exist in NY. BTW, living on Long Island doesn't even count as living in NY. Don't even try that. That's like an East Frisian claiming he's a Berliner and knows what the audience at the Staatsoper and the Philharmonie wants.

[Brian]

That's like an East Frisian claiming he's a Berliner and knows what the audience at the Staatsoper and the Philharmonie wants.

This is a fairly decent analogy, although I feel obligated to point out that Friesland has several worthy orchestras nearby which are much closer to home than Berlin, and Berlin in any case is not exactly next door. Technically, in fact, you might say it's clear on the other side of the country. (Google Maps says it's 440 km from Oldenburg to Berlin, or roughly the distance between Paris and Lyon.)

And if you are suggesting Iago would be better in tune to the moods of audiences at Long Island's West Islip Symphony Orchestra, have some sympathy on the man. 

[MishaK]

This is a fairly decent analogy, although I feel obligated to point out that Friesland has several worthy orchestras nearby which are much closer to home than Berlin, and Berlin in any case is not exactly next door. Technically, in fact, you might say it's clear on the other side of the country. (Google Maps says it's 440 km from Oldenburg to Berlin, or roughly the distance between Paris and Lyon.)

And if you are suggesting Iago would be better in tune to the moods of audiences at Long Island's West Islip Symphony Orchestra, have some sympathy on the man. 

  Fine. Let's say a Pomeranian instead.