Dudamelia
Rugby
bars, and iced vodka with chocolates in the post-dressing room.I like
the dude even more now ! And some critical of his Mahler # 1 :
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/arts/music/13dudamel.html?ref=arts
Rugby
Rugby
> Stops the Verdi "Requiem" when a cell phone goes off in the opening
> bars,
And the Christian Science Monitor's review of the Requiem and comments
by an LAP violinist:
www.csmonitor.com/2009/1107/p17s13-algn.html
Rugby
Rugby
And in the interest of being fair and balanced (although I disagree
with this Philly critic) :
www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20091021_Two_Dudamels__solid_and_then_L_A__glitzy.html
Rugby
Sol L. Siegel
news:2c503419-b629-47e8...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
Hmm... I didn't see this before!
Dudamel is bringing the LAPO to Philly next May: the Adams and the
Pathetique. Should be interesting.
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Rugby
>
> Dudamel is bringing the LAPO to Philly next May: the Adams and the
> Pathetique. Should be interesting.
As wil be your insights. Thanks in advance.
Rugby
Oscar Williamson
as a professional music-maker. Asked him to say in five words what he
thought of Dudamel. After thinking for 10-15 seconds, he said 'I'm
not crazy about him.'
Mark Swed's 11/13 review of GD's Berio/Schubert program:
'Those who worry about Dudamel’s tendency to exaggerate were given
something to worry about. But for the rest of us, this was an
“Unfinished” you never wanted to finish.'
M forever
wrote:
> This morning, I ran into a retired violinist for the LA Phil, 40 years
> as a professional music-maker. Asked him to say in five words what he
> thought of Dudamel. After thinking for 10-15 seconds, he said 'I'm
> not crazy about him.'
That's actually 6 words, although two are contracted. But why only 5
words to begin with?
Oscar Williamson
> On Nov 14, 3:54 pm, Oscar Williamson <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > This morning, I ran into a retired violinist for the LA Phil, 40 years
> > as a professional music-maker. Asked him to say in five words what he
> > thought of Dudamel. After thinking for 10-15 seconds, he said 'I'm
> > not crazy about him.'
>
> That's actually 6 words, although two are contracted. But why only 5
> words to begin with?
I'll give him a pass on the sixth word as he was in professional
orchestras for 40 years. As for the brevity, we were in line at
Amoeba and I got called to check out. Had to make it quick. He was
schooling me on the merits of Leonidas Kavakos's recent Mendelssohn
disc (piano trios, especially) and Szeryng's 1954 Bach solo Partitas
and Sonatas recording (not on CD, he said).
Rugby
wrote:
> This morning, I ran into a retired violinist for the LA Phil, 40 years
> as a professional music-maker. Asked him to say in five words what he
> thought of Dudamel. After thinking for 10-15 seconds, he said 'I'm
> not crazy about him.'
I see,someone who has never played under Dudamel. With his opinion and
about $ 4 more I can get a coffee.
Rugby
Bob Harper
And what in particular did he have to say about the Kavakos Mendelssohn
discs?
Bob Harper
Oscar Williamson
>
> And what in particular did he have to say about the Kavakos Mendelssohn
> discs?
>
> Bob Harper
He thinks Kavakos is a phenomenal talent and that the trios were the
best versions he'd heard. I have the disc and I too think the trios
are superb, FWIW.
On Nov 14, 3:46 pm, Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I see,someone who has never played under Dudamel. With his opinion and
> about $ 4 more I can get a coffee.
>
> Rugby
Who doesn't have an opinion? Having seen GD twice this season, I like
some of what I hear, at least enough to keep going back. The violin
man played with the orchestra in question for 40 years, I think he can
stand on two legs and get a young guy like me to listen and take note
(albeit five cheap words). I don't pretend to know everything, but I
am out there going to concerts and paying attention and learning all
the time. I enjoy myself. You want a fun fact? An LA audience at
USC's Bovard Auditorium last night waited 15 full seconds before
applauding at the conclusion of Dona nobis pacem of Bach's Mass in B
Minor. There wasn't a wheeze, sneeze or cough, just silence. Only
when Helmuth Rilling began to turn to face the audience did the
clapping begin. Manners and concentration like that are in scarce
supply at the Gehry Clubhouse. Best concert of the season so far was
Eschenbach/LA Phil in Dvorak Carnival O. + Symphony 9 with Tetzlaff
carving a mad blade on Szymanowski VC 1. Blew Gustavo's Mahler and
Beethoven out of the water for precision, intensity, focus, and
orchestral texture. Szymanowski called for a crazy mix of colors that
were effortlessly woven together by the unsmiling conductor and his
orchestra, who were having a great time if the looks on their faces
meant anything. And Eschenbach sought nothing, standing on the
rostrum at the end like a general at dawn. Pissed I didn't go hear
his Mahler 6 earlier in the year. Back to Gustavo, he artfully
delivered the money shots of the fourth movement of Mahler 1. Feral,
loud, blustery, all that. But I thought the first movement lacked
subtlety and the ensemble was not playing as a unit like they did
under EPS -- was it me or was it truly different? I think the
latter. Inner movements were both very good, a solid performance if
hardly digging the pathos that I hear on a Bernstein or Tennstedt
recording, also coming up short in terms of overall sonic unity and,
for lack of a better term, Austrian flavor that Kubelik's DG account
offers. Bottom line is the guy seems to relish the big climactic
moments -- talking warhorses Beethoven 9 and Mahler 1 here -- and
builds and builds and delivers them like crashing monoliths but at the
expense of balance, nuance, shading. And when he does do the latter,
it seems overly-expressive, hackneyed even. I thought for sure I'd be
at the Berio/Schubert concert tonight, but I'm gonna go watch the
Pacquiao fight at a friend's house instead. Dudamel and I will meet
again next week over some Mozart next week to see how he handles the
classics (and the Berg VC with Shaham).
M forever
So you think someone who has played professionally for 40 years under
a lot of very good conductors can not have an informed opinion about
this? But you sit there in Idaho far away from everything and find
articles on the net which bring you nothing but hype and filtered
praise, and all that you believe like holy texts?
Sol L. Siegel
953e-4030-9be...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> I'll give him a pass on the sixth word as he was in professional
> orchestras for 40 years. As for the brevity, we were in line at
> Amoeba and I got called to check out. Had to make it quick. He was
> schooling me on the merits of Leonidas Kavakos's recent Mendelssohn
> disc (piano trios, especially) and Szeryng's 1954 Bach solo Partitas
> and Sonatas recording (not on CD, he said).
http://www.amazon.com/Bach-J-S-Sonatas-Partitas-Violin/dp/B000026G9R
Admittedly just a wee bit difficult to get these days, I'll admit.
Rugby
> But you sit there in Idaho far away from everything and find
> articles on the net which bring you nothing but hype and filtered
> praise, and all that you believe like holy texts?
The articles I posted quoted LAP players who have played,are playing
under Dudamel, plus from several other orchestras under him,too, not
quoting people who have never played under him. Hype,filtered ? Would
you have the guts to say that to the faces of the LAP players who have
been quoted by name ? Just lap dogs,are they ? And I did post the
Philadelphia Inquirier review which was critical of Dudamel's LA debut
Mahler, if you'd bother to read. All of which posts are more than
you've done to add anything of value to the Dudamel discussions. And
it's Iowa, where tonight Leon Fleisher is playing , and all 83 Haydn
Quartets were played over the last 5 days, one of the few States that
has more than one 24/7 , full-length, no ads CM radio station. But
correct, far away from you,thank goodness.
Rugby
Matthew�B.�Tepper
the following letters to be typed in news:6e2a6923-8f31-4814-a12e-
83fa10...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I hate, hate, hate, HATE Berio's "Rendering" based on the slow movement of
the incomplete Schubert 10th. Had I the power, I would smash all discs,
wipe all tapes, and burn the manuscript and all printed copies in a giant
bonfire while I danced around it naked and singing "Hallelujah!"
Then I would listen to Brian Newbould's performing version of the symphony.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
M forever
> On Nov 14, 8:41 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But you sit there in Idaho far away from everything and find
> > articles on the net which bring you nothing but hype and filtered
> > praise, and all that you believe like holy texts?
>
> The articles I posted quoted LAP players who have played,are playing
> under Dudamel, plus from several other orchestras under him,too, not
> quoting people who have never played under him. Hype,filtered ? Would
> you have the guts to say that to the faces of the LAP players who have
> been quoted by name ?
Sure I would - I know a number of LAPhil players personally, but what
people talk among people they know can be *very different* from what
they allow themselves to be quoted with in public.
> Just lap dogs,are they?
No, they aren't. That's just your conclusion because you are such a
fucking provincial potato head that you can't see that there may be
more sides to a story than what you see in the filtered press.
> And I did post the
> Philadelphia Inquirier review which was critical of Dudamel's LA debut
> Mahler, if you'd bother to read.
I did, you provincial asshole. "Drunken clog dancing" - pretty
hilarious. And quite to the point, too.
> All of which posts are more than
> you've done to add anything of value to the Dudamel discussions.
I did contribute a few comments to that discussion which obviously
went completely over your potato head.
> And
> it's Iowa, where tonight Leon Fleisher is playing , and all 83 Haydn
> Quartets were played over the last 5 days, one of the few States that
> has more than one 24/7 , full-length, no ads CM radio station. But
> correct, far away from you,thank goodness.
Far away from *anything* really. "Thank goodness"? So you stupid
provincial asshole actually cherish being away from anything and
anywhere where things happen? Why? Because of me? You can't be that
influenced by me. Or are you? Are you scared? Are you one of those
scared provincial American assholes who gets off on seeing the shit
bombed out of other countries because it makes you fell safer and
better about yourself? Do you play with yourself while you see that?
Gerard
> On Nov 14, 11:26 pm, Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 8:41 pm, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > But you sit there in Idaho far away from everything and find
> > > articles on the net which bring you nothing but hype and filtered
> > > praise, and all that you believe like holy texts?
> >
> > The articles I posted quoted LAP players who have played,are playing
> > under Dudamel, plus from several other orchestras under him,too, not
> > quoting people who have never played under him. Hype,filtered ?
> > Would you have the guts to say that to the faces of the LAP players
> > who have been quoted by name ?
>
> Sure I would - I know a number of LAPhil players personally, but what
> people talk among people they know can be *very different* from what
> they allow themselves to be quoted with in public.
>
> > Just lap dogs,are they?
>
> No, they aren't. That's just your conclusion because you are such a
> more sides to a story than what you see in the filtered press.
>
> > And I did post the
> > Philadelphia Inquirier review which was critical of Dudamel's LA
> > debut Mahler, if you'd bother to read.
>
> hilarious. And quite to the point, too.
>
> > All of which posts are more than
> > you've done to add anything of value to the Dudamel discussions.
>
> I did contribute a few comments to that discussion which obviously
>
> > And
> > it's Iowa, where tonight Leon Fleisher is playing , and all 83 Haydn
> > Quartets were played over the last 5 days, one of the few States
> > that has more than one 24/7 , full-length, no ads CM radio station.
> > But correct, far away from you,thank goodness.
>
> *provincial asshole* actually cherish being away from anything and
> anywhere where things happen? Why? Because of me? You can't be that
> influenced by me. Or are you? Are you scared? Are you one of those
> bombed out of other countries because it makes you fell safer and
Thanks.
This is - in spite of some clich�s - useful material for a possible revision of
the Declaration of
nazification of Michael Schaffer aka 'nazi forever'.
Gerard
>
> I hate, hate, hate, HATE Berio's "Rendering" based on the slow
> movement of the incomplete Schubert 10th. Had I the power, I would
> smash all discs, wipe all tapes, and burn the manuscript and all
> printed copies in a giant bonfire while I danced around it naked and
> singing "Hallelujah!"
>
Wasn't this your opera was about?
Rugby
>
> Sure I would - I know a number of LAPhil players personally, but what
> people talk among people they know can be *very different* from what
> they allow themselves to be quoted with in public.
>
I see, the LAP players who support Dudamel speak openly and allow
their names to be used, the many LAP players who dont like him speak
just anonymously and apparently just to you,since none are even quoted
anonymously elsewhere.
And in fact even those who are quoted publically as supporting Dudamel
really dont like him, and tell the real "truth" to you.
NOW I get it !
> you are such a
> fucking provincial potato head that you can't see that there may be
> more sides to a story than what you see in the filtered press.
There you go again. It's IOWA, not Idaho. They do grow lots of
potatoes in Idaho, but not many in Iowa. Iowa grows lots of corn. So
you should refer to me as a "cob head" or "corn hole" or the like.
Although , if you would use your ears you would realize there are many
kernels of truth in my posts.
Regards, Rugby
herman
Steve, it's unfortunate this is getting a little acrimonious, but
really those articles you posted are just hype, pure and simple. It's
all about the peripheral things: GD is young, he's fun, people like
him, the organisation had a pr budget like there's no tomorrow,
there's pictures all over town. As journalism goes, it's par for the
course to report on this, and thus become part of the hype food chain,
but there's virtually nothing about the quality of the music making.
Looking at the general tenor of these Swed pieces you can be pretty
darn sure not one single orchestra member who would be willing to go
on the record and say "I'll just wait and see with this kid" would be
quoted in a piece of Swed's. Mr. Swed and other arts reporters,
desperate for feel good stories, know easy copy when they're looking
at it.
I know you like it when there's a little excitement in the fuddy duddy
CM world, and you're welcome to it. But please don't call the most
blatant hype serious critcism or even serious reporting.
Rugby
>
> but there's virtually nothing about the quality of the music making.
That is certainly not a correct statement about Swed,or many of the
other articles,reviews, and quotes I've posted , not only about the
LAP but also from the other orchestras.I guess the Christian Science
Monitor negative review I posted must also be then dismissed as a
critic just wanting to be different.
>
But please don't call the most
> blatant hype serious critcism or even serious reporting
Your bias is showing. I wonder how the LAP players quoted favorably
would feel about the suggestion they are just suck-ups, or Swed or the
other critics here and in Europe that they are just stooges for a
Dudamel PR machine ?
It's not hard to seperate any chaff from the wheat, and at this point
sure seems to be more than a little wheat in what we read and hear.
Regards, Rugby
Bob Harper
Declaration.
Bob Harper
jrsnfld
> On Nov 15, 8:43 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > but there's virtually nothing about the quality of the music making.
>
> That is certainly not a correct statement about Swed,or many of the
> other articles,reviews, and quotes I've posted , not only about the
> LAP but also from the other orchestras.I guess the Christian Science
> Monitor negative review I posted must also be then dismissed as a
> critic just wanting to be different.
This is exactly right. Some journalists (which includes most critics
on the newspaper beat) take what's fed to them, and others are
actively looking for opportunities to be contrarians. Swed is as much
the latter as any music critic. There's more 'critical" glory to be
had in bashing Dudamel right now than in praising him.
> It's not hard to seperate any chaff from the wheat, and at this point
> sure seems to be more than a little wheat in what we read and hear.
Again, quite right. It's easy to see which newspaper pieces are pure
fluff and which ones have some substance. There is no correlation
between "substantive" and "negative" viewpoints. Critical viewpoints
will always vary widely, just as they did for Karajan and Bernstein
and Toscanini and continue to vary for Rattle, Abbado, Haitink, and
others.
No conductor is universally admired. Some *seem* to be universally
admired, of course, but it's an illusion. It is unthinkable that
Dudamel can maintain such a high level of popularity among musicians
and audiences, but if he retains even half of what he has now, he'll
be an unusually beloved figure in rehearsals and concerts alike. The
private muttering is par for the course, but so far the open adulation
of Dudamel by fellow musicians--which started before DG or the LA Phil
got involved--still seems remarkable.
--Jeff
herman
piece of fluff that was linked at the top of this thread, inviting
you to point out where there's something said about the quality of the
music making, other than that it generates excitement, pr budgets and
pictures in down town LA:
By DANIEL J. WAKIN
Published: November 12, 2009
The face of the Los Angeles Philharmonic's new maestro, Gustavo
Dudamel, has been plastered across town on buses, billboards and
banners.
But the Los Angeles Philharmonic shop offers plenty of mugs and T-
shirts splashed with the arms-outstretched image of its new maestro,
Gustavo Dudamel. In fact, his face has been plastered across town on
buses, billboards and banners marching down Sunset Strip. Children mob
him for autographs. (He signs them all.) Fireworks spelled out his
name at a megaconcert to introduce him to the city.
In a case of Hollywood-meets-Haydn, the star factory is busy at work
on a rare subject: a 28-year-old Venezuelan conductor whose life
revolves around scores, not scripts. With only a handful of concerts
here behind him, Mr. Dudamel is more or less making this town swoon.
“He’s a genuine star,” said Martin Kaplan, a former movie executive
and a professor at the University of Southern California. “He’s young.
He has amazing hair. He has a great back story. He has a fantastic
name. He’s the dude!”
Mr. Dudamel has just finished his first month as the orchestra’s music
director after a five-year rise that brought him unusual attention in
the classical music world. As his Hollywood introduction made clear,
he has penetrated the consciousness of popular culture in the way of
Leonard Bernstein.
That introduction resulted partly from a carefully planned campaign,
led by the orchestra’s president and chief executive officer, Deborah
Borda, but just as much from the media and a public fascinated with
the man himself.
What’s most striking about this Hollywood tale is the contrast between
the hype and Mr. Dudamel’s unmistakable gifts, those who know him say:
his conducting talent and near-innocent but deeply compelling
enthusiasm for making music.
“Deborah Borda’s rollout of Dudamel was as savvy as any studio mogul
marketing a tent-pole movie,” said Mr. Kaplan, the director of the
university’s Norman Lear Center, which looks at the impact of media
and entertainment on society. “Plus, she had the advantage of what
they call in Hollywood a good product. She didn’t have to put perfume
on a stink bomb.”
Ms. Borda had been tracking Mr. Dudamel since he won a conducting
competition in Bamberg, Germany, in 2004. Then he was a little-known
product of El Sistema in Venezuela, a network of youth orchestras
created in poor neighborhoods. Mr. Dudamel had risen to lead the
system’s crown jewel, the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra, in Caracas.
As he took on more and more important guest-conducting jobs around the
world, the Los Angeles Philharmonic decided in mid-2006 that he could
be Esa-Pekka Salonen’s natural successor. The transition was announced
all at once, in April 2007, eliminating the usual drawn-out music-
director search and giving management plenty of time to plan his
arrival.
And it laid out the red carpet in a big way with a free concert called
“¡Bienvenido Gustavo!” on Oct. 3 at the Hollywood Bowl for 18,000
people. The festivities included gospel, jazz, pop and blues, movie-
star introducers (Jack Black: “This dude’s on fire!”) and the
fireworks. Mr. Dudamel’s first conducting that day took place with a
youth orchestra that the Philharmonic had established on the Sistema
model before his arrival. Then he led the Philharmonic in Beethoven’s
Ninth Symphony. In a savvy appeal to the Latino population, the “Ode
to Joy” text was projected in Spanish, prompting applause and a few
tears.
Five days later the orchestra laid out a literal red carpet for Mr.
Dudamel’s gala opening concert at Walt Disney Concert Hall, where
Mylar confetti rained down on the audience.
Along the way the orchestra established a breathless minisite devoted
to Mr. Dudamel on its Web site, laphil.com. It features a Bravo
Gustavo computer game akin to Guitar Hero and an application that
allows the movement of an iPhone to shape music coming out of it. A
famous hot-dog stand, Pink’s, put up a banner welcoming him and
created a Dudamel Dog (guacamole, cheese, fajita mix, jalapeño
peppers, tortilla chips). “60 Minutes” is working on its third segment
featuring him.
Philharmonic officials said they spent $750,000 beyond their usual
marketing budget but played down their efforts to promote Mr. Dudamel.
They said Mr. Salonen had also received the banner treatment and that
they strictly limit Mr. Dudamel’s interviews.
Amid the overwhelmingly positive press and reviews were a few negative
flecks, including one from a Philadelphia Inquirer critic who compared
part of a Mahler First Symphony performance by Mr. Dudamel with
“drunken clog dancing” and another from a columnist for The Los
Angeles Times who cautioned against exaggerating Mr. Dudamel’s
importance to the Latino population.
Philharmonic officials say they worry about a reaction in the media
against all the positive attention. “You have this kind of success,
and there’s a certain amount of backlash you have to sustain,” Ms.
Borda said.
Others, including some orchestra members who have embraced the
attention brought to their ensemble, wonder if the hoopla will go to
Mr. Dudamel’s head. He has yet to become a fixture at Lakers’ games,
although he has attended at least one, or the Oscars. The Disney Hall
architect, Frank Gehry, seems to be his best celebrity friend.
In an interview in his dressing room last week, Mr. Dudamel called the
attention amazing and wonderful but important mostly because of the
recognition it brings the orchestra and classical music. He
acknowledged that it had raised expectations. But he laughed off the
risk of a swelled head.
“This is about values, and I think my values are really, really on
earth,” he said. “My family was giving me values, and the system of
Venezuela was giving me values, to know what I am.”
Yes, he said, life has been “crazy” the last five years. But “the main
thing is, for me, music education, my family and, I think, I don’t
know how is in English — humility? Humility is nothing you can learn.
You are born with humility or no.” And the mugs and T-shirts? He found
them amusing. “It’s funny to see my hair there,” he said.
His natural bonhomie was evident at rehearsals last week for
performances of the Verdi Requiem. The atmosphere was almost giddy.
Laughter often rippled through the orchestra. He introduced the
soloists by first name. After a bone-rattling bass-drum whack, he
stopped the orchestra and said in a mischievous tone, “I like.”
At the first performance, on Thursday night, Mr. Dudamel scrapped the
opening when a cellphone rang during the hushed first measures and
started again. Afterward, in his dressing room, he bustled around a
few visitors, including Mr. Gehry, with a bottle of iced vodka and a
box of Venezuelan chocolates, full of energy and amused concern for
the tenor, whose pants had come apart during the performance and had
to be held up by hand.
The scene seemed to support the theory that Mr. Dudamel can resist
Important Maestro Syndrome. “He’s bigger than the Hollywood scene,”
Christopher Still, the second trumpet, said a few days earlier. “I
don’t sense he’ll fall for the glitz. He’ll wield the glitz.”
herman
> Allright, Steve and Jeff, I'll copy (a la Premise Checke)r the first
> piece of fluff that was linked at the top of this thread, inviting
> you to point out where there's something said about the quality of the
> music making, other than that it generates excitement, pr budgets and
> pictures in down town LA:
>
article. I didn't find one. Not a scintilla.
M forever
> On Nov 15, 1:23 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sure I would - I know a number of LAPhil players personally, but what
> > people talk among people they know can be *very different* from what
> > they allow themselves to be quoted with in public.
>
> I see, the LAP players who support Dudamel speak openly and allow
> their names to be used, the many LAP players who dont like him speak
> just anonymously and apparently just to you,since none are even quoted
> anonymously elsewhere.
> And in fact even those who are quoted publically as supporting Dudamel
> really dont like him, and tell the real "truth" to you.
> NOW I get it !
I am totally amazed by this outpouring of nonsense. Is it not possible
for you to see this in anything other than stark b&w contrasts? Is it
so hard to get for you that some people may have differing, or simply
more nuanced opinions, and that some of these people may not want to
voice those opinions in public?
And who said those who voice very positive opinions are "suck ups" who
don't really mean what they say?
I never said anything like that. It seems to be completely beyond your
grasp though that not every single one of the people in that orchestra
think he is the second coming? Is it either "he is the greatest thing
ever" or "nothing of it is true, it's all hype"? Is it not possible to
understand that there is a spectrum of opinions, but not all people
want to go public, and the critics may also be selective in the voices
they chose to quote?
M forever
> On Nov 15, 8:43 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > but there's virtually nothing about the quality of the music making.
>
> That is certainly not a correct statement about Swed,or many of the
> other articles,reviews, and quotes I've posted , not only about the
> LAP but also from the other orchestras.I guess the Christian Science
> Monitor negative review I posted must also be then dismissed as a
> critic just wanting to be different.
>
>
>
> But please don't call the most
>
> > blatant hype serious critcism or even serious reporting
>
> Your bias is showing. I wonder how the LAP players quoted favorably
> would feel about the suggestion they are just suck-ups, or Swed or the
> other critics here and in Europe that they are just stooges for a
> Dudamel PR machine ?
Who said their opinions aren't genuine? I never said that, and I don't
think anybody else did. You completely made that up.
M forever
> On Nov 15, 8:11 am, Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 8:43 am, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > but there's virtually nothing about the quality of the music making.
>
> > That is certainly not a correct statement about Swed,or many of the
> > other articles,reviews, and quotes I've posted , not only about the
> > LAP but also from the other orchestras.I guess the Christian Science
> > Monitor negative review I posted must also be then dismissed as a
> > critic just wanting to be different.
>
> This is exactly right. Some journalists (which includes most critics
> on the newspaper beat) take what's fed to them, and others are
> actively looking for opportunities to be contrarians. Swed is as much
> the latter as any music critic. There's more 'critical" glory to be
> had in bashing Dudamel right now than in praising him.
I don't know, I am sure Swed knows what happened to Rosenberg in
Cleveland, and like in Cleveland, there isn't much else there in the
"classical scene" in LA to cover for him. Certainly nothing of equal
importance. It's not like in London or Paris or Berlin where you have
so much going on that critics can chose to bash some, and support
other artists and orchestras in order to appear more "critical".
It is probably more interesting for any critic to be part of the kind
of party that's happening in LA right now than to be on the outside.
If he gets too critical, he may find himself on the outside very
quickly. Less free tickets, less backstage access, less invitations to
parties and receptions. Less trips to Europe to cover Dudamel in
Gothenburg or other places.
herman
> Less trips to Europe to cover Dudamel in
> Gothenburg or other places.
And I'm wondering if there's not an itty bitty chance that particular
trip came out of that big LAPO pr budget.
jrsnfld
> Allright, Steve and Jeff, I'll copy (a la Premise Checke)r the first
> piece of fluff that was linked at the top of this thread, inviting
> you to point out where there's something said about the quality of the
> music making, other than that it generates excitement, pr budgets and
> pictures in down town LA:
>
> By DANIEL J. WAKIN
Wakin is not a music critic; he reports on the arts and culture beat,
covering controversies, developments, funding issues, etc., but not as
a critic. I didn't expect any music criticism in that article; the
article is about the hyperbole, the marketing, and his personality.
I'm not sure what you were expecting....
-Jeff
herman
This article, if I'm not mistaken, was linked as further proof Dudamel
was the real McCoy.
I endavoured to point out these Dudamelia (And that includes the Swed
goes to Göthenborh piece) were fluff, al about the peripheral, self-
propelling hype. Steve disagreed, and I get the impression you did,
too, till I posted the piece in full.
Oscar Williamson
>
> Wakin is not a music critic; he reports on the arts and culture beat,
> covering controversies, developments, funding issues, etc., but not as
>
> -Jeff
This is true. Of course general-interest reporting about what's going
on in the CM scene in LA is going to focus on the PR, hype, glitz,
flash. It's the music criticism that is worrisome. Here's one of the
few LAT reports I took without multiple sale cubes:
THE DAILY MIRROR blog
Larry Harnisch
Through the generosity and kindness of a friend and colleague who gave
me his tickets, I was able to hear Gustavo Dudamel last night during
his debut week as music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
The informed scribes of the Los Angeles Times (Mark Swed) and New York
Times (Anthony Tommasini) have already made their appraisals and I'm
not sure there's much for me to add. The concert was recorded for
iTunes, so listeners will soon be able to form their own opinions
without the interference of nitpicking commentary. But inasmuch as
Dudamel's arrival is a landmark in Los Angeles history, I thought I
would offer a few lines by reprising -- if only briefly -- my former
incarnation as a music critic.
...
For Dudamel's concert, I was seated in a more traditional area, the
upper reaches at the back of the hall.
The first thing that struck me about the orchestra is the high caliber
of playing. These days, that's a given, of course. But I think it's
worth noting that today, in a top-flight orchestra, all the mechanics
of playing are satisfied: The musicians play in tune, they make their
entrances, follow their cues and the sections (the horns, the
woodwinds, the strings) play cohesively. However obvious and
rudimentary these concerns may seem, they are not trivial and any
orchestra that can brag of such an achievement is well on the way to
greatness.
But not necessarily there. What kept coming back to me as I listened
to the orchestra was "ah, the horns are doing this ... aha, the oboes
are doing that ... here are the trumpets ... here comes the tympani
roll... " It was as if I were listening to 100-plus separate voices,
or the various tonal blocks -- strings, brass, percussion, etc.--
rather than a symphony orchestra. Maybe my expectations have been led
astray by too many years of listening to the tricks of recording
engineers mixing the colors like a Photoshop of sound. But if I had to
describe the way the orchestra sounds to me, I would say I was more
aware of the raw individual colors rather than the completed painting.
...
Which brings us to the Mahler.
...
It's not Dudamel's job to conform to the unarticulated and ever-
evolving notion of the Mahler that I carry around in my head because
he hasn't any idea what it is and he might well disagree with it. For
that matter, I might disagree with it myself in a year or two because
it's never complete but always reshaping itself.
In that context, how does Dudamel see Mahler? Well, Dudamel is a
remarkable, young conductor and a remarkably young conductor. Some
folks have made much about his conducting the Mahler from memory, but
honestly, it's so well known these days, I'm surprised it's not in
karaoke bars, along with the Shostakovich Fifth, which I have
nicknamed "The Inescapable." Mehta (who is not one of my favorite
conductors by a long shot) used to get a fair amount of press by
conducting from memory, but it's nothing special anymore.
In general, Dudamel's Mahler First is a rollicking, buoyant work. He
took some of the slower passages a bit faster than I like (the third
movement's mournful satire on "Frere Jacques" could stand to be a bit
more funereal for my money) and the faster passages a bit slower than
I care for. What struck me the most was how he seems to save his best
for the final movement. Last Saturday's live performance of Ludwig Van
Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, broadcast from the Hollywood Bowl, was
really nothing special until the finale. In the same way, the Mahler
was a nice, competent job until the last movement, when the orchestra
put some muscle and passion into it.
And as I listened to the Mahler, I got to thinking that this is a
young man's approach to the work--not necessarily immature, but
youthful and inspiring. I won't be around to hear how Dudamel does the
Symphony No. 1 when he's in his 80s, as Masur is now. But I would be
curious to know what it's like. I would anticipate that rather than
being youthful, it will be a reflection on the remembrances of youth.
Is Dudamel on the verge of establishing a reputation as one of the
prime Mahler interpreters of his generation? No--absolutely not. But
he handles it well. In our mania for the superlatives of the "Lake
Woebegon " era, where all children are above average, it may seem a
crime to call the performance workmanlike, serviceable and competent,
but those are not small accomplishments. And in reality, truly
spectacular -- and memorably awful -- concerts are few and far
between. One or two per season if you're lucky. Most will be in the
great middle, where this concert fell toward the high end.
::
I'm probably in the minority when I say that for me, the true test of
an orchestra isn't necessarily the big, raucous works like Mahler
symphonies or Richard Strauss' tone poems, but the delicacy of Mozart.
I am extremely curious as to how Dudamel sees the works of our
favorite fellow from Salzburg.
One other thing worth mentioning. Based on what I have read and
observed, Dudamel appears to see himself with a fair amount of
humility. During the extended applause and standing ovation at last
night's concert, Dudamel threaded his way deep into the orchestra to
acknowledge the soloists and generously shared the spotlight.
Conductors rather notoriously come in all shapes and sizes. Most of
the old-fashioned conductors of the recent past were merciless
tyrants. Some of today's laureate stars are famously egotistical and
aloof. Young Gustavo Dudamel appears to be a far more humble, outgoing
and therefore inspiring fellow and I suspect the Los Angeles
Philharmonic's musicians and audiences will flourish under his care.
Steve de Mena
> On Nov 15, 1:23 am, M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure I would - I know a number of LAPhil players personally, but what
>> people talk among people they know can be *very different* from what
>> they allow themselves to be quoted with in public.
>>
>
> I see, the LAP players who support Dudamel speak openly and allow
> their names to be used, the many LAP players who dont like him speak
> just anonymously and apparently just to you,since none are even quoted
> anonymously elsewhere.
> And in fact even those who are quoted publically as supporting Dudamel
> really dont like him, and tell the real "truth" to you.
> NOW I get it !
It's very easy to believe people at a company (any company, not just
an orchestra) would only say good things about "the boss" in a public
setting.
Steve
jrsnfld
wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:30 pm, jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wakin is not a music critic; he reports on the arts and culture beat,
> > covering controversies, developments, funding issues, etc., but not as
> > a critic. I didn't expect any music criticism in that article...
>
> > -Jeff
>
> This is true. Of course general-interest reporting about what's going
> on in the CM scene in LA is going to focus on the PR, hype, glitz,
> flash. It's the music criticism that is worrisome. Here's one of the
> few LAT reports I took without multiple sale cubes:
>
> of playing. These days, that's a given, of course. But I think it's
> worth noting that today, in a top-flight orchestra, all the mechanics
> of playing are satisfied: The musicians play in tune, they make their
> entrances, follow their cues and the sections (the horns, the
> woodwinds, the strings) play cohesively. However obvious and
> rudimentary these concerns may seem, they are not trivial and any
> orchestra that can brag of such an achievement is well on the way to
> greatness.
>
> But not necessarily there. What kept coming back to me as I listened
> to the orchestra was "ah, the horns are doing this ... aha, the oboes
> are doing that ... here are the trumpets ... here comes the tympani
> roll... " It was as if I were listening to 100-plus separate voices,
> or the various tonal blocks -- strings, brass, percussion, etc.--
> rather than a symphony orchestra. Maybe my expectations have been led
> astray by too many years of listening to the tricks of recording
> engineers mixing the colors like a Photoshop of sound. But if I had to
> describe the way the orchestra sounds to me, I would say I was more
> aware of the raw individual colors rather than the completed painting.
>
None of this sounds particularly worrisome to me. Does it really sound
worrisome to you? A palate that has lots of color and clarity?
>
> In that context, how does Dudamel see Mahler? Well, Dudamel is a
> remarkable, young conductor and a remarkably young conductor. Some
> folks have made much about his conducting the Mahler from memory, but
> honestly, it's so well known these days, I'm surprised it's not in
> karaoke bars, along with the Shostakovich Fifth, which I have
> nicknamed "The Inescapable." Mehta (who is not one of my favorite
> conductors by a long shot) used to get a fair amount of press by
> conducting from memory, but it's nothing special anymore.
Sure...but nobody who knows anything is praising Dudamel for
conducting from memory. A shoddy strawman in this review...totally
unrelated to anything musical.
>
> In general, Dudamel's Mahler First is a rollicking, buoyant work. He
> took some of the slower passages a bit faster than I like (the third
> movement's mournful satire on "Frere Jacques" could stand to be a bit
> more funereal for my money) and the faster passages a bit slower than
> I care for. What struck me the most was how he seems to save his best
> for the final movement. Last Saturday's live performance of Ludwig Van
> Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, broadcast from the Hollywood Bowl, was
> really nothing special until the finale. In the same way, the Mahler
> was a nice, competent job until the last movement, when the orchestra
> put some muscle and passion into it.
You find this worrisome? Again, nothing to get worked up about. The
reviewer respectfully disagrees with a this and a that, but admires a
really fine last movement. Nothing bad about that!
>
>
> Is Dudamel on the verge of establishing a reputation as one of the
> prime Mahler interpreters of his generation? No--absolutely not. But
> he handles it well.
Again...nothing worrisome here. Obviously the reviewer thought it was
a good concert...
In our mania for the superlatives of the "Lake
> Woebegon " era, where all children are above average, it may seem a
> crime to call the performance workmanlike, serviceable and competent,
> but those are not small accomplishments. And in reality, truly
> spectacular -- and memorably awful -- concerts are few and far
> between. One or two per season if you're lucky. Most will be in the
> great middle, where this concert fell toward the high end.
...and holds out hope for even better over the course of the year. A
very positive, reasonable review.
>
> I'm probably in the minority when I say that for me, the true test of
> an orchestra isn't necessarily the big, raucous works like Mahler
> symphonies or Richard Strauss' tone poems, but the delicacy of Mozart.
> I am extremely curious as to how Dudamel sees the works of our
> favorite fellow from Salzburg.
Why do critics say stuff like this? I have yet to meet a critic or
musician who actually believes the big pieces are the true test of an
orchestra. Almost everyone who knows anything about music will tell
you Mozart is a more difficult test, once you're talking about
orchestras that can play the big stuff reasonably well. Strauss and
Mahler will expose weak sections in a mediocre orchestra (or, 40 years
ago, in some of the better orchestras too!), but Mozart is a lot
harder to play well because the delicacy is so demanding.
Anyway...this kind of strawman always makes me suspicious of the
reviewer--he's trying to separate himself from the pack, to be a lone
voice in the wilderness, because he thinks that makes his viewpoint
special. But it's a false claim of independence...
Anyway, I'm not sure what your point was. The review was basically
enthusiastic and affirmative enough. Did you expect some sort of rave?
I didn't...I heard a good concert, and that's that. I think the
reviewer tacitly seems to be acknowledging that at Dudamel's tender
age, he so far shows he belongs on that podium. Whether he does Mozart
well enough will be judged soon enough.
While Mozart may be more of a "test", I think it should also be
acknowledged that some conductors are excellent in Mozart, like
Blomstedt, and well respected in a whole range of repertoire, but will
never, could never, have excited an audience in Mahler the way Dudamel
does, nor do they have the personality to win the affection of an
orchestra the way Dudamel has at his age. Now maybe someday Dudamel
will wow people with his aged authority, as Blomstedt can, but right
now he can't. He uses what he has: a winning personality, a good
command of the music, and a passion for making performances speak on a
memorable, dramatic level.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
Hmmm. Your impression is mistaken. I read the review when Steve
pointed it out, not when you posted it. And I suspected, even before
reading it, that it was the typical NYT front page article making
light of cultural matters in other cities, reaffirming the New
Yorker's sense of superiority by showing how culture in LA is a matter
of hype and business.
If you read Steve's posts more carefully sometime, I think your
impression of his point will also change. He's interested in the hype,
and started this thread by making about point about Dudamel's
attractive *personality*. I don't think anywhere did Steve take this
point too far as a musical point. Steve's point (perpetuated only
tangentially in this NYT article) is that there are lots of musicians
who work with and for Dudamel who are excited by what they're seeing.
This predates the LA Phil job and the DG contract. No reasonable
person would ignore such comments just to focus on the usual private
grousing you get from musicians about practically all conductors.
We are all--including Steve--waiting to see what Dudamel can do and
how he grows. Ok, not all of us. Most of us are waiting. A few have
made up their minds. I remember one poster here who thought it
unlikely that anyone from *Venezuela* of all placed could have
anything to say about European music. Well, with attitudes like that,
it's an uphill battle.
Yes, I have already made up my mind. I've heard maybe a dozen Dudamel
concerts on the radio (and a stray opera), and I've heard him with
SBYO in the hall once. I have no doubt that Dudamel is special and
that also he will continue to grow and change. But he's already worthy
of the jobs he has, and that's saying enough about someone his age. I
do not know yet if he's the best conductor of his generation or merely
the one with the fastest start.
-Jeff
Rugby
. He uses what he has: a winning personality, a good
> command of the music, and a passion for making performances speak on a
> memorable, dramatic level.
Very good summary, along with an ability to inspire experienced
orchestra members, not all of whom hypocritically praise him in public
while damning in private.And little ability to buffalo all the critics
all the time.
As we have both said, current success is no guarantee of future
excellence or growth, and he will be scrutinized more than most.But
current substantive success should be recognized , as it would be for
most.
Rugby
SG
Obviously, Jeff is quite eloquent at taking existing facts/information
and making the best case for the potential of Gustavo Dudamel of
possibly becoming, some day, a conductor able to offer any piece of
orchestral repertoire in some memorable, rather than merely decent, at
best generically "energetic" version. Jeff (and others agreeing with
him) is a cogent music listener, perfectly entitled to his opinions.
Meantime, no amount of glitzy, "American Idol"-level press coverage is
going to change the opinion of other music lovers, thinking that,
while Dudamel is obviously not a total charlatan, he is nevertheless a
way over-exposed, unexperienced, often clumsy conductor who, far from
being a "maestro," is still stuck in the learning stages of his
craft.
It's not so much about "having made one's mind" as about judging by
what exists already, rather than by what may, God willing, exist some
day.
Future will show.
regards,
SG
Oscar Williamson
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure what your point was...
>
> --Jeff
I stated that it is the music criticism that is worrisome. Then, I
pasted an LAT blog review by Larry Harnisch that, I said, can be taken
WITHOUT MULTIPLE SUGAR CUBES (ie. can be read at face value without
having to handicap for the writer's biases, favors he's doing, etc).
Harnisch's report is NOT worrisome, it is balanced and critical...and
accurate, IMO. In contrast, Swed's front-page of LAT Calendar reports
have been overly praise-worthy. Typical Swed (from Mahler 1 review):
<<There was no more need to argue with exaggerated details than to
argue with delicious cake. This is a temptation best indulged.>>
And as I pasted earlier in this thread, from Schubert last Thursday:
<<Those who worry about Dudamel’s tendency to exaggerate were given
something to worry about. But for the rest of us, this was an
Unfinished you never wanted to finish.>>
Smitten Swed has me reaching for the salt. Harnisch and I are in lock-
step about Gustavo's Mahler 1. Earlier, I posted my feelings about
the shaky start, not completely meshed ensemble playing, very good
inner movements, and thrilling sprint to the finish. I have seen the
conductor three times, going again this week. I like him, I stated
so, but the overall coverage has not been measured and balanced in LA
media. (Alan Rich called Gustavo's Beethoven 6 the best he's ever
heard, and he's, what 86? Maybe it was.) And that's not necessarily
a bad thing, if it encourages others to come watch, buy tickets,
support the arts. I'm all for it, and I'll be in the audience this
week to see how the Dude carries Mozart.
herman
>
> While Mozart may be more of a "test", I think it should also be
> acknowledged that some conductors are excellent in Mozart, like
> Blomstedt, and well respected in a whole range of repertoire, but will
> never, could never, have excited an audience in Mahler the way Dudamel
> does, nor do they have the personality to win the affection of an
> orchestra the way Dudamel has at his age. Now maybe someday Dudamel
> will wow people with his aged authority, as Blomstedt can, but right
> now he can't. He uses what he has: a winning personality, a good
> command of the music, and a passion for making performances speak on a
> memorable, dramatic level.
>
> --Jeff
Blomstedt was winning the respect of orchestra members way before he
was his current age. It's good you mention Blomstedt. I wish Dudamel
all the best, and his fans too (I think they're going to need it), but
what worries me, and many others, about this hype is that it's going
to be an uphill battle for young conductors and soloists who do not
have interesting hair and back stories that deliver easy copy.
jrsnfld
Take a look at pictures of Dudamel from the success that launched all
of this discussion--the Bamberg competition. His hair is not
"interesting" at all. He even looks somewhat studious with his glasses
during the rehearsals. His hair had very little to do with his
immediate celebrity in the musical world.
I saw that Blomstedt was an interesting counterpoint; that's why I
mentioned him. Blomstedt has many detractors for his emotional cool
but plenty of admirers for his musical maturity. His international
star rose relatively late in his career, even though he has been
active and successful since at least the early 60s (I have heard some
modern music concerts conducted by him from 50 years ago). He can (and
does!) now trade on his age to fit his emotional reserve, and he
probably gets better results now than ever, just as Haitink went from
emotionally cool cucumber to Grand Mature Master of Detachment. If
you've missed this then you're missing some of the essential, clearly
superficial, dynamics that help conductors maintain their authority
with orchestras. None of these conductors, *Dudamel included*, would
ever get anywhere without superb musical skills. But for conductors,
skill or perspective are merely basics.
Dudamel is young. His toolkit cannot be the same as Blomstedt's or
Haitink's. He cannot just stand there, say hello diffidently, and
start moving his hands like he doesn't care and scowl or smile to
suggest he's heard it all before and is "happy" to be in front of a
great orchestra. When Dudamel stands before 100 seasoned veterans of
the highest levels of the profession, he has to do something to win
their respect. He does it almost immediately by sheer force of
vitality and enthusiasm and humility, and apparently sufficient skill
and sense to win many, many musicians to do his bidding.
--Jeff
herman
> Blomstedt [...] can (and
> does!) now trade on his age to fit his emotional reserve, and he
> probably gets better results now than ever, just as Haitink went from
> emotionally cool cucumber to Grand Mature Master of Detachment. If
> you've missed this then you're missing some of the essential, clearly
> superficial, dynamics that help conductors maintain their authority
> with orchestras. None of these conductors, *Dudamel included*, would
> ever get anywhere without superb musical skills. But for conductors,
> skill or perspective are merely basics.
>
> Dudamel is young. His toolkit cannot be the same as Blomstedt's or
> Haitink's. He cannot just stand there, say hello diffidently, and
> start moving his hands like he doesn't care and scowl or smile to
> suggest he's heard it all before and is "happy" to be in front of a
> great orchestra. When Dudamel stands before 100 seasoned veterans of
> the highest levels of the profession, he has to do something to win
> their respect. He does it almost immediately by sheer force of
> vitality and enthusiasm and humility, and apparently sufficient skill
> and sense to win many, many musicians to do his bidding.
>
> --Jeff
Jeff, with all due respect (seriously), your glib portraits of
Blomstedt and Haitink are just ridiculous. Haitink cannot be called
detached by any serious yardstick. I have heard a couple of deeply
moving Bruckners with Blomstedt and the Concertgebouw Orchestra and
Dresden SK. This is what's so destructive of the Dudamel / Lang Lang
stuff. If you're not wiggling your ass in plain view of the cameras,
you're detached. Period. You have to have an interesting backstory to
come across as "emotional". Baloney.
If a conductor wants to win the respect of "100 seasoned veterans" he
can do two things: be a very precise and efficient and musical
conductor in rehearsal and performance (and no one will ever know); or
he can deliver the audience and the sponsor money.
And of course anything in between.
But I venture to say that as yet D. is more of the latter.
SG
Jeff is absolutely right when he suggests that it is hard to conceive
of a successful conductor to have to offer less than superb skills. It
used to be impossible.
It used to be only possible in the world of other performers - the
Bocellis, the Helfgotts, the Charlotte Churches, all of whom share
with Gustavo Dudamel the undeniable existence of *some* skill (some
voice/some technique/etc.), combined with a "riveting story" and with
a marketing stridency which make up, at least for a little while, for
the lack of true maturity, of true excellence, of staying power on
aesthetic criteria alone.
As unlikely as it seemed for a while, It had to happen in the
conducting world, sooner or later.
At least in this manner, one has to admit that Mr. Dudamel could be
called an ice-breaker, and he is to be congratulated for his
remarkable accomplishment.
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
I'm intentionally being glib and discussing the backstory of Blomstedt
and Haitink because (as I said, *superficially*) these things do
affect how they work with orchestras and what they have to do to get
respect. It's just the way it is...a conductor's reputation precedes
him into rehearsal. His demeanor has to fit his age. His skill
*always* has to exceed his age. (That goes doubly for the she
conductors, unfortunately.) Haven't you ever noticed this when you're
rehearsing? When you're talking to other musicians about conductors?
So, the point here is that people are being extraordinarily glib about
Dudamel--the hair, the movement in concerts (rehearsal manner matters
as much or more in judging a conductor!). The promoters are glib. The
"arts beat" reporters are glib. Many of the critics are glib too.
Musicans are often glib too, including the naysers. I'm trying to
demonstrate that the glibness cuts both ways. It's real and it affects
how we perceive a Haitink or a Blomstedt as much as it affects how we
perceive a Dudamel.
Why can't we stop being destructive with our eyes and start listening
with our ears? I have heard some very moving concerts from both
Haitink and Blomstedt. But I have also heard some very richly
rewarding performances from Dudamel that made me rethink things, that
got me *excited* about pieces I've heard a million times. That too is
real, not glib, not hype.
I'm not saying Dudamel is perfect. He has made unorthodox choices that
I have not liked. I'll take the good with the "bad", however, just as
I will with older conductors who are supposedly unimpeachable
musicians.
>
> If a conductor wants to win the respect of "100 seasoned veterans" he
> can do two things: be a very precise and efficient and musical
> conductor in rehearsal and performance (and no one will ever know); or
> he can deliver the audience and the sponsor money.
>
> And of course anything in between.
I think that's a false dichotomy. There are some who are precise and
efficient and musical and marketed to the hilt that way (Boulez,
Haitink) even when not everything they do fits that box or measures up
to it. If you spent any time with young conductors, you know that
sometimes they are precise and efficient and give off the impression
that they have nothing to say. It's a double standard, but it's there.
>
> But I venture to say that as yet D. is more of the latter.
I think what bothers me is that so many people assume D. is a "phony"
because there's so much hype (this makes me uncomfortable too, of
course), because he's so young, and/or because he looks, or because he
is, like he's from some place we don't associate with classical music.
But my ears tell me he's not a phony--he's exciting even if you don't
know what he looks like or how he moves on the podium.
Basically, I got interested in him before I ever read an article about
him, or so a picture of him, or saw him in concert. I got interested
because I was excited by what I heard. Later, I was interested to read
that so many musicians actually like working for him--that is
veeerrrry rare, indeed. I'm glad Steve has taken the time to point
these out.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> Jeff is absolutely right when he suggests that it is hard to conceive
> of a successful conductor to have to offer less than superb skills. It
> used to be impossible.
>
> It used to be only possible in the world of other performers - the
> Bocellis, the Helfgotts, the Charlotte Churches, all of whom share
> with Gustavo Dudamel the undeniable existence of *some* skill (some
> voice/some technique/etc.), combined with a "riveting story" and with
> a marketing stridency which make up, at least for a little while, for
> the lack of true maturity, of true excellence, of staying power on
> aesthetic criteria alone.
>
> As unlikely as it seemed for a while, It had to happen in the
> conducting world, sooner or later.
You mean, when a poor Cockney organist got up in front of an orchestra
and pretended to be some pretentious pan-Euro mishmash blueblood,
lying about his age, his country of birth, and adopting an accent to
match? Or are you talking about when the wealthy scion of a laxatives
empire hired an orchestra for himself? Talk about backstories and ice-
breakers!! It started long before Seiji Ozawa spent 30 years trying
out his ballet moves in front of the BSO. =:-)
>
> At least in this manner, one has to admit that Mr. Dudamel could be
> called an ice-breaker, and he is to be congratulated for his
> remarkable accomplishment.
--Jeff
O
<b3e0291c-7ba1-4b9a...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
jrsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:38�pm, SG <sgg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Jeff is absolutely right when he suggests that it is hard to conceive
> > of a successful conductor to have to offer less than superb skills. It
> > used to be impossible.
> >
> > It used to be only possible in the world of other performers - the
> > Bocellis, the Helfgotts, the Charlotte Churches, all of whom share
> > with Gustavo Dudamel the undeniable existence of *some* skill (some
> > voice/some technique/etc.), combined with a "riveting story" and with
> > a marketing stridency which make up, at least for a little while, for
> > the lack of true maturity, of true excellence, of staying power on
> > aesthetic criteria alone.
> >
> > As unlikely as it seemed for a while, It had to happen in the
> > conducting world, sooner or later.
>
> You mean, when a poor Cockney organist got up in front of an orchestra
> and pretended to be some pretentious pan-Euro mishmash blueblood,
> lying about his age, his country of birth, and adopting an accent to
> match? Or are you talking about when the wealthy scion of a laxatives
> empire hired an orchestra for himself? Talk about backstories and ice-
> breakers!! It started long before Seiji Ozawa spent 30 years trying
> out his ballet moves in front of the BSO. =:-)
And let's not forget Rene Kohler, where an imaginary concentration camp
survivor turns up conducting the mighty Vienna Philharmonic with
Ashkanazy!
-Owen
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> And let's not forget Rene Kohler, where an imaginary concentration camp
> survivor turns up conducting the mighty Vienna Philharmonic with
> Ashkanazy!
>
> -Owen
Wasn't he accompanying Joyce Hatto? That makes more sense. :)
Bob Harper
Taree Dawg
>
> Dudamel is young. His toolkit cannot be the same as Blomstedt's or
> Haitink's. He cannot just stand there, say hello diffidently, and
> start moving his hands like he doesn't care and scowl or smile to
> suggest he's heard it all before and is "happy" to be in front of a
> great orchestra. When Dudamel stands before 100 seasoned veterans of
> the highest levels of the profession, he has to do something to win
> their respect. He does it almost immediately by sheer force of
> vitality and enthusiasm and humility, and apparently sufficient skill
> and sense to win many, many musicians to do his bidding.
>
> --Jeff
You are bashing your head against a brick. Some people simply WANT
Dudamel to become a failure. It is simple as that.
Ray Hall, Taree
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in news:a3e393d6-1243-4014-a2ef-
491d03...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> It used to be only possible in the world of other performers - the
> Bocellis, the Helfgotts, the Charlotte Churches, all of whom share
> with Gustavo Dudamel the undeniable existence of *some* skill (some
> voice/some technique/etc.), combined with a "riveting story" and with
> a marketing stridency which make up, at least for a little while, for
> the lack of true maturity, of true excellence, of staying power on
> aesthetic criteria alone.
I think that is a highly unfair comparison. Il Spinto Finto, Gott-Helf-Uns,
the Llandaff Llolita and the rest are far lower on the ability scale and far,
far higher on the "hype" scale than Dudamel.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew�B.�Tepper
be typed in news:b3e0291c-7ba1-4b9a-acb8-18b86a556332
@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 16, 12:38�pm, SG <sgg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As unlikely as it seemed for a while, It had to happen in the
>> conducting world, sooner or later.
>
> You mean, when a poor Cockney organist got up in front of an orchestra
> and pretended to be some pretentious pan-Euro mishmash blueblood, lying
> about his age, his country of birth, and adopting an accent to match? Or
> are you talking about when the wealthy scion of a laxatives empire hired
> an orchestra for himself? Talk about backstories and ice-breakers!! It
> started long before Seiji Ozawa spent 30 years trying out his ballet
> moves in front of the BSO. =:-)
And don't forget that teenaged cellist with the freakish memory who filled
in for a missing opera conductor in Rio.
SG
Jeff, if you refer to Stokowski, the difference is that he could
conduct with his toe more efficiently than Maestro Dudamel with two
hands, two feet, and a mane of gorgeous hair. There's no emperor in
the clothes.
I have not asseverated that hype would have been invented today, by
the way. The *combination* of meager (of course, not non-existent)
skills and unabashed hype is what has been inaugurated in the
professional conductors' world with Mr. Dudamel, in a way I could not
find examples from before, as I could when it comes to pianists or
singers.
The funniest thing about the whole Stokowski brou-ha-ha (and I'd agree
that some of it was outrageously shallow and even comparable with the
equally laughable Dudamel propaganda) is that, on professional terms
per se, Leo Stokes or whatever his real name was didn't even *need*
all of that to make up for shortcomings.
The fact that Dudamel is seen by some (including myself) as a David
Helfgott of conducting has nothing to do with his relative youth, but
with the musical evidence as considered by us.
Thank you for your answer, interesting as always.
regards,
SG
O
Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
Joyce Hatto and Vladimir Ashkanazy -- one can hardly tell them apart.
-Owen
Rugby
> You are bashing your head against a brick. Some people simply WANT
> Dudamel to become a failure. It is simple as that.
>
Bingo !! A fact SG's most recent post makes clear.
Rugby
SG
Well, Rugby, thanks so much for attempting to read my mind and my
(hideously hidden) intentions.
I guess an honest disagreement regarding the quality of the music-
making itself was a hypothesis which just had to be dismissed a
priori.
Oh, well.
regards,
SG
Bob Lombard
Nah. Samir just doesn't rate showmanship high on the conductor quality
scale. The Helfgott comparison is carrying it too far though.
bl
Rugby
> I guess an honest disagreement regarding the quality of the music-
> making itself was a hypothesis which just had to be dismissed a
> priori.
With respect, a posteriori :
"Jeff, if you refer to Stokowski, the difference is that he could
conduct with his toe more efficiently than Maestro Dudamel with two
hands, two feet, and a mane of gorgeous hair."
"...Dudamel is seen by some (including myself) as a David
Helfgott of conducting..."
We can agree Dudamel evokes passions. Whichever one of us the future
proves wrong in his assessment, CM will probably be the better for the
error. My last thought, until we have more evidence.
Regards, Rugby
SG
> Samir just doesn't rate showmanship high on the conductor quality
> scale. The Helfgott comparison is carrying it too far though.
Probably you're right. By no means did this refer to disabilities of
any kind, which would be mean to comment upon (I just realized it
could be read that way). What I meant as in somebody who becomes the
"darling of the media," because of largely extra-musical reasons, at
least in the undersigned's opinion.
One more specification: by "propaganda" I mean a well-led media
bombardment, not at all the enthusiasm of some music lovers, such as
Rugby or Jeff or..., which enthusiasm I believe is just as sincere as
some's dissenting from it.
regards,
SG
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:X_nMm.30857$Vr1.7147@en-nntp-
01.dc1.easynews.com:
> Nah. Samir just doesn't rate showmanship high on the conductor quality
> scale. The Helfgott comparison is carrying it too far though.
I agree completely. Helfgott is not merely immature and underdeveloped as a
musician; he is incompetent.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
SG
Rugby, thanks for your respectful reply. My comparison with Helfgott
is too prone to misinterpretation and therefore I retire it as rather
ill-thought. About what I said about Stokowski, I really believe it.
It always amused me how Stokowski hurt a tad his amply justified
reputation through some rather unsavory media tricks which,
ironically, he substantially didn't need in order to succeed. In fact
probably it will surprise you to read from me that I believe it likely
that Mr. Dudamel, *personally*, rather than his promoters, is less
savvy - and responsible - for some of the laughable propaganda pushed
on his behalf than Stokowski was. It's actually quite likely that Mr.
Dudamel is, on some surface likability level, with no consequence in
what regards musical worth, a much nicer person than Stokowski (or
Klemperer or Mravinsky or Karajan . . . ). That's not the point,
though.
"Whichever one of us the future proves wrong in his assessment, CM
will probably be the better for the error."
Let's hope so. Let's also hope that, besides understandable polemical
passions, Herman's concern ("what worries me, and many others, about
this hype is that it's going to be an uphill battle for young
conductors and soloists who do not have interesting hair and back
stories that deliver easy copy") will not be proven well-founded.
"My last thought, until we have more evidence."
Thank you for all your thoughts.
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
> "Whichever one of us the future proves wrong in his assessment, CM
> will probably be the better for the error."
>
> Let's hope so. Let's also hope that, besides understandable polemical
> passions, Herman's concern ("what worries me, and many others, about
> this hype is that it's going to be an uphill battle for young
> conductors and soloists who do not have interesting hair and back
> stories that deliver easy copy") will not be proven well-founded.
I'm not worried this. So now all you need is good hair and a
backstory? Hair and backstories are easy to find. Remember, in the old
days, when success required that conductors also had white skin,
German accents, and a Y chromosome? We're in much better shape now--
anybody with talent has a chance to rise to the top.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed innews:X_nMm.30857$Vr1.7147@en-nntp-
> 01.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > Nah. Samir just doesn't rate showmanship high on the conductor quality
> > scale. The Helfgott comparison is carrying it too far though.
Count me in as one of those people who doesn't like showmanship. Of
course, the average classical music fan is far less likely to care
about showmanship than the average person. It's a correlation and
maybe causation too.
>
> I agree completely. Helfgott is not merely immature and underdeveloped as a
> musician; he is incompetent.
Since when was anyone promoting immature, underdeveloped musicians
around here, let alone incompetents?
--Jeff
SG
"Remember, in the old days, when success required that conductors also
had white skin, German accents, and a Y chromosome?"
Well, sorry, but could you please offer a list of the many amazingly
talented conductors from the "old days" who were marginalized/
repressed/unrecognized specifically because of their lack of "white"
skin, real or fake German accents etc.? I understand that some of
these many oppressed unknown might be unknown because of their career
having been suffocated by the prevalently evil spirits of the day, but
nevertheless at least a few names could be offered - some who were
able to make some more obscure/rare recordings, perhaps later in life,
etc.?
Arrau's studying in Germany apart, isn't it curious that nobody ever -
people who like Arrau, people who like Arrau less, me being closer to
the first camp - never seem to care about Arrau being from... I
forgot? How about Guiomar Novaes... I forgot that too? Is Martha
Argerich ever considered - by either people who adore her or, as I do,
like her a lot in some repertoire and like her not too much in
different repertoire - as the pianist from... whatever? Why should
things be different for a conductor? Why should his origin be offered
as some kind of insinuation that one is simplistically either for or
against a given continent or a given country or a given "race"
according to how one reacts to the music-making of a given individual,
whose gifts are obviously variably perceived and evaluated?
I personally couldn't care less if a truly memorable conductor is
white, pink, black, or blue. I personally believe that Myung-Whun
Chung is one of the best conductors today, his technique being an
epitome of subtlety, lyrical approach to music, and never gratuitous
efficiency. Were somebody to disagree, should I suspect some dark
xenophobic reasons at work? Isn't it - forget fairer! - more and
simply natural to look at performers as equal-in-gift-AND-criticism
representatives of the *human* "race," without even considering
ideological alternatives?
"We're in much better shape now--anybody with talent has a chance to
rise to the top."
It sounds great in theory... only that it seems that now anybody able
to project an exciting image and/or identity bonanza - regardless of
hardcore, perceived on its own merits, talent - can indeed raise to
the top. It's not exactly the same thing.
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
> Jeff, if you refer to Stokowski, the difference is that he could
> conduct with his toe more efficiently than Maestro Dudamel with two
> hands, two feet, and a mane of gorgeous hair. There's no emperor in
> the clothes.
I can conduct with my toe more efficiently than Stokowski could with
his bare hands. Since when was the efficiency of the conductor the
standard by which we judged musical performance?
If you don't like hair (and lots of people thought Stokie's mane was
an impertinent sign of his uncontrolled sensuality), then avert your
eyes.
>
> I have not asseverated that hype would have been invented today, by
> the way. The *combination* of meager (of course, not non-existent)
> skills and unabashed hype is what has been inaugurated in the
> professional conductors' world with Mr. Dudamel, in a way I could not
> find examples from before, as I could when it comes to pianists or
> singers.
First of all, we should stop comparing conductors to singers and
pianists. With singers and pianists, you can *hear* and judge simply.
You will never heard Helfgott play like Richter or Hofmann.
Conductors don't make a sound, they can only lead others who are
making sounds. So, it is very difficult to ascertain the quality of a
conductor from just one or two performances. Even relatively bad
conductors lead excellent performances, and relatively good ones can
lead bad performances. Some good conductors are impossible to watch.
Some bad ones look really good doing nothing useful.
Conducting, unlike singing or playing the piano, is about leadership
and management. It is about getting musicians to play better together
than they could without a conductor.
Stokowski clearly had an effect on orchestras. You suspect it from the
first performance; you confirm it over a number of performances with
different orchestras. In this regards, after half a dozen orchestras
and a dozen performances or more with a range of repertoire, I can
safely say that Dudamel also has a fairly strong and salutatory effect
on orchestras. Not as distinctive as Stokowski's in terms of tone
(almost no one is), but not (yet) as bone-headed and annoying about
interpreting and rewriting the music as Stokie often was, either.
>
> The funniest thing about the whole Stokowski brou-ha-ha (and I'd agree
> that some of it was outrageously shallow and even comparable with the
> equally laughable Dudamel propaganda) is that, on professional terms
> per se, Leo Stokes or whatever his real name was didn't even *need*
> all of that to make up for shortcomings.
I agree. Stokowski was insecure about certain things. A lot of
conductors act insecure. Most people are insecure, but it's just that
conductors are on display, with every gesture and expression
scrutinized by their colleagues. Maybe Stokie was off the charts, but
conducting is a cruel profession that rewards thick skin and preys on
insecurities.
In this regard Dudamel seems well prepared--unusually mature in
guileless enthusiasm, i.e., his seemingly naive affection for his
work. Or at least, that's what the fluff pieces, the nasty critics,
and the musicians all seem to be saying. So, pursuant to your late and
lamented Helfgott comparison, if anything Dudamel represents a
precociously mature conductor--one who has so far accrued little of
the immaturity rampant in the profession--the self-doubts, the
insecurities, the pretensions to scholarly authority wrapped around
uncertain interpretive identity and leadership skills.
For now at least, he just projects his youthful energy on the music
maybe because that's all he knows. Youth makes a kind of maturity that
can easily be lost in the lifelong pursuit of "greatness". Perhaps
this refreshing maturity, not the hair, is what attracts musicians to
a conductor like Dudamel after years of toiling for the pompous
pompadours rampant in the profession.
If he loses this preternatural maturity, Dudamel may indeed prove
ordinary--in other words, full of ideas but lacking the ability to get
an orchestra to do anything extraordinary.
--Jeff
jrsnfld
> "Remember, in the old days, when success required that conductors also
> had white skin, German accents, and a Y chromosome?"
>
> Well, sorry, but could you please offer a list of the many amazingly
> talented conductors from the "old days" who were marginalized/
> repressed/unrecognized specifically because of their lack of "white"
> skin, real or fake German accents etc.? I understand that some of
> these many oppressed unknown might be unknown because of their career
Exactly. We'll never know the answer to this question.
>
> Arrau's studying in Germany apart, isn't it curious that nobody ever -
> people who like Arrau, people who like Arrau less, me being closer to
> the first camp - never seem to care about Arrau being from... I
> forgot? How about Guiomar Novaes... I forgot that too? Is Martha
> Argerich ever considered - by either people who adore her or, as I do,
> like her a lot in some repertoire and like her not too much in
> different repertoire - as the pianist from... whatever? Why should
> things be different for a conductor? Why should his origin be offered
> as some kind of insinuation that one is simplistically either for or
> against a given continent or a given country or a given "race"
> according to how one reacts to the music-making of a given individual,
> whose gifts are obviously variably perceived and evaluated?
Hmmm. Somehow you've misconstrued my point. (I notice, by the way,
that you tried to move the discussion away from conductors to pianists
again. Not the same thing at all!)
Back up a second. All I said was that there have always been barriers
for conductors. The barriers used to be about race, gender, and
nationality, etc. Some people overcame those barriers quite well. But
the barriers were there. The evidence for the barriers is probably
complex, but the result of those barriers is not complex. We shouldn't
need to argue this point.
Now there are fewer barriers than ever. Can we agree on that? Isn't
the evidence strong enough--more diversity on the podium than ever?
Along comes a new barrier, or so you posit (and I of course don't
agree, but just play along at the moment). Now conductors need hair
and a backstory. All I'm saying, is, "so what?" That is just about the
easiest barrier to overcome that I've ever encountered. All of these
people have agents who are very adept at developing backstories and
fixing hair.
I'm saying, stop worrying so much. One guy getting a lot of hype
doesn't put everybody else out of business, nor does it define the
only path to making a career.
>
> I personally couldn't care less if a truly memorable conductor is
> white, pink, black, or blue.
No one was questioning this. There have been comments on this forum
that indicate some people indeed judge conductors this way, but no one
suspects you of harboring such feelings.
> I personally believe that Myung-Whun
> Chung is one of the best conductors today, his technique being an
> epitome of subtlety, lyrical approach to music, and never gratuitous
> efficiency. Were somebody to disagree, should I suspect some dark
> xenophobic reasons at work? Isn't it - forget fairer! - more and
> simply natural to look at performers as equal-in-gift-AND-criticism
> representatives of the *human* "race," without even considering
> ideological alternatives?
In case you haven't noticed, I think you are a little bit obsessed
with technique. We're talking about conducting, not playing the cello.
Bad technique means bad cellists, but it doesn't correlate so well
with bad conductors. But...your comments are actually not about
technique. Chung is indeed subtle, lyrical, and efficient. Sometimes
too efficient, according to some musicians, but he is who he is. I
like him too.
Anyway, we're wasting verbiage here: Chung is not a counterexample to
any particular point that has been made here, except to reiterate that
you don't like conductors who have enough energy to be inefficient.
>
> "We're in much better shape now--anybody with talent has a chance to
> rise to the top."
>
> It sounds great in theory... only that it seems that now anybody able
> to project an exciting image and/or identity bonanza - regardless of
> hardcore, perceived on its own merits, talent - can indeed raise to
> the top. It's not exactly the same thing.
But you're overreacting. So far we don't know anyone who has gamed the
system, rising to the top without ability. When that happens, I'll
worry. Oh, whoops...Ozawa again (or at least, so long suffering
Bostonians say!). And ever ask New Yorkers about Mehta? Washingtonians
about Slatkin? There's plenty of past examples of people who were
thought to have great ability who, for one reason or another, sank
into mediocrity, at least temporarily.
--Jeff (who personally doesn't think Ozawa was all that bad, but he
should've left Boston by about 1982 before his act got old and the
orchestra lost its way).
SG
Jeff, thanks for your latest.
"I can conduct with my toe more efficiently than Stokowski could with
his bare hands."
I wish I could see that. Not that I doubt it, mind you. If you say it,
it must be so ( :.
"Conductors don't make a sound, they can only lead others who are
making sounds. So, it is very difficult to ascertain the quality of a
conductor from just one or two performances. Even relatively bad
conductors lead excellent performances, and relatively good ones can
lead bad performances. Some good conductors are impossible to watch.
Some bad ones look really good doing nothing useful.
Conducting, unlike singing or playing the piano, is about leadership
and management. It is about getting musicians to play better together
than they could without a conductor."
Not necessarily entirely applicable to the case under discussion, but
these are interesting, intelligent thoughts.
"Stokowski clearly had an effect on orchestras. You suspect it from
the
first performance; you confirm it over a number of performances with
different orchestras. In this regards, after half a dozen orchestras
and a dozen performances or more with a range of repertoire, I can
safely say that Dudamel also has a fairly strong and salutatory effect
on orchestras. Not as distinctive as Stokowski's in terms of tone
(almost no one is), but not (yet) as bone-headed and annoying about
interpreting and rewriting the music as Stokie often was, either. "
Here's where your take, eloquent as per your standards, falls flat in
way of convincing me. First of all, Dudamel's sound isn't ONLY "not as
distinctive as Stokowski's". It's simply non-existent. There is NO
Dudamel sound as of yet. (Granted, this pronunciamento has a strong
subjective flavour, and it's not any more authoritative than yours,
but take it as it comes.) Not only not as distinctive as Stokowski's,
but also not distinctive at all. Of course, I may be suspected of
being unable to hear the less-distinctive-than-Stokowski-yet-superbly-
distinctive Dudamel Klangideal, and that is a legitimate suspicion
that I'll have to live with. At least I am honest (rather than an
envious, classist, racist, calvition-challenged Iago etc. - well, I do
envy a bit Dudamel's hair, but I'm only human.)
The second half of your message brings a take on Dudamel's potential
which I salute with respect-in-disagreement. (Your assonant use of
"pompous pompadours" is delightful.) You might note though that, as
much of the best pro-Dudamel Dudamelia - let's not get into the worst
- it's rather long in extra-musical affect and a tad less explicit in
professional assessment. Just to give one example, in present and past
rmcr Dudameliadas, I hardly remember any post in which somebody,
anybody would have offered an evantaille of peculiarly revealing,
original understandings of form/orchestral balancings of specific
musical works. Words leaning towards a generic, visual side, such as
youthful, energetic (is Dudamel's work more energetic in imagery or in
sound? is his technique ravishingly mobile or strugglingly redundant?
are a few questions which come to mind), assessments of the
conductor's not-modestly-much-talked-about personal humility and oh-so-
friendly interaction with orchestral musicians.... all these recur
almost predictably in way of focusing the reader on personality
issues, rather than on conductorial craft and musical understanding,
i.e., on superficial personality issues which are more germane to
glamorous interviews/lionized personal behavior/oversold likability
rather than to musical interpretation in any substantial sense that
one can think of.
As it's been said only a hundred times so far, future will tell. Just
don't mind this particular doubter more than this doubter minds the
believers.
Thanks again for yours.
regards,
SG
SG
Hi Jeff.
Thanks for yours.
You wrote:
"Remember, in the old days, when success required that conductors also
had white skin, German accents, and a Y chromosome?"
I've answered:
> Well, sorry, but could you please offer a list of the many amazingly
> talented conductors from the "old days" who were marginalized/
> repressed/unrecognized specifically because of their lack of "white"
> skin, real or fake German accents etc.? I understand that some of
> these many oppressed unknown might be unknown because of their career
> having been suffocated ...
"Exactly. We'll never know the answer to this question."
OOPS. I don't mean to be either mean or pushy, Jeff, but I also added
"...but
nevertheless at least a few names could be offered - some who were
able to make some more obscure/rare recordings, perhaps later in life,
etc.?"
You may have missed that, and you don't have to answer, if I've asked
too much.
I also appreciate the distinctions you make between conductors and
pianists, however, I hardly think that one can be racist/classist/
continentist/X-ist when it comes to conductors, while being
cosmopolitan/fair/"race"-blind when it comes to pianists.
I also hardly think that conductors' technique is less relevant than
pianists/cellists etc.
Of course, you DO have a point, if somebody refers to technique as
some kind of petrified craft inscribed forever in one given,
ineluctably boring conducting manual. From this point of view, I'd
quite agree with you. If one thinks that there's only one "right"
gestural way to give a cue, conduct a hemiola, or suggest a
fmodification of balances, one dwarfs the meaning of "technique". True
technique involves ALL parameters of artistic control, including all
parameters of musical interpretation. Different conductors favour
precision over sonority, or sonority over precision, and do so within
visually different gestural systems. I believe I am as flexible, ample
and wide in what respects the comprehending of the concept of
conductorial technique as anybody could be, and from all these points
of view I also find Gustavo Dudamel to be lacking. As I said it in the
past, not incompetent, not untalented, but seriously lacking.
Precision, efficiency, colour, balance, fluidity, name it. Improvably
so? Possibly, even probably. However, conducting a major American
orchestra might not be the best place to experiment on one's
maturation.
I have to say, Jeff, I adored your "you don't like conductors who have
enough energy to be inefficient". On the contrary, if you'll allow me,
I've never thought that conductors who are ultimately efficient would
lack energy.
"So far *we* don't know anyone who has gamed the system, rising to the
top without * * ability."
Place the adjective "sufficient" before ability, and you are
absolutely welcome to exclude me from the chummy plural pronoun for
the chumminess of which I nevertheless thank you. Do I need to specify
who I think just did that, i.e, gaming the system ( :?
Perhaps I don't. ( :
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
> Here's where your take, eloquent as per your standards, falls flat in
> way of convincing me. First of all, Dudamel's sound isn't ONLY "not as
> distinctive as Stokowski's". It's simply non-existent. There is NO
> Dudamel sound as of yet. (Granted, this pronunciamento has a strong
> subjective flavour, and it's not any more authoritative than yours,
> but take it as it comes.) Not only not as distinctive as Stokowski's,
> but also not distinctive at all. Of course, I may be suspected of
> being unable to hear the less-distinctive-than-Stokowski-yet-superbly-
> distinctive Dudamel Klangideal, and that is a legitimate suspicion
> that I'll have to live with. At least I am honest...
Interesting response. I just wanted to pick one bone here.
(First of all, let me accept that invitation but put it off to a later
posting...)
No, I just want to point out that there's more to conducting than
creating some special sound that's immediately identifiable. Can you
also spot Fricsay's sound? Rosbaud's? Van Kempen's? Jochum's?
Abbado's? Mitropoulos's? Walter's? Ancerl's? Matacic's?
I'm doubt I can reliably identify Gergiev's "sound" shorn of his Kirov
orchestra...can you? Can you spot the Rotterdam Philharmonic under
Gergiev rather than De Waart? I know these people from other stylistic
quirks, but I cannot honestly say I know their "sound." Some of the
best, like Abbado or Bernstein, can be quite the chameleon, depending
on the repertoire (or the engineering, the record label, etc.)
If Dudamel descends to this level of innocuousness, will anyone
consider him a failure?
Or can we agree that conductors rarely have a "sound". They have an
energy, a spin on the sound, they skew the balance, but the sound
itself is not an easy thing to describe or isolate.
--Jeff
SG
> I just wanted to pick one bone here.
>
> (First of all, let me accept that invitation but put it off to a later
> posting...)
>
> No, I just want to point out that there's more to conducting than
> creating some special sound that's immediately identifiable. Can you
> also spot Fricsay's sound? Rosbaud's? Van Kempen's? Jochum's?
> Abbado's? Mitropoulos's? Walter's? Ancerl's? Matacic's?
Excellent point, Jeff, really.
Unfortunately, you are right, and you have me some good for thought.
Also your choices of examples are excellent.
I guess that what bothers me about Dudamel, and it's not the desire to
win some polemics at all costs speaking here, is that I can hardly
think of any parameter truly excellent in his music-making. From other
very famous conductors one knows that one hears, if not a unique
sonority, an amazing rhythmic precision, or some undeniable polyphonic
transparency, or something. That of course doesn't mean that Dudamel
is absolute trash and all conductors who made a name for themselves in
the past are extraordinary in all respects. That would be quite silly
of me.
However, really, your point is very well-made, genuine, and accepted
as such.
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
> > I just wanted to pick one bone here.
>
> > (First of all, let me accept that invitation but put it off to a later
> > posting...)
>
> > No, I just want to point out that there's more to conducting than
> > creating some special sound that's immediately identifiable. Can you
> > also spot Fricsay's sound? Rosbaud's? Van Kempen's? Jochum's?
> > Abbado's? Mitropoulos's? Walter's? Ancerl's? Matacic's?
>
> Excellent point, Jeff, really.
>
You may be right that nothing extraordinary is going on for D.,
musically. I tend to disagree with this, but sometimes it seems more
obvious than at other times.
But let me add one other factor. Many conductors get more extreme with
age. They find what they do well, what they do differently, and
orchestras pick up on their schtick, so to speak, and before you know
it, they become a caricature of themselves. Not always in a bad way,
mind you, but this is one of the effects of age and the dynamic of
conductors with orchestras.
So...think of the 50s and early 60s Giulini, and can you tell me if
those lovely recordings are as distinctively "Giulini" as his 70s and
80s work? I'd wager not.
Think of the early 50s Walter v. the late LA period. Or fast, healthy
Klemperer (how many people can pick him out from a crowd?) versus the
slow echt-Klemperer of the late 60s? Celibidache is sui generis...we
all recognize his Munich period, but personally I think he was a much
more effective musician in his scrappy Italian/Swedish period...but I
can't say he is as "recognizable"! Karajan, while relatively
recognizable early, certainly changed toward extremes the longer he
worked with one orchestra. Don't Toscanini's performances get more
rigid as he gets older?
Everybody knows Bernstein from the Columbia engineering, but really
his interpretations generally got more distinctive in his digital DG
period.
Solti is a mild exception...his interpretive profile moderated as he
got older. I think in many ways Abbado also got better because he
became less extremely fussy about certain things.
I don't know which way D. is going, but we may find he starts dwelling
on some aspects of his musicality as he gets older. He is indeed very
young in this way--maybe not too young to lead great orchestras, find
climaxes, decide on tempi, and balances, etc., but progressing toward
individuality more slowly than he has matured as an ingratiating
leader.
--Jeff
Matthew�B.�Tepper
typed in news:1611bf48-a21f-4cfb-840d-
7917ee...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> "Remember, in the old days, when success required that conductors also
> had white skin, German accents, and a Y chromosome?"
>
> Well, sorry, but could you please offer a list of the many amazingly
> talented conductors from the "old days" who were marginalized/repressed/
> unrecognized specifically because of their lack of "white" skin, real or
> fake German accents etc.? I understand that some of these many oppressed
> unknown might be unknown because of their career having been suffocated by
> the prevalently evil spirits of the day, but nevertheless at least a few
> names could be offered - some who were able to make some more obscure/rare
> recordings, perhaps later in life, etc.?
How about Dean Dixon?
Roland van Gaalen
> Think of [...] Or fast, healthy
> Klemperer (how many people can pick him out from a crowd?) versus the
> slow echt-Klemperer of the late 60s?
Juts wondering --
"healthy" = manic?
"slow / echt" = depressed or very old?
Some of his seemingly manic recordings are just as extraordinary as his
seemingly depressed recordings!
E.g.
"Manic": live Bruckner 4 (1947), live Mahler 2 (1951)
"Depressed or very old": his slowish Mahler 7 (1969)
All of the above have been recommended here numerous times, of course.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl
SG
Jeff, I (mostly) agree with your observations regarding conductors
evolving with age, sometimes in a more patterned, linear way,
sometimes less so. I could pick on this and that other detail (for
instance, Klemperer's early Bruckner recording, the live 1934 (!)
Ninth, is amazingly distinctive) but I don't feel your main points
deserve refuting.
We'll see.
Meantime, if I'm ever caught on a wild rampage, eviscerating cute
little pink kittens, remind me to call on you as my lawyer of choice
(-:
regards,
SG
jrsnfld
wrote:
> jrsnfld <jrsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Think of [...] Or fast, healthy
> > Klemperer (how many people can pick him out from a crowd?) versus the
> > slow echt-Klemperer of the late 60s?
>
> Juts wondering --
>
> "healthy" = manic?
> "slow / echt" = depressed or very old?
>
> Some of his seemingly manic recordings are just as extraordinary as his
> seemingly depressed recordings!
>
> E.g.
>
> "Manic": live Bruckner 4 (1947), live Mahler 2 (1951)
>
> "Depressed or very old": his slowish Mahler 7 (1969)
>
> All of the above have been recommended here numerous times, of course.
I happen to like those recordings you mention very much. Another
example: I like his Hungarian Fidelio very much, but his later
recordings are certainly formidable in their own ways.
The point was not about quality. The point was that how many of us
"recognize" the Klemperer of the 1947 Bruckner, or the Lohengrin from
Hungary, or the early Bach recordings, for instance. The truth is, as
much as I like those performances, I can't distinguish them as readily
from the early Walter, Boehm, Jochum, Kleiber, et al. crowd, all of
whom were equally energetic, clear, and dramatic, nearly as well as I
can distinguish the *late* Klemperer from the rest of the pack. The
point was about distinctiveness, not the level of distinction.
--Jeff
bassppn
> On Nov 14, 6:46 pm, Rugby <steveha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14, 2:54 pm, Oscar Williamson <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > This morning, I ran into a retired violinist for the LA Phil, 40 years
> > > as a professional music-maker. Asked him to say in five words what he
> > > thought of Dudamel. After thinking for 10-15 seconds, he said 'I'm
> > > not crazy about him.'
>
> > I see,someone who has never played under Dudamel. With his opinion and
> > about $ 4 more I can get a coffee.
>
> > Rugby
>
> So you think someone who has played professionally for 40 years under
> a lot of very good conductors can not have an informed opinion about
> this? But you sit there in Idaho far away from everything and find
> articles on the net which bring you nothing but hype and filtered
> praise, and all that you believe like holy texts?
I also have,(had) doubts about the musicality of D. though it is very
obvious that he had tremendous conducting skills
the conductor of my orchestra, a very accomplished musician, went to a
rehearsal conducted by Dudamel. He came away with a very positive
impresion, about D.'s ear, ability to lead, has repsect from the
players,etc.
So far, so good........ lets see
AB
jrsnfld
> SG <sgg...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:1611bf48-a21f-4cfb-840d-
>
>
>
> > "Remember, in the old days, when success required that conductors also
> > had white skin, German accents, and a Y chromosome?"
>
> > Well, sorry, but could you please offer a list of the many amazingly
> > talented conductors from the "old days" who were marginalized/repressed/
> > unrecognized specifically because of their lack of "white" skin, real or
> > fake German accents etc.? I understand that some of these many oppressed
> > unknown might be unknown because of their career having been suffocated by
> > the prevalently evil spirits of the day, but nevertheless at least a few
> > names could be offered - some who were able to make some more obscure/rare
> > recordings, perhaps later in life, etc.?
>
> How about Dean Dixon?
What about him? Is he an exception that "proves the rule"? Or might
his career have taken off in a different direction with different
advantages. It's hard to say...
--Jeff
Simon Roberts
jrsnfld says...
[snip]
>No, I just want to point out that there's more to conducting than
>creating some special sound that's immediately identifiable. Can you
>also spot Fricsay's sound? Rosbaud's? Van Kempen's? Jochum's?
>Abbado's? Mitropoulos's? Walter's? Ancerl's? Matacic's?
>
>I'm doubt I can reliably identify Gergiev's "sound" shorn of his Kirov
>orchestra...can you? Can you spot the Rotterdam Philharmonic under
>Gergiev rather than De Waart? I know these people from other stylistic
>quirks, but I cannot honestly say I know their "sound." Some of the
>best, like Abbado or Bernstein, can be quite the chameleon, depending
>on the repertoire (or the engineering, the record label, etc.)
Right. And when a conductor *does* seem to have a sound, he's criticized for
his obsession with superficial effects (e.g. Karajan)!
Simon
SG
Sir Simon:
> . . . when a conductor *does* seem to have a sound, he's criticized for
> his obsession with superficial effects (e.g. Karajan)!
Right. Or Furtwaengler.
Oops, that doesn't ring true. Sorry. ( :
regards,
SG
M forever
I agree, Jeff, your ability to find and appreciate something to savor
and enjoy in almost any performance, and "make a case" for it if
needed, is quite impressive. Are you actually a lawyer in "real life".
However, I feel that in the context of this discussion, it has also
shown clearer than before that when you dissect the "Dudamel
phenomenon", put it in the context of what can really be expected from
a talented young conductor and what other once young and talented, now
aged and experienced - and/or dead - conductors were like at a
comparable age, and "make a case" for it (or him), that there is
really nothing very special about Dudamel that a lot of other young
and talented and well trained conductors don't have, too, except, they
may not have the air and the hype and the management, and
correspondingly not the "legal representation" afforded him by you
here either.
Which kind of further supports the impression that what we have here
is a young and talented conductor, but not someone who outshines a lot
of other young and talented conductors in anything except maybe his
podium antics and grimaces, and so the amount of attention given to
him in the media and in discussions among musically interested people
- like this one here - is really just the result of hollow hype.
Gerard
> that there is
> really nothing very special about Dudamel that a lot of other young
> and talented and well trained conductors don't have, too, except, they
> may not have the air and the hype and the management, and
> correspondingly not the "legal representation" afforded him by you
> here either.
I had the impression that this was clear at the very beginning of the
discussion.
>
> Which kind of further supports the impression that what we have here
> is a young and talented conductor, but not someone who outshines a lot
> of other young and talented conductors in anything except maybe his
> podium antics and grimaces, and so the amount of attention given to
> him in the media and in discussions among musically interested people
> - like this one here - is really just the result of hollow hype.
Wasn't that what was the discussion about?
Are we back at start here, or is this the conclusion: he is talented, and the
attention is a hype?
Michael Jacobi
> You are bashing your head against a brick. Some people simply WANT
> Dudamel to become a failure. It is simple as that.
Yeah, agreed, conspiracy theories *are* as simple as that. ;-)
(Cheryl's STRUDELtrolls are joined, it seems, by the new species of
DUDELtrolls...)
But seriously: I just don't get it what this fuss is all about. Here in
Europe (I'm posting from Germany), the reception of your Venezuelan Wizard
has been considerably cooler, and the majority of serious critics (that is,
disregarding the usual pipers whose song is paid for by the industry) seem
to agree that Don Gustavo is, if anything, an exceptionally mediocre
conductor.
Somehow all this ballyhoo reminds me of that Chinese piano robot ... what
was his name ... Ling-Ling? Ying-Yang? Just like him, I'm sure, Dude will be
dumped by his PR guys and lapse into oblivion as soon as the
industry finds it is time to come up with the next pseudo-superstar.
Those people come and go - why worry? After all, it's the music that counts,
and as long as there's plenty of serious, devoted musicians who'll never
make it to the covers of glitzy magazines we can watch performing (without
having to sell our cars to afford the tickets, at that), I couldn't care
less about those plastic surrogate artists chucked out of the record
companies' laboratories at regular intervals and hyped into inflated,
artificial popularity.
There are some, though, that I do feel sorry for. Rolando Villazon, for
instance, was a good singer, one who might actually have become a *great*
singer if they had given him time to develop - but they squeezed him out
and sucked him dry, chasing him from performance to performance, from
interview to interview, from recording session to recording session till he
just could not take any more. Here's one they won't be able to replace so
easily in case he shouldn't recover - but the vast majority of your young
shooting stars that fall from the sky without a professional biography
worth mentioning are subject to precisely the same laws of our blessed free
market enterprise as the GM worker next door - except for the pay, of
course.
But I'm getting carried away...
Michael
Michael Jacobi
> SG <sgg...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to be
> typed in news:a3e393d6-1243-4014-a2ef-
> 491d03...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
>> It used to be only possible in the world of other performers - the
>> Bocellis, the Helfgotts, the Charlotte Churches, all of whom share
>> with Gustavo Dudamel the undeniable existence of *some* skill (some
>> voice/some technique/etc.), combined with a "riveting story" and with
>> a marketing stridency which make up, at least for a little while, for
>> the lack of true maturity, of true excellence, of staying power on
>> aesthetic criteria alone.
>
> I think that is a highly unfair comparison. Il Spinto Finto,
> Gott-Helf-Uns, the Llandaff Llolita and the rest are far lower on the
> ability scale and far, far higher on the "hype" scale than Dudamel.
>
ACK. Dude is just another insignificant performer hyped into public
recognition. But the RCA-Helfgott stunt was ... downright obscene.
Michael
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:he4rn5$cgk$01$1...@news.t-online.com:
> ACK. Dude is just another insignificant performer hyped into public
> recognition. But the RCA-Helfgott stunt was ... downright obscene.
I'll take a wait-and-see attitude toward Dudamel. Anybody who knows me knows
that I am very suspicious of hype.
As for Helfgott, I could make a case for the proposition that his "success"
was what caused the record companies to realize that they could substitute
hype for ability in the classical world, and sell to the booboisie. This led
inevitably to the inadequate singers like Church, Bocelli, Watson, etc.
Bob Lombard
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC94DD0DEC...@216.168.3.30...
>
> As for Helfgott, I could make a case for the proposition that his
> "success"
> was what caused the record companies to realize that they could substitute
> hype for ability in the classical world, and sell to the booboisie. This
> led
> inevitably to the inadequate singers like Church, Bocelli, Watson, etc.
>
> --
didn't. Listening to Bocelli struggle with the 'hard parts' doesn't
necessarily arouse sympathy.
bl
Matthew�B.�Tepper
following letters to be typed in
> "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CC94DD0DEC...@216.168.3.30...
>>
>> As for Helfgott, I could make a case for the proposition that his
>> "success" was what caused the record companies to realize that they
>> could substitute hype for ability in the classical world, and sell to
>> the booboisie. This led inevitably to the inadequate singers like
>> Church, Bocelli, Watson, etc.
>>
> Could be; but Helfgott had a leg up - on the sympathy step - that the
> others didn't. Listening to Bocelli struggle with the 'hard parts'
> doesn't necessarily arouse sympathy.
Have you forgotten that Bocelli is blind? That, plus his fuzzy-wuzzy
unshaven look and the marketing to lonely middle-aged women, is what made
his millions. Each of them had his or her own sympathy story. Church was
a lit-tle gur-rul with "mouthsful of smiles," and Watson was promoted as
"the people's tenor" because he came up via hard knocks singing at soccer
matches and was not edjimacated at conservatories like all the elitist
swine WE like. (Of course, his promoters conveniently forget the famous
first photograph of Enrico Caruso, wrapped in a blanket because HIS ONLY
SHIRT was in the wash.)
The crap promoters have also used one of those ploys entirely the other way
around, in stressing the conservatory background of the Bond bints. There
is no shame among these types, none whatsoever.
O
Matthew嚙畿.嚙確epper <oy嚙瑾earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Bob Lombard" <thorste...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:J1zNm.56647$Vr1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy嚙瑾earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9CC94DD0DEC...@216.168.3.30...
> >>
> >> As for Helfgott, I could make a case for the proposition that his
> >> "success" was what caused the record companies to realize that they
> >> could substitute hype for ability in the classical world, and sell to
> >> the booboisie. This led inevitably to the inadequate singers like
> >> Church, Bocelli, Watson, etc.
> >>
> > Could be; but Helfgott had a leg up - on the sympathy step - that the
> > others didn't. Listening to Bocelli struggle with the 'hard parts'
> > doesn't necessarily arouse sympathy.
>
> Have you forgotten that Bocelli is blind? That, plus his fuzzy-wuzzy
> unshaven look and the marketing to lonely middle-aged women, is what made
> his millions. Each of them had his or her own sympathy story. Church was
> a lit-tle gur-rul with "mouthsful of smiles," and Watson was promoted as
> "the people's tenor" because he came up via hard knocks singing at soccer
> matches and was not edjimacated at conservatories like all the elitist
> swine WE like. (Of course, his promoters conveniently forget the famous
> first photograph of Enrico Caruso, wrapped in a blanket because HIS ONLY
> SHIRT was in the wash.)
>
> The crap promoters have also used one of those ploys entirely the other way
> around, in stressing the conservatory background of the Bond bints. There
> is no shame among these types, none whatsoever.
That stuff all kind of backfired for Ronan Tynan, though!
-Owen
herman
wrote:
>
> But quibbles are beside the point. Complaining about an excess of
> beauty is not a 21st century luxury.
>
> -- Mark Swed
When a reviewer uses half his space to jabber about historical
precedents etc, showing his erudition / google skills I always get
suspicious. Did he have to leave in the intermission? Maybe he wasn't
sure what to say abou the concert, and so he chooses to talk about
concerts fifty years ago?
However then I saw this was Mr Swed, part of the Dudamel machine.
M forever
The questions is also, what does the word "Mozartean" mean? And what
exactly is a "Mozartean moment"?
The quote from Walter, than he wasn't ready to conduct Mozart until he
was 50, which I think is a little over the top but probably not meant
to be taken complete literally, more meant to make a point, reminded
me that Abbado actually did wait until he was over 50 to conduct
Mahler 9. And when he did, he took several months off to learn the
score. Obviously, that is his personal decision and it doesn't mean
that no one else is "allowed" to conduct the piece at a younger age,
but it shows a certain attitude towards music which I think it would
do Dudamel good, too. I think on could call it "self-criticism".
Especially since Abbado is the one conductor he mimicks most, to an
almost grotesque degree. Sometimes when he conducts, he looks like
early-mid Abbado in a funny wig, down to details like the half-
sneezing facial expression in some places.
Matthew�B.�Tepper
to be typed in news:201120091254575844%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
> In article <Xns9CC95942CFF...@216.168.3.30>,
> Matthew�B.�Tepper <oy�@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Have you forgotten that Bocelli is blind? That, plus his fuzzy-wuzzy
>> unshaven look and the marketing to lonely middle-aged women, is what
>> made his millions. Each of them had his or her own sympathy story.
>> Church was a lit-tle gur-rul with "mouthsful of smiles," and Watson was
>> promoted as "the people's tenor" because he came up via hard knocks
>> singing at soccer matches and was not edjimacated at conservatories
>> like all the elitist swine WE like. (Of course, his promoters
>> conveniently forget the famous first photograph of Enrico Caruso,
>> wrapped in a blanket because HIS ONLY SHIRT was in the wash.)
>>
>> The crap promoters have also used one of those ploys entirely the other
>> way around, in stressing the conservatory background of the Bond bints.
>> There is no shame among these types, none whatsoever.
>
> That stuff all kind of backfired for Ronan Tynan, though!
Dr. Tynan should spend more time promoting the Paralympics, and less time
coming up with "clever" remarks about prospective real estate clients.
Thomas Quasthoff and Rachel Barton Pine also have physical disabilities,
but they are (in my opinion) top-rank, mature, seasoned performers. It's
hard not to feel sympathy for a man who was denied admission to a music
conservatory because his arms are not long enough to reach a piano
keyboard, or a woman who lost a leg in a subway accident; but when you come
down to it, it's their musicianship which matters.
Rugby
But of course !
If a review praises Dudamel, the reviewer is a fraud.
If a review disses Dudamel, the reviewer speaks the truth.
Sounds like a Fox News segment about Obama.
Rugby
M forever
No, it doesn't and no, that's not what Herman and Oscar said either.
If it sounds "like a Fox News segment" to you, than that is perhaps
because you don't seem to be able to process any nuanced information
and views on this subject. For you, everything is either top or flop,
tits or pits, and nothing in between at all.
Good comparison though. I guess Fox news are made for people like you
who can only see black and white and no shades in between at all. Your
contributions to this thread have been pretty bizarre, to put it
carefully, and the way you interpret everybody's opinions as either
completely uncritically enthusiastic about D or extreme, unqualified
dismissal is very puzzling, to put it carefully.