Rattle and the VPO
Vikramnet
When I first heard him perform I was impressed, as I still am by his Mahler 2,
Philharmonia Sibelius 5, Porgy, and more recently by his Szymanowski. But there
are caveats also: Mahler 1 and 6, Bruckner 7, his Eroica (twice live), Das
Klagende Lied, his Glagolitic Mass, Holst’s Planets …. And all of these
recordings are, astonishingly, still highly lauded. This is partly
understandable since musical interpretation and appreciation are highly
subjective for the most part. As for his recent Mahler 9 - there are some good
things to be said, but after repeated listening I do not think that I will ever
play it as often as, say, the Abbado VPO, the Dutton Walter 1938, the live
Karajan, my old RCO Haitink, or the James Judd. It’s too wayward, highly
indulgent, though very beautifully played.
Rattle is only 43 years old and has a long way to travel before becoming a
Furtwangler or a Carlos Kleiber (odd comparison - one dead and the second might
as well be for his current contribution to music.) Yet, the way things work he
is expected to out-compete all-comers each time a recording is issued. This is
nothing to do with musical performance, but marketing, mammon, Harold Holt, and
EMI. Rattle is rightly praised for his involvement in bringing the CBSO to the
point where it can be considered the best orchestra in Britain. But it is that
same CBSO that has helped so considerably in furthering Rattle’s career.
Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the (musical) press
here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour. This is as understandable as
Diapason (for example) performing cartwheels over anything by Boulez, or the
New York Times rating Tilson Thomas the greatest on the continent. A
repercussion of this kind of singular enthusiasm has resulted in
equally-talented British conductors like Wigglesworth, Daniel, Brabbins,
Handley, and the aforementioned James Judd being significantly disadvantaged.
The marketing aspect also raises questions. All kinds of nonsense is put out to
bolster Rattle’s image. For example, last spring there were articles in the
British press that described Rattle as having forced the misogynistic Vienna
Philharmonic to employ six (four extra) women harpists for a performance of the
Symphonie Fantastique. The language used was enthusiastic, and I quote: ‘Sir
Simon rattles the Vienna establishment’, ‘Rattle’s controversial inclusion’,
and ‘Rattle effectively breached one of their (the VPO’s) bastions’. After
phoning the VPO and Harold Holt - his agents, I had it confirmed that none of
this was true. Rattle had no influence whatsoever over the engagement of the
women. When I spoke to the editor of one of the magazines involved I was
assured that obviously the inference would be retracted. Though, that was after
he apologized for losing all my previous correspondence, and before he decided
not to reply to any subsequent letters. No retraction was published.
In another article (Classic CD, Daniel Jaffé August/97) the normally venomous
press side-steps a point relating to the same theme. Here the author infers an
‘inevitable question’ related to the issue of the VPO and women membership to
which Rattle answers ‘I didn’t know it was possible to have so much fun with so
many men.’ So, what was the question. Not why does this eminent conductor
perform with an orchestra so prejudiced to the membership of women when if the
criterion for unjustified exclusion was race or religion, probably, he would
feel obliged to forgo the experience.
For the interested: despite assurances from many quarters, to date only one
woman, a harpist by the name of Anna Lelkes, has ever been made a member of the
VPO. This was only after 20-odd years of playing with them, after a
considerable media campaign in Vienna, and after the Austrian government
threatened to cut their subsidy. Since the VPO’s announcement last spring on a
change of policy there have been numerous auditions for positions within the
Staatsoper orchestra from which VPO players emerge. Not one woman has been
successful. These men may play like angels, but they behave like oafs.
My point here is perception. Rattle is largely regarded as the good guy by some
neat media manipulation, but in reality he allows significant questions of
principle unanswered. I know the same applies to other conductors, but
integrity doesn’t run with the pack.
I also know that the questions on his standing as a musician and his continued
association with the VPO are separate issues and should remain so. I know that
there are weak-kneed enthusiasts for whom Rattle can do no wrong, and I know
that there are some who do not have nuance of difficulty with compromised
ethics. However, it is for all of us that these questions remain extant.
Death threats please on a postcard to ……
Simon Roberts
: Is there anyone else out there that thinks that Simon Rattle may be overrated?
[snip]
I used to think he was a fraud; first there was an excellent Mahler 10,
then lots of wayward to just plain bad recordings (I think his Mahler 2
and 6, the recordings that is, are awful); but I think he's been improving
of late: his recent Mahler 2 here was a vast improvement, his HIP/HIP
influenced recordings (Haydn Creation, Cosi) are very good (I find his
Haydn symphonies a bit tame), his yet more recent Bruckner 7 and Mahler 4
about as good as it gets (except for Roocroft's awful contribution to the
latter). I hope this trend continues; I'm much looking forward to hearing
his Mahler 9.
Simon
Deryk Barker
: Is there anyone else out there that thinks that Simon Rattle may be
: overrated?
Most writers for Fanfare? (present company excepted HF!)
: When I first heard him perform I was impressed, as I still am by his Mahler 2,
: Philharmonia Sibelius 5, Porgy, and more recently by his Szymanowski. But there
: are caveats also: Mahler 1 and 6, Bruckner 7, his Eroica (twice live), Das
: Klagende Lied, his Glagolitic Mass, Holst’s Planets …. And all of these
: recordings are, astonishingly, still highly lauded. This is partly
: understandable since musical interpretation and appreciation are highly
: subjective for the most part. As for his recent Mahler 9 - there are some good
: things to be said, but after repeated listening I do not think that I will ever
: play it as often as, say, the Abbado VPO, the Dutton Walter 1938, the live
: Karajan, my old RCO Haitink, or the James Judd. It’s too wayward, highly
: indulgent, though very beautifully played.
Sounds like just the ticket! Do you really think that Mahler wanted or
expected you to listen to the 9th very often?
[...]
: EMI. Rattle is rightly praised for his involvement in bringing the CBSO to the
: point where it can be considered the best orchestra in Britain. But it is that
: same CBSO that has helped so considerably in furthering Rattle’s
career.
Can you explain this?
: Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the (musical) press
: here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour. This is as understandable as
: Diapason (for example) performing cartwheels over anything by Boulez, or the
: New York Times rating Tilson Thomas the greatest on the continent. A
: repercussion of this kind of singular enthusiasm has resulted in
: equally-talented British conductors like Wigglesworth, Daniel, Brabbins,
: Handley, and the aforementioned James Judd being significantly disadvantaged.
:
: The marketing aspect also raises questions. All kinds of nonsense is put out to
: bolster Rattle’s image. For example, last spring there were articles in the
: British press that described Rattle as having forced the misogynistic Vienna
: Philharmonic to employ six (four extra) women harpists for a performance of the
: Symphonie Fantastique. The language used was enthusiastic, and I quote: ‘Sir
: Simon rattles the Vienna establishment’, ‘Rattle’s controversial inclusion’,
: and ‘Rattle effectively breached one of their (the VPO’s) bastions’. After
: phoning the VPO and Harold Holt - his agents, I had it confirmed that none of
: this was true. Rattle had no influence whatsoever over the engagement of the
: women. When I spoke to the editor of one of the magazines involved I was
: assured that obviously the inference would be retracted. Though, that was after
: he apologized for losing all my previous correspondence, and before he decided
: not to reply to any subsequent letters. No retraction was published.
But you can hardly blame Rattle for this.
[...]
: My point here is perception. Rattle is largely regarded as the good guy by some
: neat media manipulation, but in reality he allows significant questions of
: principle unanswered. I know the same applies to other conductors, but
: integrity doesn’t run with the pack.
Well you start of by saying he's overrated and now you're saying he is
unethical but so are all the others....
: I also know that the questions on his standing as a musician and his continued
: association with the VPO are separate issues and should remain so. I know that
: there are weak-kneed enthusiasts for whom Rattle can do no wrong, and I know
But this is true of *anyone" there are "weak-kneed enthusiasts" who
think that Zubin Mehta can do no wrong, or Yanni, or the Spice Girls
or....
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
Michael Weston
: Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the (musical) press
: here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour. This is as understandable as
: Diapason (for example) performing cartwheels over anything by Boulez, or the
: New York Times rating Tilson Thomas the greatest on the continent. A
I realize your description of the bias towards Rattle may be correct for
the British press, but I can say I haven't seen MTT lauded on the terms
you describe in the NYTimes. Most of his praise comes for his impact on
the SFO in terms of developing an audience willing to follow him into far
more eclectic programming, with emphasis on newer works. I have never
seen his concert reviews imbued with ecstasy over a new master- they took
his LvB 9 and pointed out its shortcomings, for instance.
But he seems similar to Rattle in one respect- the effect they have had in
producing vital enthusiasm in audiences- Rattle's is more extreme a case,
which accounts for much of his fame. But there are few conductors who can
bring true charisma to this artform, and it is something that is needed
for the survival of the medium. Whatever Slatkin can do, he isn't going
to make the artform sexy. He's not the one who's going to convince a mass
audience that classical music isn't for old people.
You seem to have a problem with his fame, and barely
touch on the issue of his music-making. There has been nothing but raves
in these quarters for his Bruckner 7 (which I have not heard), yet you
calmly name it as evidence against. Are those who like it deaf, seduced
by his charms and his marketing army?
The jury in these parts seems pretty level-headed about him, so I must
wonder whether you really want to discuss or just vent to a willing
audience?
: Death threats please on a postcard to ……
Drama queen!
michael
Michael Weston
: Is there anyone else out there that thinks that Simon Rattle may be overrated?
And can I add that I just don't buy the notion that *anyone* who has
exposure can meet some public that can fall into a delusional state of
collective "false taste."
Sure, there are critics whose tastes are out of step with the majority,
and individuals whoose fanaticism will seem odd. But you have no
objective basis for proving them wrong.
When a person says "Ormandy remains underrated," it seems odd that other
conductors with even less charm (Reiner's and easy example) carry fabulous
reputations into their afterlife. What is the phenomena of clouded
judgement that settles only on certain figures?
When I read the latest Ratttle review in the Times, I don't see a paper
lauding the next Giant- but he could have popular appeal if put in
the right big city, and any sane person who loves our music and wishes for
a bit more respect as a devotee of the medium and a consumer (by
labels that put off the US releases by years) has got to find that
exciting.
michael
David Grayshan
Vikramnet wrote:
> Is there anyone else out there that thinks that Simon Rattle may be overrated?
> (SNIP)
Yeah, I do. I find his Sibelius too fancy by half and for me there's an indefinable
something lacking in all the recordings I've heard of him, that last bit of insight
into the structure of a movement (tempi relationships, the musical "arches", in
fact the things that draw to to Furt, Klemps, Reiner etc.), and real tension I
miss, too.
> But it is that same CBSO that has helped so considerably in furthering Rattle’s
> career.
His long stint with the CBSO seems to me to display admirable old-fashioned
virtues: learn your trade, don't jet-set, be loyal, build up a long-term
relationship, etc. Which he now threatens to abandon.
> Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the (musical) press
> here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour. This is as understandable as
> Diapason (for example) performing cartwheels over anything by Boulez, or the
> New York Times rating Tilson Thomas the greatest on the continent. A
> repercussion of this kind of singular enthusiasm has resulted in
> equally-talented British conductors like Wigglesworth, Daniel, Brabbins,
> Handley, and the aforementioned James Judd being significantly disadvantaged.
Ah, well, my son, we Brits have been longing for Tommy ever since he left us, we
long for each new conductor to be his successor, sad, really...
> The marketing aspect also raises questions. All kinds of nonsense is put out to
> bolster Rattle’s image. For example, last spring there were articles in the
> British press that described Rattle as having forced the misogynistic Vienna
> Philharmonic to employ six (four extra) women harpists for a performance of the
> Symphonie Fantastique. The language used was enthusiastic, and I quote: ‘Sir
> Simon rattles the Vienna establishment’, ‘Rattle’s controversial inclusion’,
> and ‘Rattle effectively breached one of their (the VPO’s) bastions’. After
> phoning the VPO and Harold Holt - his agents, I had it confirmed that none of
> this was true. Rattle had no influence whatsoever over the engagement of the
> women. When I spoke to the editor of one of the magazines involved I was
> assured that obviously the inference would be retracted. Though, that was after
> he apologized for losing all my previous correspondence, and before he decided
> not to reply to any subsequent letters. No retraction was published.
The Karajan phenomenon. Music is a now a business, no longer an art-form.
> In another article (Classic CD, Daniel Jaffé August/97) the normally venomous
> press side-steps a point relating to the same theme. Here the author infers an
> ‘inevitable question’ related to the issue of the VPO and women membership to
> which Rattle answers ‘I didn’t know it was possible to have so much fun with so
> many men.’ So, what was the question. Not why does this eminent conductor
> perform with an orchestra so prejudiced to the membership of women when if the
> criterion for unjustified exclusion was race or religion, probably, he would
> feel obliged to forgo the experience.
>
> For the interested: despite assurances from many quarters, to date only one
> woman, a harpist by the name of Anna Lelkes, has ever been made a member of the
> VPO. This was only after 20-odd years of playing with them, after a
> considerable media campaign in Vienna, and after the Austrian government
> threatened to cut their subsidy. Since the VPO’s announcement last spring on a
> change of policy there have been numerous auditions for positions within the
> Staatsoper orchestra from which VPO players emerge. Not one woman has been
> successful. These men may play like angels, but they behave like oafs.
Reforming the VPO is rather like banging your head against a brick wall - it gives
a nice feeling when you stop.
> My point here is perception. Rattle is largely regarded as the good guy by some
> neat media manipulation, but in reality he allows significant questions of
> principle unanswered.
Agreed, that's how it seems, but as I suggested above, 't'aint that easy.
> I know the same applies to other conductors, but
> integrity doesn’t run with the pack.
Rattle may not have had anything to do with these claims. Let's not accuse him of
unscrupulousness and lack of integrity too hastily. His tenure with the CBSO
suggests a high degree of personal integrity.
> I also know that the questions on his standing as a musician and his continued
> association with the VPO are separate issues and should remain so. I know that
> there are weak-kneed enthusiasts for whom Rattle can do no wrong, and I know
> that there are some who do not have nuance of difficulty with compromised
> ethics. However, it is for all of us that these questions remain extant.
Sorry, I comprehend not your last two sentences, nor can I work out what you're
trying to say.
> Death threats please on a postcard to ……
You'll get those, or at least some e-missiles, old boy...but not from me. Still,
you might think about the way you put things, sometimes.
MRPERMAN
>I realize your description of the bias towards Rattle may be correct for
>the British press, but I can say I haven't seen MTT lauded on the terms
>you describe in the NYTimes. Most of his praise comes for his impact on
>the SFO in terms of developing an audience willing to follow him into far
>more eclectic programming, with emphasis on newer works. I have never
>seen his concert reviews imbued with ecstasy over a new master- they took
>his LvB 9 and pointed out its shortcomings, for instance.
>But he seems similar to Rattle in one respect- the effect they have had in
>producing vital enthusiasm in audiences- Rattle's is more extreme a case,
>which accounts for much of his fame. But there are few conductors who can
>bring true charisma to this artform, and it is something that is needed
>for the survival of the medium.
Whatever Slatkin can do, he isn't going
>to make the artform sexy. He's not the one who's going to convince a mass
>audience that classical music isn't for old people.
I was just pondering Slatkin's unsexy aspects yesterday evening while looking
at the photo of him inside his wonderful RVW 8 and 9 disc. Michael is exactly
right - classical music is slowing dying, and we're lucky to have "celebrity"
conductors like Rattle and MTT around who combine fine musicianship with some
appeal to the general public. I'd never considered their connection before.
Rattle's "fame," such as it is, may actually be attracting more people to
concerts and the classical sections of record stores, which is a very good
thing. (Rattle's Mahler 2nd with the Philly at Carnegie this year was an
extraordinary performance, BTW).
Marc Perman
Richard L
>On 27 Aug 1998 22:32:37 GMT, vikr...@aol.com (Vikramnet) wrote:
>
>>his is
>>nothing to do with musical performance, but marketing, mammon, Harold Holt, and
>>EMI. Rattle is rightly praised for his involvement in bringing the CBSO to the
>>point where it can be considered the best orchestra in Britain. But it is that
>>same CBSO that has helped so considerably in furthering Rattle’s career.
>>Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the (musical) press
>>here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour.
>
>Barbirolli was, in that he is a great performer and has transformed a regional
>orchestra into possibly the best in this country. Rattle has been with them for
>15+ years and worked VERY hard to achieve the reputation he now commands. I've
>been to two Rattle concerts, and the magic of the conductor was immediately
>apparant. In if he were the creation of his PR people, I doubt he'd be
>championing so much new music, and byways too with so much consumate success. No
>- he's the realr McCoy: no doubt about it.
>
>
Seconded completely. If you people had heard the Tippett 4th I heard him
give with the CBSO in London a few months ago (assuming you have any
liking for the composer) you would not be in the slightest doubt that he
is a musician to his fingertips. The cogency and architectural shape
that he gave to this piece was awe-inspring. His Beethoven 9th too,
given at the Proms a week or so ago, was compelling and freshly thought
through. In other words this man is the real McCoy - the next orchestra
that has the good fortune to acquire him will be fortunate indeed.
-------
Richard Landau (London, UK)
Ric...@atelier48.demon.co.uk
Mike Painter
<rush...@europa.com> wrote:
> Vikramnet <vikr...@aol.com> wrote:
> : Another aspect in this dynamic that is worth mentioning is the
(musical) press
> : here which is highly partisan in Rattle’s favour. This is as
understandable as
> : Diapason (for example) performing cartwheels over anything by Boulez, or the
> : New York Times rating Tilson Thomas the greatest on the continent. A
>
> I realize your description of the bias towards Rattle may be correct for
> the British press, but I can say I haven't seen MTT lauded on the terms
> you describe in the NYTimes. Most of his praise comes for his impact on
> the SFO in terms of developing an audience willing to follow him into far
> more eclectic programming, with emphasis on newer works. I have never
> seen his concert reviews imbued with ecstasy over a new master- they took
> his LvB 9 and pointed out its shortcomings, for instance.
MTT's concerts of music by Mahler -- and he has performed almost all the
symphonies over the last 4 years, especially during June's Mahler
Celebration -- have been greeted with almost uniformly ecstatic reviews.
But Mahler is not the only composer for which this holds -- the reviews
for MTT's Sibelius 2nd were ecstatic, among other performances by
not-so-contemporary composers. It is true that he is praised for his
audience-building, but if other reviewers are focusing on his
audience-building, they are missing at least half the story.
It is not just his programming that is exciting. MTT consistently displays
an extremely high level of musicianship as well, and this is most often
the subject of reviews (at least here in the Bay Area).
As for MTT's LvB 9th, I don't find any pointing out of the performances'
shortcomings in the reviews from the SF Chronicle and SF Examiner when MTT
last performed it in SF in 1995. (Maybe you are referring to other reviews
or performances that I am not aware of?) Excerpts from the Chronicle's
reviews follow:
Beethoven's Ninth for Our Times: Thomas jolts familiar work into present tense
JOSHUA KOSMAN, Chronicle Music Critic
Friday, September 15, 1995
Is it possible, at this late hour, to create a new context for
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony? Is there any way to reclaim the music's
audacity and power from the effects of a century and a half of
overexposure?
In his first subscription program as the San Francisco Symphony's music
director -- brilliantly conceived and stirringly executed in Davies Hall
Wednesday night -- Michael Tilson Thomas has tackled that challenge
head-on. Even more amazing is that he's damn near succeeded.
. . . Beethoven's expansive sense of drama, his fierce wit and his
assertion of universal brotherhood in the final setting of Schiller's
``Ode to Joy'' still have much to tell us, but they're not always easy to
hear through the mists of pious reverence surrounding a certified
masterpiece. Thomas' program and the brash fearlessness of his performance
helped scrub the piece clean, rendering it at once more startling and more
recognizable.
. . . The reading found its summit in a glorious account of the finale,
one that transmuted the nervous momentum of the first movements into pure
blazing power (it was surely no accident that Thomas, the vocal soloists
and the chorus all worked from memory).
The soloists -- soprano Ruth Ann Swenson, mezzo-soprano Michelle DeYoung,
tenor Jerry Hadley and (bass-baritone Richard) Zeller -- all sang with
consummate clarity and heft, projecting both the words and the moral
weight of the text. The chorus sang as though inspired, bringing
Beethoven's transcendent message once again to a new audience in a new
time.
-----------------
No shortcomings mentioned there, and I think I excerpted fairly. For those
in doubt, the full review can be found at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1995/09/15/DD32520.DTL
The review from the Examiner can be found at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1995/09/15/WEEKEND13034.dtl
Mike
To respond via e-mail, remove * from address.
Ratwood19
Can anyone comment on how Leonard Bernstein fared at this same stage of his
career? I sense that much of what is being commented on concerning Rattle is
similar to how Lenny's own star ascended.
D Krause
>It is not just his programming that is exciting. MTT consistently displays
>an extremely high level of musicianship as well, and this is most often
>the subject of reviews (at least here in the Bay Area).
You're absolutely right about MTT. I've been following his career since I
first heard him conduct at the Ojai Festival in 1968. And while I did get
to hear him conduct the SFO a few times, I unfortunately moved from San
Francisco just as the snoozy Blomstedt era was coming to an end and MTT was
taking over the conductor's slot. My only consolation is that the conductor
of this locale's orchestra, the Oregon Symphony, is another excellent
Bernstein protege, James DePreist.
Michael Weston
: I was just pondering Slatkin's unsexy aspects yesterday evening while looking
: at the photo of him inside his wonderful RVW 8 and 9 disc. Michael is exactly
: right - classical music is slowing dying, and we're lucky to have "celebrity"
: conductors like Rattle and MTT around who combine fine musicianship with some
: appeal to the general public. I'd never considered their connection before.
: Rattle's "fame," such as it is, may actually be attracting more people to
: concerts and the classical sections of record stores, which is a very good
: thing. (Rattle's Mahler 2nd with the Philly at Carnegie this year was an
: extraordinary performance, BTW).
: Marc Perman
By the way, I rather skipped my reasons for picking on Slatkin. In a way,
he's very close to Rattle and MTT- he did great things in St. Louis and is
quite a good speaker an things musical- the Mahler 10 disk and numerous
radio interviews show this. But he's a bit of a stiff, personality-wise.
This really doesn't bother me, but he'll never be a pin-up boy for
classical music.
As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic figures
even if their fame can't equal their artistic successes.
michael
Michael Weston
Mike, we're talking about the NYTimes. It should be taken for granted
that the press in SF is very happy.
michael
Mike Painter <mjp*@sirius.com> wrote:
: MTT's concerts of music by Mahler -- and he has performed almost all the
: symphonies over the last 4 years, especially during June's Mahler
: Celebration -- have been greeted with almost uniformly ecstatic reviews.
: But Mahler is not the only composer for which this holds -- the reviews
: for MTT's Sibelius 2nd were ecstatic, among other performances by
: not-so-contemporary composers. It is true that he is praised for his
: audience-building, but if other reviewers are focusing on his
: audience-building, they are missing at least half the story.
: It is not just his programming that is exciting. MTT consistently displays
: an extremely high level of musicianship as well, and this is most often
: the subject of reviews (at least here in the Bay Area).
: As for MTT's LvB 9th, I don't find any pointing out of the performances'
Mike Painter
<rush...@europa.com> wrote:
> Mike, we're talking about the NYTimes. It should be taken for granted
> that the press in SF is very happy.
>
Actually, it shouldn't be taken for granted. The press here can be pretty
"unsatisfiable" at times.
Unfortunately, the NY Times web pages, which is the only place I read it,
very rarely covers anything about West Coast arts. I have seen an article
from the Wall Street Journal which praised the Mahler concerts this June
and there was also a New Yorker by Alex Ross article from January or
February which dealt with MTT and the SFS. It also praised MTT highly,
although it sometimes seemed to focus more on some of the
"audience-building" attributes more than the music-making.
As I said in the previous post, anyone who focuses on the
"audience-building" is not getting even half of the story.
Derek Haslam
Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Michael Weston (rush...@europa.com) wrote:
> : As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic figures
> Why?
> --
> regards,
> alain
>
Because these are the people who bring "classical" music to the attention
of a public which would otherwise ignore it or disparage it.
Derek
--
__ __ __ __ __
/ \ | ||__ |__)/ | | |_ Derek Haslam: Acorn Computer Enthusiast
\_\/ |__||__ | \\__ |__| __| dljh...@argonet.co.uk
\ Mastery of the rules is a pre-requisite for creatively breaking them.
Derek Haslam
A very perceptive comment indeed. I'd never noticed the parallels before
but Bernstein was regarded by many as the over-hyped whizz-kid and the
darling of the newspaper critics. Now that Lenny is one of the
late-lamented there are many folk on this n.g. whose opinions I have
learned to respect who regard him as without peer in Mahler and Nielsen
especially.
Matthew Vaughan
both sides--up through high school, I listened to mainly rock music,
though I'd had some exposure to classical and played in school orchestras
before. (I'm 30, by the way.)
99% of attempts to "popularize" classical music (ie, the kinds of things
you see in ads in "Symphony" magazine) are so _wrong_ they'd actually
repel most teen/young adult audiences in my opinion (they're only good for
the < age 10 crowd, I suppose).
There are a lot of problems, from the old average age of the audiences,
the formality and "politeness" of concerts, the lack of "coolness" among
many of the performers, to the acoustical problems of many concerts halls
(particularly in North America), which particularly contrasts with the
typical sound of rock music. I think Kronos is a good example of doing
things right, whereas many local orchestras seem to do everything wrong.
Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony are also doing a lot
of good things, and in the right ways.
Anyway, I very rarely encounter people near my age who have the slightest
knowledge or awareness of, or interest in classical music. It's just not
a part of their world.
In article <6sa8er$80k$1...@supernews.com>, Michael Weston
<rush...@europa.com> wrote:
> Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> : As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic
> figures
> : Why?
> : regards,
> : alain
>
>
> I'm 28- in my normal day-to-day activity (and not inside the classical
> department of some local cd store) I have *never* met one person in my own
> age bracket who had enough interest in classical music to go out and buy a
> respectable recording (exclusions for those who buy Laserlight cds of
> Eastern European orchestras and use them as background music when they're
> tired of Enya) or express an interest in attending a concert.
>
> There is no performer of classical music with a true public identity these
> days. No Toscanini, no Bernstein (TV and radio) and the average age of
> the classical radio listener is 50.
>
> What comes from the academy- musicians and scholars of music- are nearly
> hermetically sealed in their subculture (no negative connatation, read
> "size"). There is nothing useful or socially relevant to people my age
> about this artform.
>
> Where in the visual arts there are at least the occasional
> notorious figures which are appropriated into youth culture and can at
> least be seen as "cool"- Warhol and Dali, for instance, who both added to
> the public awareness of pop and surrealism even if their own contributions
> were limited- the face of classical is dead. No real person of the
> present can be seen as the embodyment of music.
>
> You can claim that this is not needed- I wish it wasn't. But you have to
> look at the pitiable attempts to earn classical a new audience, a younger
> audience, and wonder if it is the only or best way. I personally have
> zero interest in seeing Bobby McFerrin (sorry if I misspell the name,
> and sorry for picking in him, perhaps the most credible "outsider" to
> associate himself with clssical performances- but I forget the rest of
> 'em) with my local symphony. There has to be someone who can convince
> larger audiences that there is something at stake in a performance of
> Mahler, somehting profound about Bruckner, something cool about Strauss's
> tone poems beyond what Kubrick can do with them.
>
> In your world of middle-age professionalism this may have little concern
> for you, but I, for one, wish that I could express my interest to my peers
> and that there might be at least a starting point of current cultural
> value where they could express some understanding or recognition of the
> form rather than seeing me as some old-before-his time-esoteric who has
> lost touch the pulse of life in the music that does surround us.
>
> And by the way, sorry if my assumptions about your life are wrong, but
> I've seen your .sig many times- there is a set of values implicit in your
> dispersal of it with your messages (after all, it does not directly relate
> to our discussions) which fits best with a certain age-group and class,
> whether or not you correspond with it exactly or not. I'm interested in
> seeing classical music move from the realm of refinement to the one of
> excitement.
>
> Were you being coy, or is there something in this that grabs you?
>
> michael
--
....................................................
MATTHEW VAUGHAN
matt...@best.com
http://www.best.com/~matthewv/
....................................................
Michael Weston
_poetic_license@nospam.com mike
imagination, but i also feel that there are certain parts of life that
should be enjoyed and respected for what they are...I don't think McEnroe
did tennis a "great favor"...I don't think John Daly did the right thing for
golf...nor Bill Clinton the right thing for the presidency (just random
examples ;-) ) . . . I think (my humble opinion of course) that classical
music needs great conductors, not FLAMBOYANT ones...
Derek Haslam wrote in message <487d6471...@argonet.co.uk>...
>In article <6s97q4$4...@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>,
> Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> Michael Weston (rush...@europa.com) wrote:
>
>> : As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic figures
>
>> Why?
>
>> --
>> regards,
>
>> alain
>
>>
>Because these are the people who bring "classical" music to the attention
>of a public which would otherwise ignore it or disparage it.
>
Michael Weston
: I strongly disagree... I am an old-fashioned person by any stretch of the
: imagination, but i also feel that there are certain parts of life that
: should be enjoyed and respected for what they are...I don't think McEnroe
: music needs great conductors, not FLAMBOYANT ones...
But it is the case that without the personalities of Stokowski and
Toscanini (and I realize the latter did little talking, but...) classical
music in America would be something else.
This is belief more than actual knowledge speaking, but I would be
surprised if anyone thought otherwise- who else could have shaken hands
with Mickey Mouse? Do you not see this summit, and an entire
feature-length film with classical music playing as great a role as the
characters as something which surely had an impact?
michael
Matthew B. Tepper
see-...@not-my-address.invalid pondered what I'm pondering as
follows:
>
>I think Kronos is a good example of doing things right, whereas many
>local orchestras seem to do everything wrong.
I saw the Kronos Quartet perform live back in the 1970s. In those
days, they had style, they had verve, and they gave 100% of their
energy to the music.
Nowadays the music gets maybe 10%, while the other 90% is expended on
Dressing Real Cool.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/index.htm
My main music page --- http://www.deltanet.com/~ducky/berlioz.htm
And my science fiction club's home page --- http://www.lasfs.org/
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Matthew B. Tepper
>
>
>Toscanini (and I realize the latter did little talking, but...)
>classical music in America would be something else.
>
>This is belief more than actual knowledge speaking, but I would be
>surprised if anyone thought otherwise- who else could have shaken
>hands with Mickey Mouse? Do you not see this summit, and an entire
>feature-length film with classical music playing as great a role as
>the characters as something which surely had an impact?
The movie "Fantasia" is not the best example, since it was a major
NON-success upon its original release. It didn't begin to have much
influence until much later releases, like in the 1960s, as a curio.
Alain DAGHER
: Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
: : As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic
: figures
: : Why?
: I'm 28- in my normal day-to-day activity (and not inside the classical
: department of some local cd store) I have *never* met one person in my own
: age bracket who had enough interest in classical music to go out and buy a
: respectable recording (exclusions for those who buy Laserlight cds of
: Eastern European orchestras and use them as background music when they're
: tired of Enya) or express an interest in attending a concert.
Why do you care? Also, I think there are 28 year olds who like
classical music. I was one not too long ago. But look at it this way,
if classical music were as popular as pop music we'd have to see
concerts in arenas and football stadiums and line up for hours just to
get tickets.
: There is no performer of classical music with a true public identity these
: days. No Toscanini, no Bernstein (TV and radio) and the average age of
: the classical radio listener is 50.
Are you saying that there are no good musicians, or no media-savvy
ones? Isn't the former the important thing?
: What comes from the academy- musicians and scholars of music- are nearly
: hermetically sealed in their subculture (no negative connatation, read
: "size"). There is nothing useful or socially relevant to people my age
: about this artform.
If Art is not "relevant" to you who's fault is that. Art's?
or yours?
: Where in the visual arts there are at least the occasional
: notorious figures which are appropriated into youth culture and can at
: least be seen as "cool"- Warhol and Dali, for instance, who both added to
: the public awareness of pop and surrealism even if their own contributions
: were limited- the face of classical is dead. No real person of the
: present can be seen as the embodyment of music.
Warhol and Dali are famous because of their genius in marketting and
self-promotion (which is not to say they were not also good
artists). Do you think this is what classical music needs? Did Warhol
and Dali "help" Bacon, Diebenkorn, Kiefer?
: You can claim that this is not needed- I wish it wasn't. But you have to
: look at the pitiable attempts to earn classical a new audience, a younger
: audience, and wonder if it is the only or best way. I personally have
: zero interest in seeing Bobby McFerrin (sorry if I misspell the name,
: and sorry for picking in him, perhaps the most credible "outsider" to
: associate himself with clssical performances- but I forget the rest of
: 'em) with my local symphony. There has to be someone who can convince
: larger audiences that there is something at stake in a performance of
: Mahler, somehting profound about Bruckner, something cool about Strauss's
: tone poems beyond what Kubrick can do with them.
But there are several fantastic Mahler conductors. He is performed
more nowadays than ever before.
: In your world of middle-age professionalism this may have little concern
~~~~~~~~~~
Ouch!
: for you, but I, for one, wish that I could express my interest to my peers
Sure you do. A few paragraphs higher you were belittling their musical
tastes ("Enya").
: and that there might be at least a starting point of current cultural
: value where they could express some understanding or recognition of the
: form rather than seeing me as some old-before-his time-esoteric who has
: lost touch the pulse of life in the music that does surround us.
Why do you care how others see you?
: And by the way, sorry if my assumptions about your life are wrong, but
: I've seen your .sig many times- there is a set of values implicit in your
: dispersal of it with your messages (after all, it does not directly relate
: to our discussions)
My sig had my professional affiliation because most of my email is
sent to colleagues and professional acquaintances. It's useful to have
that info appear. I've changed it now that I figured out how to
separate my mail from my newsgroup sig.
: which fits best with a certain age-group and class,
: whether or not you correspond with it exactly or not. I'm interested in
: seeing classical music move from the realm of refinement to the one of
: excitement.
I find classical music exciting.
: Were you being coy, or is there something in this that grabs you?
Yes. You called me middle-aged. That grabs me where it hurts.
But seriously, I think you are confusing two not-unrelated but
different things: classical music and the classical music business. I
think the quality of musicianship right now is as good as ever, and
the choice available to us in terms of recordings is excellent. Here
in Montreal there are four universities with music schools and they
(as far as I can tell) are full of talented musicians.
--
regards,
alain
I. Neill Reid
>
>> : As crude as it is to say it, I think we need a few charismatic figures
>
>> Why?
>
>> regards,
>
>> alain
>
>>
>Because these are the people who bring "classical" music to the attention
>of a public which would otherwise ignore it or disparage it.
Agreed - and that can be achieved without talking down or cheapening
the music. Andre Previn's (Andrew Preview's) musicnight on BBC in the 70s
introduced a lot of people to classical music and classical musicians
without talkin down to the audience or glitzing things up - performances
of full symphonic works. Introduced me to Vaughan Williams' tuba concerto,
amongst other.
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
_poetic_license@nospam.com mike
little to further the art . . . Even though that happend (?)35(?) years ago,
ask the average person who's music that is rolling through the background
and there isn't a soul who could tell you. In my opinion it would be the
same as saying that Nike did a tremendous amount to advance and mainstream
the music of the Beatles... so I guess I simply don't see the "impact"
other than a few people were subjected to music they cannot recall (nor wish
to hear again) when they happened to go see a cartoon... Let's keep this in
perspective, ya know???
Michael Weston wrote in message <6sapmj$r8g$1...@supernews.com>...
>mike <some _poetic_...@nospam.com> wrote:
>: I strongly disagree... I am an old-fashioned person by any stretch of the
>: imagination, but i also feel that there are certain parts of life that
>: should be enjoyed and respected for what they are...I don't think McEnroe
>: examples ;-) ) . . . I think (my humble opinion of course) that classical
>: music needs great conductors, not FLAMBOYANT ones...
>
>Toscanini (and I realize the latter did little talking, but...) classical
>music in America would be something else.
>
>This is belief more than actual knowledge speaking, but I would be
>surprised if anyone thought otherwise- who else could have shaken hands
>with Mickey Mouse? Do you not see this summit, and an entire
>feature-length film with classical music playing as great a role as the
>characters as something which surely had an impact?
>
Michael Weston
: to hear again) when they happened to go see a cartoon... Let's keep this in
: perspective, ya know???
Ducky's comment goes to the heart of contradicting my suggestion- I
stand corrected on this count.
He didn't really take on the general idea, though. As for you equating
Disney with Nike, I'm not suggesting that fame doesn't have its ugly side.
But, what, between the two of you, all we have is a contradiction and an
exortation to not go overboard. Offer something up- you think the
longevity of classical music is assured? Or do you only get passionate
*thump*thump*thump* about other things?
michael
Michael Weston
: Why do you care? Also, I think there are 28 year olds who like
: classical music. I was one not too long ago. But look at it this way,
: if classical music were as popular as pop music we'd have to see
: concerts in arenas and football stadiums and line up for hours just to
: get tickets.
Any fool can look at Japan and see that greater interest in classical
music means a greater proliferation of orchestras and concerts.
Popularity doesn't turn classical music into pop music for a second, the
Three Tenors and star/sellout shows notwithstanding.
: Are you saying that there are no good musicians, or no media-savvy
: ones? Isn't the former the important thing?
It can be all you care about. It could be all we need. But the two are
not mutually exclusive, and the latter doesn not necessarily impact the
former. The qualities of leadership are far more than purely technical,
and can stretch, grow, into a public identity if that person is capable of
attracting a larger audience in that manner. Don't tell me that orchestra
managers only want a proficient musician to lead their orchestras- there's
way more to keeping an orchestra healthy.
: : What comes from the academy- musicians and scholars of music- are nearly
: : hermetically sealed in their subculture (no negative connatation, read
: : "size"). There is nothing useful or socially relevant to people my age
: : about this artform.
: If Art is not "relevant" to you who's fault is that. Art's?
: or yours?
Reread the paragraph. I'm not talking about myself, but my peers.
Classical music can't have a wider audience, a younger audience (and if
you have no problem with the demographics of classical music fandom, come
out and say it- I'll direct my efforts elsewhere) until a public figure
can do a bit towards communicating the potential meanings of what the
music can mean, express, put at stake. Until then, this artform has no
social relevance (i.e. cannot express in a manner that has conjunction
with our day-to-day lived experience) for most people my age.
: Warhol and Dali are famous because of their genius in marketting and
: self-promotion (which is not to say they were not also good
: artists). Do you think this is what classical music needs? Did Warhol
: and Dali "help" Bacon, Diebenkorn, Kiefer?
As a person's interest in famous people's work develops, curiousity will
inevitably lead them to other, similar artists, who are perhaps less
famous, but more sophisticated. Who do you think I knew of first? Warhol
or Hmilton? Dali or De Chirico? I see both of them as instrumental in
pointing me towards a better understanding of pop and surrealism, even if
this understanding eventually leads me to see at least one as a near
fraud. In the public sphere, they performed a function. So yes, yes.
And "need" is not the word. "Could benefit from" is more like it.
: But there are several fantastic Mahler conductors. He is performed
: more nowadays than ever before.
But I'm not really talking about Mahler or any specific composer. I'm
merely picking some of the artists perhaps easier to make a case for with
those who are unfamiliar with the medium. Try selling Haydn to teens.
: : for you, but I, for one, wish that I could express my interest to my peers
: Sure you do. A few paragraphs higher you were belittling their musical
: tastes ("Enya").
I actually like Enya. But was looking for a token figure of pleasant,
atmospheric music which you might hear when you are put on "hold" or in an
elevator. (And to be honest, I think what I've heard is better than that,
but I needed to make a point without bogging down in technicalities, and
Enya is known enough that I could count on recognition). The point is
that the one person I know who has bought 3 or four classical cd's seems
to want very basic things from music- pleasant stuff to fill time. Yeah,
maybe in a while, he'll become more curious, and we can discuss it more.
: : and that there might be at least a starting point of current cultural
: : value where they could express some understanding or recognition of the
: : form rather than seeing me as some old-before-his time-esoteric who has
: : lost touch the pulse of life in the music that does surround us.
: Why do you care how others see you?
Because I wish I had more shared interests with which to form
relationships with those people I encounter most often in my life.
Having friends involves sharing interests, and having uncommon interests,
or worse, those that are commonly judged as being far down the list of
those things interesting is simply frustrating.
: : And by the way, sorry if my assumptions about your life are wrong, but
: : I've seen your .sig many times- there is a set of values implicit in your
: : dispersal of it with your messages (after all, it does not directly relate
: : to our discussions)
: My sig had my professional affiliation because most of my email is
: sent to colleagues and professional acquaintances. It's useful to have
: that info appear. I've changed it now that I figured out how to
: separate my mail from my newsgroup sig.
Sorry, point taken- I won't make assumptions about this in the future.
: I find classical music exciting.
And I shouldn't suggest that being middle age would imply otherwise. My
most animated discussions about music are usually with men my senior.
: Yes. You called me middle-aged. That grabs me where it hurts.
Well, I hope, if accurate, it has come with its pluses. From the outside,
it looks like you've got a great hometown, for starters.
: But seriously, I think you are confusing two not-unrelated but
: different things: classical music and the classical music business. I
: think the quality of musicianship right now is as good as ever, and
: the choice available to us in terms of recordings is excellent. Here
: in Montreal there are four universities with music schools and they
: (as far as I can tell) are full of talented musicians.
Yes, if that's a shared sentiment, then I'll have to become more of an
optimist. But along the lines of the original subject, if Rattle were
able to become a more public figure (what happened with his BBC series on
composers?) and remain as good a conductor (I'm not using superlatives or
linking the two in any way, as in fame = skill), then the effect would be
beneficial. And all those musicians in those schools could only be
happier with a larger audience for the music. (And I hope you understand
that by larger, I think of a 10% increase in classical audiences as a high
number- this isn't arena music.)
I think the Helfgott controversy shows that when there is a way to assign
meanings to orchestral, instrumental, chamber music, etc. outside teaching
the subject in school, a much larger audience lies waiting. And Ifail
to see how larger audiences would ultimately be detrimental in their
impact on this artform.
I appreciate your detailed responses to even my more heated jibes and I
will certainly keep them in mind the next time the opportunity arises to
discuss these issues.
cheers,
michael
Alain DAGHER
: Alain DAGHER <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca> wrote:
: : Why do you care? Also, I think there are 28 year olds who like
: : classical music. I was one not too long ago. But look at it this way,
: : if classical music were as popular as pop music we'd have to see
: : concerts in arenas and football stadiums and line up for hours just to
: : get tickets.
: Any fool can look at Japan and see that greater interest in classical
: music means a greater proliferation of orchestras and concerts.
: Popularity doesn't turn classical music into pop music for a second, the
: Three Tenors and star/sellout shows notwithstanding.
All I meant is that if lots of people want to go to concerts I'll have
a harder time getting a ticket. I was being partly flippant of course.
: : If Art is not "relevant" to you who's fault is that. Art's?
: : or yours?
: Reread the paragraph. I'm not talking about myself, but my peers.
: Classical music can't have a wider audience, a younger audience (and if
: you have no problem with the demographics of classical music fandom, come
: out and say it- I'll direct my efforts elsewhere) until a public figure
: can do a bit towards communicating the potential meanings of what the
: music can mean, express, put at stake. Until then, this artform has no
: social relevance (i.e. cannot express in a manner that has conjunction
: with our day-to-day lived experience) for most people my age.
Then I can rephrase the statement to say that the problem is not with
art. Great art cannot come to its audience, the audience must come to
it. In fact, that transforming life-long journey you make is the whole
point.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with popularization. What is wrong
is to believe that art should be yet another from of effortless
self-gratification, like a hollywood movie: "just sit back and we'll
make you feel good".
Now if you're talking about the survival of symphony orchestras for
example, that's a whole different issue. You have the right
prescirption. But as I said, you're now talking about the music
business.
: As a person's interest in famous people's work develops, curiousity will
: inevitably lead them to other, similar artists, who are perhaps less
: famous, but more sophisticated. Who do you think I knew of first? Warhol
: or Hmilton? Dali or De Chirico? I see both of them as instrumental in
: pointing me towards a better understanding of pop and surrealism, even if
: this understanding eventually leads me to see at least one as a near
: fraud. In the public sphere, they performed a function. So yes, yes.
You'd have found your way to a museum regardless.
: : I find classical music exciting.
: And I shouldn't suggest that being middle age would imply otherwise. My
: most animated discussions about music are usually with men my senior.
There you go again. I am not middle-aged. Most of my friends are
younger than you.
Seriously though, I agree with you on many points, and I get depressed
when I see empty seats in concert halls. The situation is especially
bad in Canada since our orchestras pay their musicians in devalued
Canadian dollars. Several musicians have apparently left the MSO for
the states in the past year (where salaries are 40% higher). But this
is a different problem.
--
regards,
alain
Deryk Barker
[...]
: He didn't really take on the general idea, though. As for you equating
: Disney with Nike, I'm not suggesting that fame doesn't have its ugly
: side.
To me Disney stands for everything that is wrong with American popular
culture.
In connexion with which: astonishing though this may seem, somebody
once thought it would be a good idea for Disney and - wait for it -
Orson Welles to make a movie together. (Or maybe it was Weeles to make
one for Disney studios).
After a few meetings Welles pulled out, as it was obvious Disney was a
total control freak who would not allow anyone else any creative
input.
Welles's characterisation: "Walt Disney was your typical sun-belt
neo-fascist".
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |