Asahina Dead at 93
Hisao Kimura
away today, aged 93. He was due to conduct two performances of
Beethoven's 9th Symphony this weekend, a regular year-end ritual in
Japan.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:59ec8275.01122...@posting.google.com:
> Japanese media has just reported that the acclaimed conductor passed away
> today, aged 93. He was due to conduct two performances of Beethoven's
> 9th Symphony this weekend, a regular year-end ritual in Japan.
Sad news! I shall have to get out the CD I have of his 1991 Osaka 9th (one
of only two recordings of this conductor that I've ever been able to find;
the other is the 1989 Osaka Bruckner 4th) and listen to it as a memorial.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
Thomas C Lay
: Japanese media has just reported that the acclaimed conductor passed
: away today, aged 93. He was due to conduct two performances of
: Beethoven's 9th Symphony this weekend, a regular year-end ritual in
: Japan.
I'm very sorry to hear that. What a marvelous conductor. I only know
his Mahler 2nd and Das Lied, both on Canyon, but they're among the
best-conducted I've heard. My wishes to his family and friends.
Tom
John Thomas
Chew Chiat Naun <na...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> Sad news. He was one of the very best, and love of music shines through
> all his performances. This newsgroup will note his passing with special
> feeling because most of us first discovered him here.
>
> What a rich legacy he leaves. His recordings of Beethoven's Sixth,
> Schubert's Ninth and Schumann's Third, among others, have not been
> surpassed.
>
> Naun.
And yet a search of Amazon & Tower online yields not a single hit for
this artist.
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
jwth...@sonic.net
Terrymelin
years ago. A marvelous conductor who should have had a much bigger career in
the West.
We'll play his gorgeous Alpine Symphony recording tonight by the fire in his
memory.
Terry Ellsworth
Eric Nagamine
Sad news. I consider myself very fortunate in having heard him conduct
Bruckner's 5th in one of his handful of U.S. appearances. It remains in
the memory as a towering performance of the work.
I suspect that I shall be pulling out his recent recording of the 7th
symphony on Fontec tonight.
--
-----------
Mele Kalikimaka and Haouli Makahiki Hou!,
Eric Nagamine
HenryFogel
I consider the all too brief time spent working with him, and the concerts of
his that I saw in Japan and Chicago, to be among the highlights of my
professional life, and his recordings are an important part of my collection.
It is a shame that circumstances more related to world politics than to
anything else probably prevented him from having the major international career
he merited. (Most of the West was not interested in Japanese artists in the
immediate post-war era, which would have been the time for him to build an
international career). He did conduct in Germany in the 1960s and later, and
his only U.S. appearances were with the Honolulu Symphony for a few years in
the early 1980s, and in Chicago in the 1990s. He founded the Osaka
Philharmonic in 1947, and remained its music director until his death -- a
record perhaps unequalled in terms of tenure!
One anecdote that you might appreciate. When he first came to Chicago, at the
age of 87, the stagehands put out a stool for his first rehearsal, assuming
that at that age he would use one (as some conductors quite a bit younger do).
Asahina turned to the stage manager and said "no, thank you. Standing is my
profession."
We'll miss him -- he leaves a void. Recordings made within the last two years
indicate that he was still conducting well.
Henry Fogel
Matthew B. Tepper
@typhoon.sonic.net:
>> Hisao Kimura wrote:
>> >
>> > Japanese media has just reported that the acclaimed conductor passed
>> > away today, aged 93. He was due to conduct two performances of
>> > Beethoven's 9th Symphony this weekend, a regular year-end ritual in
>> > Japan.
>
> And yet a search of Amazon & Tower online yields not a single hit for
> this artist.
Not his fault, not Amazon's fault, and not Tower's fault. Whose fault,
then? His record companies, who evidently weren't interested in securing
foreign distribution of his CDs for some reason. I think Pony Canyon once
permitted a few items to be distributed in the US, but charged a very high
price to the importer. When some enterprising person did some gray-market
importing, they had a cow and withdrew those few items. Everybody lost.
Ken Meltzer
By coincidence, just last week I shared with a friend Asahina's
wonderful 1995 Mahler 3 recording. He was absolutely bowled over by
the intensity and mastery of the work's architecture—two qualities
that I find in most of Asahina's recordings.
Thanks to Henry Fogel and the Chicago Symphony, I was able to see
Takashi Asahina on two occasions—conducting Bruckner 5 and 9, and the
Meistersinger Overture. They were both treasurable experiences.
Also, thanks to Henry, I've purchased far too many(!) Asahina
recordings, many of which I will now relisten to, in appreciation of a
wonderful artist.
Ken Meltzer
Terrymelin
>Takashi Asahina on two occasions—conducting Bruckner 5 and 9, and the
>Meistersinger Overture. They were both treasurable experiences
Sadly, by the time of his second appearance with the CSO he was well past his
powers and the orchestra played on autopilot. It was a rather sad occasion that
did nothing, luckily, to diminish his reputation on recordings.
Terry Ellsworth
Sol L. Siegel
of course, I played. The singing takes some getting used to, but
the reading overall has a plainspoken quality that makes it a
welcome alternative to the more overtly "operatic" versions.
Sincere, in the best sense of the word, is in fact the best word to
describe it.
-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
--------------------
"To every complicated question, there is an answer that is simple, satisfying
and wrong." - Winston Churchill
--------------------
(Remove "junkfree" from the end of my e-mail address to respond.)
mkperman
"Chew Chiat Naun" <na...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C2E24CB...@alphalink.com.au...
> Sad news. He was one of the very best, and love of music shines
through
> all his performances. This newsgroup will note his passing with
special
> feeling because most of us first discovered him here.
>
> What a rich legacy he leaves. His recordings of Beethoven's
Sixth,
> Schubert's Ninth and Schumann's Third, among others, have not
been
> surpassed.
Asahina's Schubert 9th is stunning in its rich detail, and in its
ability to hold interest for the entire 'heavenly length." His
1995 Osaka Bruckner 9 includes perhaps the most electrifying first
movement I've ever heard.
Marc Perman
HenryFogel
>From: vod...@aol.comkillspam (Sol L. Siegel)
>Date: 12/29/2001 7:06 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011229200633...@mb-fa.aol.com>
>
>Ironically, my only Asahina recording is the Verdi Requiem, which,
>of course, I played. The singing takes some getting used to, but
>the reading overall has a plainspoken quality that makes it a
>welcome alternative to the more overtly "operatic" versions.
>Sincere, in the best sense of the word, is in fact the best word to
>describe it.
>
>-Sol Siegel, Philadelphia, PA
Sincere is a terrifically apt word to describe Asahina's conducting in general.
There is an honesty and a deep-felt humanity to his conducting that strikes
most people when they hear it for the first time. It is honest, from-the-heart
music making that manages to be unique without doing anything to call attention
to itself.
Henry Fogel
John F. Berky
never seemed to crack the international market. Other conductors, like Ozawa
and Watanabe have had stronger international careers but never reached the
level of acclaim and veneration that Asahina did at home. It was as if the
Japanese wanted him all to themselves. Of course, Asahina's career was not
helped by the events surrounding WWII. Just about the time his career should
have been taking off, there was little interest in Japanese conductors. I
will miss his regular release of Bruckner recordings, but I would advise you
to start putting some money aside, because there is sure to be some nice
commemorative sets coming out in Japan and Asahina recordings rarely come
cheap.
--
John Berky
WNPR-Connecticut Public Radio
WPKT - Meriden, 90.5FM
WNPR - Norwich, 89.1FM
WEDW - Stamford/Greenwich, 88.5FM
WRLI - Southampton, NY, 91.3FM
"HenryFogel" <henry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011230000216...@mb-ms.aol.com...
HenryFogel
>Date: 12/30/2001 6:14 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <WyDX7.16783$kK1.101889@rwcrnsc52>
>
>It seems interesting that Asahina's stardom in Japan was so intense yet he
>never seemed to crack the international market. Other conductors, like Ozawa
>and Watanabe have had stronger international careers but never reached the
>level of acclaim and veneration that Asahina did at home. It was as if the
>Japanese wanted him all to themselves. Of course, Asahina's career was not
>helped by the events surrounding WWII. Just about the time his career should
>have been taking off, there was little interest in Japanese conductors. I
>will miss his regular release of Bruckner recordings, but I would advise you
>to start putting some money aside, because there is sure to be some nice
>commemorative sets coming out in Japan and Asahina recordings rarely come
>cheap.
>
>--
>John Berky
I think that there were a few factors that came into play in limiting Asahina's
stardom to Japan. One was certainly the war -- since he was born in 1908, it
was precisely when he was in his 40s and 50s that we were in the post-war
period with some strong anti-Japan feelings in the US and much of Western
Europe.
But there is more than that, I believe. Ozawa's international career has been
built mainly on repertoire not in the Austro-German tradition. If you think
about what Seiji Ozawa is most known for, you would be rather unlikely to list
Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, Schubert, and Schumann -- the heart of the
Austro-Germanic symphonic tradition. Ozawa's reputation was built on French
and Russian music, early twentieth-century music, music in which the element of
orchestral color played a major role. I am not attempting to make any value
judgement here -- just a statement as to where Ozawa found his first fame as a
conductor.
Asahina, on the other hand, was a Japanese Gunther Wand -- his repertoire was
precisely that Austro-German symphonic tradition. Although he also made a
specialty of some Tchaikovsky, and of course did do other repertoire, what he
did best, and was most comfortable in, was Schubert, Beethoven, Schumann,
Brahms, Bruckner, Strauss, Wagner.
I recognize that what I am about to say may ruffle a few feathers -- but I
believe it to be true. I don't believe that at the time when Asahina would have
been in a position to build a career (late 1940s through the 1960s), much of
the German and Austrian music establishment (an important core of the
international music scene) was ready to accept an Asian conductor whose
specialty was their music. Ozawa broke the mould first, and was able to do so
because of his focus on non-Germanic repertoire. Zubin Mehta was also able to
establish his reputation by beginning with Italian opera and with music similar
to what Ozawa was focusing on. Obviously, I'm not saying that these two
musicians did not conduct Beethoven -- I am saying that Beethoven was not the
kind of music for which they initially won their fame.
Asahina's concentration on that Germanic repertoire, I believe, could have led
to an international career had he been about fifteen or twenty years younger
than he was -- as the international music scene became more internationalized.
But in his era, I think that there were too many difficulties. Even though I
know (from first hand conversation) that musicians of the Berlin Staatskapelle
and North German Radio Orchestra who played under him admired him, and he
conducted those orchestras with some regularity from the 1960s, his successes
never led to an invitation from the most famous European orchestras (Berlin,
Vienna, Concertgebouw) -- and while he was able to do some Beethoven and
Strauss in Germany, he was also frequently requested to conduct Tchaikovsky,
Respighi, Franck, Berlioz, Moussorgsky, Ravel, Shostakovich, etc. While I
don't have a list of all his performances, I am not aware of him conducting a
German orchestra in his beloved Bruckner -- and the one time he and I talked
about this subject he indicated that he had been advised (in the 1960s) that
the German orchestras had plenty of Bruckner conductors at their disposal.
Henry Fogel
HenryFogel
>Date: 12/30/2001 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a0n5qj$kc...@imsp212.netvigator.com>
>
>> Asahina's concentration on that Germanic repertoire, I believe, could have
>led
>> to an international career had he been about fifteen or twenty years
>younger
>> than he was -- as the international music scene became more
>internationalized.
>> But in his era, I think that there were too many difficulties. Even
>though I
>> know (from first hand conversation) that musicians of the Berlin
>Staatskapelle
>> and North German Radio Orchestra who played under him admired him, and he
>> conducted those orchestras with some regularity from the 1960s, his
>successes
>> never led to an invitation from the most famous European orchestras
>(Berlin,
>> Vienna, Concertgebouw)
>
>years?
I cannot answer that with certainty - but given his lack of fame in Europe, and
his age, I suspect that he simply wasn't thought of by those orchestras as an
appropriate guest conductor.
Henry Fogel
Terrymelin
>believe it to be true. I don't believe that at the time when Asahina would
>have
>been in a position to build a career (late 1940s through the 1960s), much of
>the German and Austrian music establishment (an important core
>of the
>international music scene) was ready to accept an Asian conductor whose
>specialty was their music.
I think this statement is absolutely true and can't imagine anyone's "feathers"
being ruffled by it.
Terry Ellsworth
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20011230102803...@mb-fz.aol.com:
Same here -- it could well have been a sort of under-the-surface racism,
which Ozawa surmounted because, as Henry says, the initial perception of
him was not as a conductor of the Austrian/Germanic repertoire. (Ozawa's
associations with such international conductors as Karajan and Bernstein
probably didn't hurt, either.)
David Hurwitz
>I think that there were a few factors that came into play in limiting Asahina's
>stardom to Japan. One was certainly the war -- since he was born in 1908, it
>was precisely when he was in his 40s and 50s that we were in the post-war
>period with some strong anti-Japan feelings in the US and much of Western
>Europe.
>
This may well be true to some extent, but having just spent a week in the
archives of NDR (Hamburg) working on repertoire selection for a proposed reissue
series, I was quite surprised to come across a large selection of Asahina
performances from the late 50s and early 60s that I think cast a useful light on
your hypothesis, Henry. In particular, it may very well be true that Asahina's
day came too "early" for a full appreciation of Japanese classical artists in
the West. On the other hand, I don't think his repertoire preferences had
anything to do with it. The comparison with Wand is apt, because in this earlier
period Asahina was (at least on this evidence) by no means a specialist in the
German standards. Here is the work list I put together during my investigations:
Strauss: Alpine Symphony
Respighi: Roman Festivals
Franck: Symphony
Tchaikovsky: Romeo & Juliet
Takamitsu: Requiem
Oguri: Rhapsody on Japanese Temple Songs; Osaka Fantasy
Bruckner: Symphony No. 4
Ibert: Escales
Berlioz: Roman Carnival Overture
Haydn: Symphony No. 53
Beethoven: Coriolan Overture; Symphony No. 6
Ravel: Rapsodie Espagnole
Mussorgsky/Ravel: Pictures at an Exhibition
Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5
Akutagawa: Triptychon
If all goes well, I am hopeful that in the next couple of years we will be able
to issue some of these titles (I'm particularly interested in the Strauss and
the Japanese composers, but we'll see what we can get approved), but in any case
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the almost exclusive focus on the German
standards was, as with Wand, a function of Asahina's old age. Nor is there any
inherent reason why purely local celebrity should be exportable when the very
foundation of this celebrity--what made him special in Japan (i.e. his perceived
masterly of the German repertoire)--was not particularly unique or noteworthy
elsewhere [especially in the 50s and 60s]. I mean, Japan is also famous for its
Elvis impersonators, but we don't need to import them, do we? We have our
own--plenty of them. The fact that Asahina played Western music does not
automatically entitle him to Western acclaim, and there's no shame at all in the
respect and acclaim he received in the course of a highly successful domestic
career.
I also want to suggest that one of the reasons Asahina might not have enjoyed
such success in the West late in life, based on my own aquaintance with his
recorded work (two complete Beethoven cycles, all of his Bruckner, Brahms,
Mahler, etc.) is that he was often quite dull and unconvincing in just this
repertoire. His second Beethoven cycle on Canyon Classics from Osaka is often
painfully slow, sloppy, and lacking in tension. His Bruckner, despite fine
moments and some good performances, seldom approaches the best of the
competition interpretively, and never comes close technically. I don't know
anyone that has heard it who cares especially for his labored conducting of
Brahms, despite some fine moments here and there, and regardless of his work in
Osaka since 1947, they remain to this day a very second-rate ensemble.
There are plenty of sincere, honest, and thoughtful musicians extremely
dedicated to their craft who are capable of delivering the occasional memorable
performance or recording [witness Asahina's unexpectedly fine Mahler 2], but in
a highly competitive world it seems to me that what Asahina had to offer (based
on the evidence of his recordings) was neither particularly special nor world
class, and most importantly not terribly consistent in quality. It's also
possible that the recordings stemming from the 80s and 90s simply caught him in
decline, which is why I hope I will have the chance the hear these NDR tapes
over the next few months and years. If they turn out to be special, then the sad
fact will be that (as has happened more than once) a fine artist will have been
captured for the most part well past his prime.
Still, it's useful to keep in mind that not everyone is a neglected genius, and
personal charm, sincerity and other delightful character traits in the final
analysis are no substitute for the musical evidence of the recordings
themselves. Only time will tell how well Asahina's legacy survives his passing.
That he will have a cult following I have no doubt. Virtually everyone does
these days. But this offers no more de facto evidence of musical greatness than
the mere fact of The Flat Earth Society's existence establishes proof its
scientific claims. I'm not offering this opinion to criticize anyone who loves
Asahina's work, or to say that I have sole possession of the "truth." I do want
to suggest, however, that not all less-then-stellar reputations are undeserved
or unfairly affixed. It's entirely possible that over the course of his lifetime
Asahina received essentially the acclaim that his talents warranted: no more, no
less.
Dave
David Hurwitz
dhur...@classicstoday.com
www.classicstoday.com
Terrymelin
>such success in the West late in life, based on my own aquaintance with his
>recorded work (two complete Beethoven cycles, all of his Bruckner, Brahms,
>Mahler, etc.) is that he was often quite dull and unconvincing in just this
>repertoire.
I couldn't disagree more. I have much of his Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven, and
Strauss recorded in the late 80s to mid90s and "dull" is hardly a word one
could use to describe it. Spiritual might be a better word. He was never less,
IMHO, than inspiring in this repertoire.
Terry Ellsworth
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>terry...@aol.com (Terrymelin) wrote in
>news:20011230102803...@mb-fz.aol.com:
>
>>>I recognize that what I am about to say may ruffle a few feathers --
>>>but I believe it to be true. I don't believe that at the time when
>>>Asahina would have been in a position to build a career (late 1940s
>>>through the 1960s), much of the German and Austrian music establishment
>>>(an important core of the international music scene) was ready to accept
>>>an Asian conductor whose specialty was their music.
>>
>> I think this statement is absolutely true and can't imagine anyone's
>> "feathers" being ruffled by it.
>
>Same here -- it could well have been a sort of under-the-surface racism,
>which Ozawa surmounted because, as Henry says, the initial perception of
>him was not as a conductor of the Austrian/Germanic repertoire. (Ozawa's
>associations with such international conductors as Karajan and Bernstein
>probably didn't hurt, either.)
Popycock! Ozawa's associations with such international conductors as Karajan and
Bernstein rather undermines the claim of racism, under the surface or not. I
might also add that Ozawa not only had major recording contracts with both Sony
and RCA by the mid-60s, but the music directorship of the Toronto Symphony, and
had already recorded significantly with Boston, Chicago, and Toronto before the
decade was out. One of his earliest recordings was Berlioz' Symphonie
fantastique in Toronto for Sony (Columbia) in 1964, not German standard rep, but
certainly very mainstream. That Ozawa was simply better placed career-wise and
shrewder in repertoire selection than Asahina is not evidence of racism directed
against the older conductor.
Take another example: The world wasn't exactly clamoring for Finnish conductors
in the 40s, 50s and 60s either, for the simple reason that there weren't any of
indisputably international caliber, and now that the perception has changed
they're everywhere. And what changed the perception wasn't a sudden realization
that the Finns had been victims of racism, but rather the emergence of a school
of superbly trained, world class Finish conductors. This doesn't mean that the
mid-20th century world was "anti-Finnish." The same, it might be added, was
largely true of American conductors before Bernstein and Schippers. The "racism"
theory would hold more water if you could point to a large group of Japanese
classical musicians of Asahina's generation who were unfairly neglected as a
result of their nationality. One person's comparative lack of international
recognition is hardly evidence of prejudice on an international scale.
There are at least some strictly musical criteria involved here, in other words.
I don't think the "victim" hypothesis so popular in the more paranoid and
conspiracy-theory prone circles of the classical music community adds anything
terribly useful or substantive to a discussion of what ought to focus on the
musical pros and cons of Asahina's recorded legacy. Everything else is just
speculation born of the speculator's personal world view, whatever that may be.
HenryFogel
"Racism" is not quite the right word to describe what I had tried to say in the
original post. It is too broad a word for something I think is more subtle, but
I maintain does exist, though much less today than it did one and two
generations ago. That is a kind of cultural narrowness that assumes that people
coming from a culture as different from Germanic culture as Asia is would not
have the kind of identification with "their" music and/or culture as someone
from a closer culture.
The reason I raised this (and I'm sorry to disagree David, but I too know
virtually all of Asahina's recordings, and have played them for many musicians,
and the positive reaction to his conducting has been almost unanimous) is that
in the 1940s and 50s, when Asahina was at the right age for developing an
international career, I truly don't believe that America was ready to accept a
Japanese in a major public role. While Germany and Austria had no war-related
musician to harbor anti-Japanese feelings, and thus could have been a place
that he might have developed an important career, I truly do believe that there
were cultural obstacles to that possibility.
Henry Fogel
Heybrook
>Strauss recorded in the late 80s to mid90s and "dull" is hardly a word one
>could use to describe it. Spiritual might be a better word. He was never
>less,
>IMHO, than inspiring in this repertoire.
>
>Terry Ellsworth
Some people are more incline to the technical aspect of orchestral playing
rather than the musical aspect of interpretation. It seems to me that Mr.
Hurwitz would rather listen to a first class ensemble conducted by a semi
decent condutor than a world class conductor conducts a semi decent ensemble. I
guess if an orchestra has perfect tehnique, excellent tone, and with
impreccable precision, it automatically makes music great.
Bobby
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20011230155105...@mb-fb.aol.com:
> "Racism" is not quite the right word to describe what I had tried to say
> in the original post. It is too broad a word for something I think is
> more subtle, but I maintain does exist, though much less today than it
> did one and two generations ago. That is a kind of cultural narrowness
> that assumes that people coming from a culture as different from Germanic
> culture as Asia is would not have the kind of identification with
> "their" music and/or culture as someone from a closer culture.
>
> The reason I raised this (and I'm sorry to disagree David, but I too
> know virtually all of Asahina's recordings, and have played them for
> many musicians, and the positive reaction to his conducting has been
> almost unanimous) is that in the 1940s and 50s, when Asahina was at the
> right age for developing an international career, I truly don't believe
> that America was ready to accept a Japanese in a major public role.
> While Germany and Austria had no war-related musician to harbor
> anti-Japanese feelings, and thus could have been a place that he might
> have developed an important career, I truly do believe that there were
> cultural obstacles to that possibility.
Perhaps "racism" is too strong a word. I shall suggest a gentler phrase:
"Gentlemen's Agreement."
David Hurwitz
>Some people are more incline to the technical aspect of orchestral playing
>rather than the musical aspect of interpretation. It seems to me that Mr.
>Hurwitz would rather listen to a first class ensemble conducted by a semi
>decent condutor than a world class conductor conducts a semi decent ensemble. I
>guess if an orchestra has perfect tehnique, excellent tone, and with
>impreccable precision, it automatically makes music great.
>
>Bobby
This has become such a tired cliché here! What I would prefer, Bobby, is a first
class ensemble conducted by a world class conductor achieving world class
results in every facet of music making. MINAZSG (since acronyms of this type are
so popular, I suggest this one for "Music is not a zero sum game.") The point,
Bobby, is that no such trade-offs such as the false one you construct above are
ever necessary when it comes to recordings of standard repertoire. You don't
have to sacrifice quality of playing to gain interpretive insight, or
vice-versa.
Given the fact that there is no lack of excellence either interpretively or
technically (to they extent that these qualities are separable at all) in the
repertoire in which Asahina specialized, I merely suggest that catch-all
accusations of "racism" and "prejudice" may not be appropos of this particular
case. It's not disrespectful of Asahina's achievements to suggest that the world
was not an evil place directly or indirectly marshalled "against" him, or that
there were other artists with stronger claims to greatness in the repertoire in
which he specialized.
Finally, to take umbrage at the suggestion that technical quality matters, that
excellence in this respect is bought at the expense of interpretive insight or
"inspiration" is, I think, to do a terrible disservice to serious artists
everywhere who always strive for the highest standards of technical
accomplishment (Asahina no less than anyone) and who I strongly doubt would wish
to be have their achievements defended by a claim that "excellence in playing is
beside the point." Indeed, virtually none of the artists, major and minor, that
I have ever spoken to (and I've spoken to a lot) would recognize
"interpretation" and "technical excellence" in performance as being separate
qualities at all.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>>I also want to suggest that one of the reasons Asahina might not have enjoyed
>>such success in the West late in life, based on my own aquaintance with his
>>recorded work (two complete Beethoven cycles, all of his Bruckner, Brahms,
>>Mahler, etc.) is that he was often quite dull and unconvincing in just this
>>repertoire.
>
>I couldn't disagree more. I have much of his Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven, and
>Strauss recorded in the late 80s to mid90s and "dull" is hardly a word one
>could use to describe it.
I could and do.
>Spiritual might be a better word.
Sure, because it doesn't mean anything in terms of performance, other than
"slow" and "dull", or maybe "plain". Actually, I don't believe in "spiritual"
performances; there's only spiritual music, and if the composer put this quality
there, you'll hear it in any reasonably competent rendition, and even more of it
in a superb rendition. I mean, have you ever heard a "spiritual" performance of
Poulenc's Concert Champetre, Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony, or Ravel's Bolero?
>He was never less,
>IMHO, than inspiring in this repertoire.
>
I found him inspiring too, of lethargy principally, but at times of other more
positive qualities as well.
But seriously...I really don't take issue with your perceptions; they are what
they are and you're welcome to them, as (I presume) am I with respect to mine.
The point, as I was at pains to suggest, isn't that Asahina was "bad," but that
within the context of the question "Why didn't he have a bigger international
career" part of the answer might lie in the perception (irrespective of one's
personal preferences and for reasons OTHER than the fact that he was Japanese
and therefor somehow inferior) that there were numerous others who did what he
did, only better. This seems to me at least as plausible an explanation than
unfounded accusations of prejudice based on one's own personal fondness for his
interpretations. I mean, there are artists whose performances I like very much
who I feel never received the recognition that they deserved, but I wouldn't say
that this was necessarily "unfair" or the result of some conspiracy, racist or
otherwise.
Such cases are always very complex, involving subtle interactions between the
personality of the artist, boring details of career management, and sheer luck,
as much as in sinister insinuations regarding his social milieu. And I say this,
incidentally, fully congnizant of the fact that Henry's contention (at least
during much of the 40s and 50s in much of the West and surely in the
USA--Germany excepted given the evidence I offer) could very well be true. I
just don't see this as an insurmountable barrier to the career Asahina never had
(and Ozawa did) from the 60s on, and I do see several other more plausible
factors, not least the quality of what he actually achieved.
David Hurwitz
>The reason I raised this (and I'm sorry to disagree David, but I too know
>virtually all of Asahina's recordings, and have played them for many musicians,
>and the positive reaction to his conducting has been almost unanimous)
Not in my experience, Henry, and the issue with respect to those recordings is
not whether they sound OK in isolation, but how they stand up comparatively
(that was the point I was making--that there were others who did what he did
better, not that he wasn't acceptable to many listeners taken on his own
irrespective of my own impressions). I doubt that you sat down with your artist
colleagues and played a dozen of the best Beethoven 5ths to see how Asahina
stacked up (but maybe I'm wrong), and I never said he was terrible; most
professional peformances aren't. I hear plenty of performances by him to which I
would call my reaction "positive", but this does not mean that I consider them
among the finest available, irreplaceable, etc. I haven't thrown out or traded
in my Asahina recordings: I'm pleased to listen to them now and again. I just
don't overestimate their worth in the galaxy of recorded excellence.
>in the 1940s and 50s, when Asahina was at the right age for developing an
>international career, I truly don't believe that America was ready to accept a
>Japanese in a major public role. While Germany and Austria had no war-related
>musician to harbor anti-Japanese feelings, and thus could have been a place
>that he might have developed an important career, I truly do believe that there
>were cultural obstacles to that possibility.
>
I agree with you with respect to the USA, Henry. But this is, it seems to me, a
bit obvious. We were at war with Japan in the 1940s, the formal peace treaty was
not signed until (I believe) 1951 and I have no doubt that substantial
anti-Japanese feeling persisted well beyond. But as I note elsewhere, by the end
of that decade Ozawa's career in the West was also beginning, and the fear of
communism didn't stop Russian artists from performing in the US and being
welcomed with open arms (yes, I know, they were "Western," but then again the
Japanese were not communists). The original question, as I understood it, did
not just deal with the USA--it was about "the West."
Further, it's more than a bit ingenuous to base any discussion of this issue on
the quality of his recordings from the 80s, and 90s. They didn't exist during
the period in question, and any decisions taken by concert promoters would,
theoretically, have been dependent on what did then exist on Asahina's resume,
plus whatever his career managers were doing. To say "Wow, look at those great
records, why didn't he have a fantastic career earlier," even if I grant you
your observation on the quality of those recordings (which I do not), is an
obviously fallacious use of hindsight.
A more pertinent issue, I suggest, is this: What would an American orchestra in
the 1950s have been getting even assuming they would have welcomed him with open
arms? Was he as qualified (or more) by experience and reputation as the
conductors then getting those engagements? Was he actively seeking such
invitations? Had he been frustrated in this regard? Did he even have management
or representation in the West so placed as to put his name forward? Unless you
can answer "Yes" to these last four questions, any suggestion of prejudice,
however subtle (and I agree that is certainly existed) is essentially irrelevant
to the reality of what happened to the man's career at that time, subsequent
perceptions of the value of his work notwithstanding. After all, Henry, Ozawa
was recording with Chicago in 1968. Certainly nothing (not age!) would have
stopped Asahina from at least performing with them, had circumstances warranted.
Simon Roberts
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a0nnp...@drn.newsguy.com...
[snip]
> I also want to suggest that one of the reasons Asahina might not have
enjoyed
> such success in the West late in life, based on my own aquaintance
with his
> recorded work (two complete Beethoven cycles, all of his Bruckner,
Brahms,
> Mahler, etc.) is that he was often quite dull and unconvincing in just
this
> repertoire. His second Beethoven cycle on Canyon Classics from Osaka
is often
> painfully slow, sloppy, and lacking in tension. His Bruckner, despite
fine
> moments and some good performances, seldom approaches the best of the
> competition interpretively, and never comes close technically. I don't
know
> anyone that has heard it who cares especially for his labored
conducting of
> Brahms, despite some fine moments here and there, and regardless of
his work in
> Osaka since 1947, they remain to this day a very second-rate ensemble.
I haven't heard any of his Brahms, but I largely agree re the rest (once
I got over being seduced by the gorgeous sound Canyon provided for him).
As for his work with better orchestras, a friend lent me, without
telling me who the conductor and orchestra were, a performance of
Bruckner 9. The orchestra sounded at best second rate, the
interpretation lacking anything that would make me want to hear it again
(as, indeed, I haven't - perhaps I should); it was Asahina/Chicago....
I've kept a couple of Canyon Beethoven discs (remarkably slow,
tension-free, but oddly hypnotically perverse performances of 5, 7 and
8 - the warm bath of sound helps (or not, as the case may be)), but
mainly for the wrong reasons....
Simon
Larry Eckerling
David_...@newsguy.com wrote on 12/30/01 4:47 PM:
>> Spiritual might be a better word.
>
> Sure, because it doesn't mean anything in terms of performance, other than
> "slow" and "dull", or maybe "plain". Actually, I don't believe in "spiritual"
> performances; there's only spiritual music, and if the composer put this
> quality
> there, you'll hear it in any reasonably competent rendition, and even more of
> it
> in a superb rendition. I mean, have you ever heard a "spiritual" performance
> of
> Poulenc's Concert Champetre, Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony, or Ravel's
> Bolero?
I've been lurking about, and following this post. I have to say that I
disagree wholeheartedly with the notion there are no such thing as spritual
performances. That may be a vague word...just like "love". But I know love
exists, and I know spiritual performances exist.
And yes, I can definately hear a spiritual aspect in the slow mvt of
Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony.
And no, if there is spirituality in a composition, it will not automatically
come out, as it often has to do with the use of sound and time, the use of
proper pacing, and the execution of proper balance in order to bring off
many facets of a musical performance, even spirituality.
Larry Eckerling
David Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
dhur...@classicstoday.com
www.classicstoday.com
David Hurwitz
>disagree wholeheartedly with the notion there are no such thing as spritual
>performances. That may be a vague word...just like "love". But I know love
>exists, and I know spiritual performances exist.
No, it is not a vague word. It is quite specific, which is why the quality is
either inherent in the music by deliberate intent of the composer or it is not.
I probably should have said: There is no such thing as spiritual performances of
non-spiritual music. I've never heard of a composer trying to write, say, a
drinking song and accidentally coming up with something spiritual. Or let's take
a conductor of a self-consciously "spiritual" bent: Giulini. I find his Bruckner
very spiritual and I can tell you exactly why, pointing to specific passages
where he emphasizes those elements that give the music its spiritual character.
But I would be hard pressed to characterize his recording of Debussy's La Mer in
the same way. He might regard the very act of performance as a sort of sacrament
personally (as evidence suggests he more or less did), but what isn't in the
music simply isn't there, and the expressive intent of La Mer is not spiritual.
Similarly, Gunter Wand understands the spiritual content of Bruckner's and
Beethoven's works as well as anyone, but I dare you to find it in his recording
of Stravinsky's "Pulcinella Suite." Skrowaczewski's Bruckner strikes me as far
more dramatic than Giulini's on account of frequently swifter tempos, sharper
rhythms, and greater contrasts between sections, but it is no less "spiritual."
He simply balances the music's expressive mix differently, revealing different
aspects of the music in addition to its spirituality. It's time for that acronym
again: MINAZSG--Music Is Not A Zero Some Game. The presence of one quality in an
interpretation does not necessarily eliminate others. It simply alters the
balance, but the fact that there is even a balance to alter rests solely with
what the composer wrote, for this is the material the performer must work with
in building his interpretation.
One final example: Bohm's stunning live recording on Palexa of Bruckner's 8th is
probably the most purely physically exciting I know. And yet far from
diminishing the music's spirituality, his approach actually heightens my
perception of those passages (the trio of the scherzo, the slow movement, parts
of the finale) where the music's spirituality is its most conspicuous quality
though it may minimize the spiritual element elsewhere in favor of some other
expressive purpose. But the music's spirituality never disappears or gets short
shrift. In short: you cannot construct a house of brick if the only building
material on hand is wood. And a house so constructed will necessarily be bound
by the advantages and limitations of being made of wood, no matter anyone says,
does, thinks, or expects, and no matter what architectural plan or design you
ultimately find pleases you most.
>
>And yes, I can definately hear a spiritual aspect in the slow mvt of
>Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony.
Far be it from me to tell you what you hear, but I chose this example with just
this movement in mind (I note you have no argument with respect to Ravel or
Poulenc) and I see you picked up on it immediately (you are obviously a
perceptive listener!). However, you yourself note that what you hear is "a
spiritual aspect in the slow movement," and not such an aspect as a result of
"so and so's performance" of the slow movement. So this proves essentially
exactly what I am saying, otherwise you would not have zeroed in on this
particular movement. Could you say the same thing about the first movement or
finale? No. Why? Because Mendelssohn did not intend for you to hear this
specific quality in those movements, and any sensible interpreter knows this,
knows what the music is designed to express and (theoretically) develops his
interpretation accordingly (unless, of course, he's doing something deliberately
perverse as an intellectual exercise, as for example Glenn Gould's
"deconstruction" of Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata). It's that simple. And in
any decent performance of Mendelssohn's work, if asked what movement had the
best chance of being labeled "spiritual," you would immediately point to the
slow movement, not because of the performance, but because no other choice is
possible within this context of this particular work in ANY performance.
>
>And no, if there is spirituality in a composition, it will not automatically
>come out, as it often has to do with the use of sound and time, the use of
>proper pacing, and the execution of proper balance in order to bring off
>many facets of a musical performance, even spirituality.
Yes, it will, if the composer knows what he is doing. Composers determine what a
piece of music will express; performers only determine how WELL the music
expresses whatever the composer consciously or unconsciously intended the work
to say. No performer in what is essentially a recreative context reveals
anything that is not inherent in the work being performed. Moreover, the fact
that some performances strike you as more expressive of certain aspects of the
piece than others does not mean those aspects are absent in the performance you
do not like (or understand). It merely means that you do not hear them. Others
may. Finally, I think we should give full credit to composers for knowing what
they want their music to express, and to performers for understanding what the
composer wanted and developing their interpretation accordingly. Not only does
this strike me as closer to the reality of composition and performance
(otherwise we would be forced to acknowledge such improbabilities as say, a
performer taking the finale of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony and saying,
"Gee, I think I'll give it a happy character today!"), it makes for a
(potentially) far richer and more rewardingly focussed listening experience.
Larry Eckerling
David_...@newsguy.com wrote on 12/30/01 11:52 PM:
I agree with much of what you say, and it doesnt contradict what I
think...except your last paragraph, which speaks to re-creative vs.
creative art. I believe that it takes both a composer AND a performer to
bring music to life. I don't think it is even possible to have a performer
who just has the music express itself. This fundamental difference of
opinion will skew our thoughts on this.
For sure, different musics possess different characteristics. I have heard
only some of Asahinia's performances...what I have heard I have been
incredibly impressed with. He gets to the depth of a performance (when
depth is there in the music). You have said clearly that the spirituality of
music will come out no matter what, if it is intended to be there by the
composer. If that is true, why have I heard so many dull or "empty"
performances of Mahler, Bruckner, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.? It's possible
that the conductors are getting in the way of allowing it to come out (if we
use your point of view about composers vs. performers), or if we use my
definition, the conductors dont understand what is in the music, and it
therefore does not come out. Either way, it does not come out by itself.
Larry Eckerling
HenryFogel
>telling me who the conductor and orchestra were, a performance of
>Bruckner 9. The orchestra sounded at best second rate, the
>interpretation lacking anything that would make me want to hear it again
>(as, indeed, I haven't - perhaps I should); it was Asahina/Chicago....
>I've kept a couple of Canyon Beethoven discs (remarkably slow,
>tension-free, but oddly hypnotically perverse performances of 5, 7 and
>8 - the warm bath of sound helps (or not, as the case may be)), but
>mainly for the wrong reasons....
>
>Simon
>
Even I am the first to admit that his Chicago Bruckner 9th caught him too late
in his career -- at a time when he was 88 and beginning to be inconsistent. It
is not at all representative of his best work.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>I agree with much of what you say, and it doesnt contradict what I
>think...except your last paragraph, which speaks to re-creative vs.
>creative art. I believe that it takes both a composer AND a performer to
>bring music to life. I don't think it is even possible to have a performer
>who just has the music express itself. This fundamental difference of
>opinion will skew our thoughts on this.
No, I don't think so, because it is not inconsistent to say that a performer
brings music to life in a way which is consistent with what the composer intends
that the music should express, and cannot (or generally will not) attempt to do
so in a way that is contrary to those intentions. I do not wish to diminish the
role of the interpreter; merely make an observation about what interpreters
actually do. I have never been a member of the "Let the music speak for itself"
fan club--performers always interpret. This is inherent in the very act of
performing, but the act of interpretation is, in essence, an attempt to project
to the listener via the performance the expressive qualities contained in the
work itself as the performer understands them, and those which are not there
will not be expressed no matter what the performer does, while those which are
there cannot BUT be expressed to a greater or lesser degree. As you say, it
takes BOTH a composer and a performer, so I don't think there's any particular
fundamental disagreement here.
>
>For sure, different musics possess different characteristics. I have heard
>only some of Asahinia's performances...what I have heard I have been
>incredibly impressed with. He gets to the depth of a performance (when
>depth is there in the music). You have said clearly that the spirituality of
>music will come out no matter what, if it is intended to be there by the
>composer. If that is true, why have I heard so many dull or "empty"
>performances of Mahler, Bruckner, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.? It's possible
>that the conductors are getting in the way of allowing it to come out (if we
>use your point of view about composers vs. performers), or if we use my
>definition, the conductors dont understand what is in the music, and it
>therefore does not come out. Either way, it does not come out by itself.
>
I agree with you that it is possible for an interpreter to actively prevent the
expressive qualities of a piece from manifesting optimally, but here we have to
be very careful! In the first place, I don't know of any performers who do this
deliberately with malice aforethought. I also don't know why you perceive
certain performances as "empty." This is a function of your perceptions and no
one else's in those specific cases, but as I say, others may not agree with you
in this respect. I have never heard an "empty" performance of anything, though
I've probably heard boring performances of everything! To return to my previous
example, no act of interpretive perversity or interference will give
Tchaikovsky's Sixth a happy ending; the music is what it is. Not everyone will
go to the depths of black despair that, say, Bernstein did in his second
recording, but this does not mean that the music lacks expressiveness in other
performances.
What makes the very concept of multiple performances (and recordings) a viable
proposition in the first place (and validates the idea of "classical" music) is
the fact that there are many ways to interpret a given work in which the work
itself will will find some sort of expressive fulfillment. This interpretive
"robustness" is the hallmark of a true classic. That some interpretations may
leave you cold is not surprising, but neither is it proof of that performance's
deficiencies, interpretively speaking. A lot depends on the context in which you
are listening. It may be that you have a strong preference for a certain
interpretive approach (such as Asahina's) in specific works, but I think we need
to be very cautious before ruling out different perspectives as "empty" unless
you can say with absolute certainty that you understand everything about the
work in question--what it expresses and how--and therefore know that a specific
performance is completely lacking in all of those qualities. That you may find
certain performances COMPARATIVELY lacking is, it seems to me, a given.
HenryFogel
David, you are right about there being many factors in the development of an
international career -- and I'll plead guilty to having overstated the issue of
what I would call "cultural narrowmindeness" (rather than racism) being THE
factor in Asahina's case. I do not believe it was the only factor, and I don't
know how to assign percentages. Lack of international management, perhaps even
lack of ambition on his part, and many other components also play a role. But
I do believe in the cultural stereotyping as one -- and the fact that he
himself told me that when he did conduct in Germany (from the 1960s on)
orchestra managements consistently steered him away from the repertoire in
which he actually specialized, and toward Russian, French, impressionistic, and
splashy pieces like Pines and Fountains of Rome. Whenever he suggested
Bruckner, he was told "no." So, yes, I do believe that a kind of cultural
stereotyping was in existence.
You and I differ on a basic issue here - which is legitimate and valid. I
believe that he offered a valuable kind of musicmaking that was, to me, far
more satisfying than many conductors who made more prestigious international
careers, then (in the 1940s and 50s), and now. I believe there were
extra-musical factors involved in that career path, and I was simply trying to
explore them.
To imply that there is no cultural stereotyping going on in the world, and
particularly in Germany and Austria (but elsewhere as well), is to deny reality
to quite an impressive degree. Do you really believe that no woman would ever
have had the talent to conduct at an international level? Do you not believe
that women actually COULD play in the Vienna Philharmonic without "ruining" its
sound? This is not an unrelated phenomenon.
I think that there is plenty of historical evidence of many types of this kind
of narrowmindeness.
Henry Fogel
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20011231102802...@mb-ce.aol.com:
Of course, I could mention Dean Dixon, and then we could have a shouting
match.
David Hurwitz
>particularly in Germany and Austria (but elsewhere as well), is to deny reality
>to quite an impressive degree. Do you really believe that no woman would ever
>have had the talent to conduct at an international level? Do you not believe
>that women actually COULD play in the Vienna Philharmonic without "ruining" its
>sound? This is not an unrelated phenomenon.
>
>I think that there is plenty of historical evidence of many types of this kind
>of narrowmindeness.
>Henry Fogel
I have never implied that there is no cultural stereotyping in the world. I
think I made it pretty clear that there WAS such a thing going on, and that
there still is. This issue, as I think you realize, is not that such a thing
existed, but that question of how much of a barrier to an international career
this presented in Asahina's case. By your own admission, it was NOT a barrier to
his performing in, say, Germany, though it may have been a barrier to his
playing the repertoire he most wanted to do (though every conductor faces this
same situation and deals with it at the beginning of his career).
It can also work in the opposite direction: conductors who specialize in unusual
or niche repertoire are forced into the "standards" because this is what people
want to hear. A very talented young French conductor, Stephane Deneve, made his
debut in Washington, D.C. recently and wanted badly to conduct Roussel's Bacchus
Suite No. 2, but was forced to substitute Brahms 2! So the issue is by no means
cut and dried, and while this sort of stereotyping goes on all the time, the
relationship between this practice and Asahina's particular case is by no means
clear.
Happy New Year!
Larry Eckerling
David_...@newsguy.com wrote on 12/31/01 8:58 AM:
> What makes the very concept of multiple performances (and recordings) a viable
> proposition in the first place (and validates the idea of "classical" music)
> is
> the fact that there are many ways to interpret a given work in which the work
> itself will will find some sort of expressive fulfillment. This interpretive
> "robustness" is the hallmark of a true classic. That some interpretations may
> leave you cold is not surprising, but neither is it proof of that
> performance's
> deficiencies, interpretively speaking. A lot depends on the context in which
> you
> are listening. It may be that you have a strong preference for a certain
> interpretive approach (such as Asahina's) in specific works, but I think we
> need
> to be very cautious before ruling out different perspectives as "empty" unless
> you can say with absolute certainty that you understand everything about the
> work in question--what it expresses and how--and therefore know that a
> specific
> performance is completely lacking in all of those qualities. That you may find
> certain performances COMPARATIVELY lacking is, it seems to me, a given.
OK...As a professional musician and conductor, I DO have certain biases or
tendancies as a listener. It is normal and natural that one who feel
strongly about the way something should go will hold that as a standard.
It is extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible to open your mind up to
another point of view when your musical convictions direct you one
particular way.
I'll give one example...I certainly am from an "emotional" point of view
when listening to and or conducting Mahler. When I listen to Boulez' Mahler,
both live and on recordings, I find his performances both incredible, and
dissappointing. Incredible in that because of his acute sense of balance of
texture, he enables you to hear things you havent heard before, which makes
it less necessary to create interest with rubato (perhaps) and other means.
But I still think that music needs rubato to breathe (at least more than he
gives). So I always learn something from his performances, though they
rarely satisfy me because of what is missing. That is because for me, what
is missing is the single most important aspect in music (at least in THAT
music). So, rephrased, it is the single most important aspect of German
Romantic Music (to name one). Etc.
Larry Eckerling
Gerald M. Stein
late
in his career -- at a time when he was 88 and beginning to be inconsistent. It
is not at all representative of his best work.
Henry Fogel
>>
I think this point might be elaborated even further. Most of Asahina's
recordings (other than a few of the NDR items on Ode Classics) are those of an
old man. What might European concert managers have made of (at best) a middle
aged man who they had never heard of, had made few if any recordings, and
wanted to do repertoire that didn't fit his cultural stereotype?
Beyond that, I also wonder how many of the individuals contributing to this
thread, myself included, really know what Asahina was like at his best, in the
concert hall? I heard only the CSO Bruckner 5th "live" and can say that it was
much more persuasive in the hall than it was as a recording. The plain,
honest, deliberate, and sincere qualities made it deeply satisfying in the
hall, but dull and unremarkable on tape.
As we all know, some artists are done more justice (or hurt less) by
microphones than are others. Unless one heard Asahina in his prime (which one
would suppose was before age 80, as it is for virtually all conductors) and in
the hall "live" does one have the best possible evidence on which to evaluate
him?
I realize that judgment is inevitable, and that we have much better evidence
for Asahina than for, say, Fritz Busch, but I think we must nevertheless temper
our judgments unless we know his work under the best circumstances.
Gerald M. Stein
Don Drewecki
David Hurwitz
>I'll give one example...I certainly am from an "emotional" point of view
>when listening to and or conducting Mahler. When I listen to Boulez' Mahler,
>both live and on recordings, I find his performances both incredible, and
>dissappointing. Incredible in that because of his acute sense of balance of
>texture, he enables you to hear things you havent heard before, which makes
>it less necessary to create interest with rubato (perhaps) and other means.
>But I still think that music needs rubato to breathe (at least more than he
>gives). So I always learn something from his performances, though they
>rarely satisfy me because of what is missing. That is because for me, what
>is missing is the single most important aspect in music (at least in THAT
>music). So, rephrased, it is the single most important aspect of German
>Romantic Music (to name one). Etc.
>
>Larry Eckerling
>
Boulez' Mahler, by the way, though I don't think rubato is the single most
important aspect of the music, and the impact that the lack of this musical
quality has on the music's expressivity is a matter for each listener to decide
for himself. As you say, it depends to some extent on what is offered in
compensation. It's also worth noting that the stiffness of tempo that sometimes
afflicts Boulez's Mahler invariably contradicts what Mahler wrote, and so forms
part of a conscious "interpretation" and is not a product of some sort of
mechanical "literalism" or "letting the music speak for itself." Do what Mahler
literally instructs, and the music "breathes" quite nicely. I personally think
that the significance of "tempo" as such is overrated, first by listeners
ignorant of any other aspects of the score (because speed is simply the most
obvious way in which one performance differs from another and requires no
further investigation), and especially by conductors since this is the thing
over which they exercise the maximum amount of control most easily, but I say
this as an orchestral musician and so my perspective may differ from yours in
this regard. But that's what makes a railroad!
Best,
David Hurwitz
Yes, there are, available at HMV Japan at least, though in what format I
couldn't say.
David Hurwitz
>I agree with the point but not with the spin. There are indeed many
>artists (and I'm not just talking about personal favourites of mine -
>the point is quite general) who don't receive the recognition they
>deserve, and the reasons can be many and varied. As you suggest, luck,
>personality, ambition, management and connections can all come into it.
>In fact, it would be naive to believe that talent by itself, however
>diligently applied, inexorably leads to success. But, that being so,
>surely it is not difficult to believe that prejudice can also influence
>an artist's chances of receiving recognition - and that it can even be a
>serious obstacle in some cases. What kind of career would Asahina have
>had if he had been born not Japanese but German? "Pretty much the same -
>well-deserved obscurity" might be one answer, but I'm not sure it's the
>right one.
>
>Naun.
I'm not sure what the "spin" was. All of the above is no doubt true, but my
point was simply that the fact that prejudice exists (which I do not dispute) is
not evidence that it played a significant role in Asahina's case to the
exclusion of other, more significant factors, not the least of which is the
quality of results he may have been achieving in his prefered repertoire at that
time (the 40s, 50s and 60s--about which we have very little evidence).
I also believe that a significant reason Asahina received the acclaim he did
later in life is BECAUSE he was Japanese, for only in that environment could he
have achieved the recognition he did in that repertoire. In short, if he was the
victim of prejudice in the West, he was just as likely the beneficiary of
nationalist bias in his own country. So it works both ways. In the 1950s and 60s
(pointless speculation, I know, but what the hell), had he been German, and
assuming his later recordings are at least somewhat representative of his
earlier style, he would have come into direct competition with (among others):
Szell, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bohm, Kletzki, Toscanini, Kempe, Keilberth, Beinum,
Ansermet, Markevitch, Jochum, Schuricht, Rosbaud, Giulini, Bernstein, Reiner,
Munch, Kleiber, Monteux, Fricsay, and Klemperer.
Are his performances demonstrably "better" than those of the artists listed
above? I don't think so. I also think that if they were demonstrably better, it
would not have mattered if he were a martian. After all, Toscanini's mastery of
the Germanic repertoire was questioned early in his career, as was Monteux's
(whose favorite composer, let us not forget, was Brahms). They proved their
detractors wrong. In the 1950s at NDR, for example, where Asahina did conduct,
he had to contend with Schmidt-Isserstedt, Schuricht, Szell, Bohm, Fricsay,
Busch, Jochum, Maazel, and Klemperer (to mention only those I remember without
referring to my notes from the NDR archives), and he still managed to make
recordings (for broadcast) of Bruckner 4 and Beethoven 6 (exactly the same
treatment in those composers as Klemperer received at NDR, I might add--he did
Beethoven 7 and Bruckner 7). I'd say that's not too bad, all things considered.
It's easy to look at Asahina in isolation and acclaim his recordings for their
sometimes very genuine merits. But the competition in his "fach" in the 50s and
60s was, if anything, even stronger than it is today, and I personally find the
rush to assert that any favorite artist was a "victim" of some sort based, not
on any demonstrable facts, but on his supporters' personal feelings that he was
unfairly neglected, as tiresome as it is naive. Asahina's last decades were
marvelous. He was acclaimed in his homeland and beloved by his principal
orchestra; he recorded his core repertoire with several orchestras in multiple
versions, and (thanks to far-sighted orchestra managers like Henry) achieved a
measure of international acclaim and exposure as well. His recorded legacy
speaks for itself, and will find its natural place (or not) in the hearts and
ears of music lovers in its own time. That he had to contend with prejudice I
have no doubt. Did it blight his career? I don't think so, satisfying though
many might find the prospect.
David Hurwitz
>
>David Hurwitz wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure what the "spin" was. All of the above is no doubt true, but my
>>point was simply that the fact that prejudice exists (which I do not dispute) is
>> not evidence that it played a significant role in Asahina's case to the
>
>Nobody is saying that prejudice is the sole reason for Asahina's lack of
>recognition in the West, or even the main reason. But it's not
>unreasonable to think that it was a factor. If politics, personality or
>lack of connections can hinder a musician's career, why is it so hard to
>believe that prejudice can?
It's unreasonable if there's no evidence to suggest it was a factor, major or
otherwise, or if there is evidence that strongly points to other factors. The
fact that prejudice exists does not establish de facto causality between it and
Asahina's career, especially when there is evidence at hand (Ozawa's career, for
example) that suggests the opposite.
>
>> I also believe that a significant reason Asahina received the acclaim he did
>>later in life is BECAUSE he was Japanese, for only in that environment could he
>> have achieved the recognition he did in that repertoire.
>
>It's plausible to think that "home town" support contributes to his
>reputation in Japan, but it should be remembered as well that plenty of
>Japanese musicians don't attain anything like Asahina's level of acclaim
>at home.
Which does not contradict what I said at all. I never maintained that musical
issues were irrelevant, merely that one could argue "home town" support with far
more basis in fact than "prejudice" in the other direction.
>I've heard from Japanese acquaintances that Ozawa, for example,
>is not regarded nearly as highly as Asahina within Japan.
The discography in Japan in respect of the two musicians rather speaks for
itself in this regard. Facts, please, not hearsay.
>It's also
>worth bearing in mind that Japanese music-lovers tend to be unusually
>well acquainted with the work of many noted conductors. In other words,
>if Asahina is venerated at home, it may well be for good reason.
Or it may not.
>
>> In the 1950s and 60s
>> (pointless speculation, I know, but what the hell), had he been German, and
>> assuming his later recordings are at least somewhat representative of his
>>earlier style, he would have come into direct competition with (among others):
>>Szell, Furtwangler, Karajan, Bohm, Kletzki, Toscanini, Kempe, Keilberth, Beinum,
>> Ansermet, Markevitch, Jochum, Schuricht, Rosbaud, Giulini, Bernstein, Reiner,
>> Munch, Kleiber, Monteux, Fricsay, and Klemperer.
>>
>> Are his performances demonstrably "better" than those of the artists listed
>> above? I don't think so.
>
>Again, nobody has asserted that his performances are better, only that
>the best of them are of comparable merit. And yet Asahina's work is far
>less known than that of any of the other figures in that list. To say
>that there may be wider reasons for that state of affairs than purely
>musical ones is not automatically to be a conspiracy theorist.
It is if the theory is one of conspiracy (or something similarly malicious) as
opposed to far more obvious, simple, or persuasive other factors (such as
comparative lack of ambition, career management, or even place of residence and
conflicting domestic commitments).
>
>> I also think that if they were demonstrably better, it
>>would not have mattered if he were a martian. After all, Toscanini's mastery of
>> the Germanic repertoire was questioned early in his career, as was Monteux's
>> (whose favorite composer, let us not forget, was Brahms). They proved their
>> detractors wrong.
>
>One significant respect in which Asahina's situation differs from
>Toscanini's and Monteux's is that they had many more opportunities to
>"prove their detractors wrong";
Nonsense. There's no evidence that Asahina was "deprived" of similar
opportunities. He had is own orchestra exclusively from 1947 on, huge quantities
of domestic guest engagements, plus a number of guest engagements abroad. I
suggest he had almost limitless opportunities to "prove his detractors wrong."
The recorded evidence suggests (to me) that they would not have been
particularly impressed.
>their reputations had already been
>cemented through performances of music in which their cultural
>credentials would not have been questioned, and they already had regular
>work in the West. You mention Asahina's opportunities at NDR, but his
>European engagements were largely confined to that orchestra.
Yes, but we don't know the reason for that. And this is the point. I repeat, had
the performances been something to shout about, his ethnicity would not have
mattered a bit (even assuming it did otherwise). But let's not try to have our
cake and eat it to: If musical issues matter in Japan to the extent that certain
conductors are venerated for "good reason," why then should this not be as true
in Europe? The fact is, he wasn't the most venerated conductor in Japan either,
he was merely the most venerated Japanese conductor (maybe--I'd take Ozawa),
though I have no idea what this means in terms of the "veneration index".
>
>I agree that, all in all, Asahina had a pretty good career - certainly
>he did in terms of the results he achieved. I do feel sorry that he
>didn't have more exposure in the West, not mainly for his sake, but for
>the sake of the many music-lovers in the West who would have found deep
>pleasure in his music-making but never had the chance to hear him.
>
I don't think anyone missed anything. But we'll never really know, will we?
Eric Nagamine
Brahms 1-4, Beethoven 9 with Osaka Phil on King Records (region 2 DVDs),
Bruckner 7 with Osaka Phil (ALL region DVD) released by Fuji Television
(Looks like it was a High definition original as the it's in wide screen
format)
--
-----------
Mele Kalikimaka and Haouli Makahiki Hou!,
Eric Nagamine
Torgny Gustafsson
wrote:
><< Even I am the first to admit that his Chicago Bruckner 9th caught him too
>late
>in his career -- at a time when he was 88 and beginning to be inconsistent. It
>is not at all representative of his best work.
>Henry Fogel
>
> >>
>
>I think this point might be elaborated even further. Most of Asahina's
>recordings (other than a few of the NDR items on Ode Classics) are those of an
>old man. What might European concert managers have made of (at best) a middle
>aged man who they had never heard of, had made few if any recordings, and
>wanted to do repertoire that didn't fit his cultural stereotype?
>
Another question is of course also why, with one single exception, the
leading US orchestras did not see fit to invite him. This thread seems
to be concerned with (on some hands, not all) accusing Europeans for
latent racism - based on the evidence at hand, it seems an equally
strong case could be made for accusing US concert organizers (outside
Chicago) for the same.
In any event, the most comprehensive listing of available Asahina
recordings I have ever seen can be found at
http://www.hmv.co.jp/gen/cl/ae/01.asp
(click on the links at the bottom of the page).
TG
Torgny Gustafsson
As I indicated above, an extensive listing of Asahina recordings are
available at hmv.jp. The DVDs can be found at
http://www.hmv.co.jp/gen/cl/ae/02.asp
TG
Terrymelin
>of domestic guest engagements, plus a number of guest engagements abroad. I
>suggest he had almost limitless opportunities to "prove his detractors
>wrong."
He was not given an opportunity to conduct a major American orchestra until he
was in his late 80s. I'd hardly call that "limitless opportunities to prove his
detractors wrong."
The fact is that Asahina has far more admirers than detractors but the
detractors (as most are) are a vocal lot who would just like to pour cold water
on the enjoyment that so many derive from his art.
It is ironic that they are the same people who continue to worship at the
shrine of the cult of St. Toscanini -- a man whose career in this country was
propelled by power, money, and a recording contract that was in inverse
proportion to the worth of vast quantities of what he produced.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>
You obviously did or you wouldn't make the above statement which seems more
based on the hearsay you decry rather than on experienced listening.
Anyone who has heard Asahina's Alpine Symphony recording made in the 1960s with
the NDR couldn't possibly think they weren't missing anything.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>say that he has never quite overcome the perception that, as a Japanese
>artist, h
He also came onto the scene some 20 years after Asahina did which gave him the
advantage of not being tainted with the stain of WW2. He was also backed by big
corporate Japanese money which certainly eased his way into many an opera house
and symphony hall.
Terry Ellsworth
Simon Roberts
"Terrymelin" <terry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020101105456...@mb-cb.aol.com...
>
> The fact is that Asahina has far more admirers than detractors but the
> detractors (as most are) are a vocal lot
At least in this ng admiration is expressed far more often than
dissatisfaction. How much detraction have you found?
who would just like to pour cold water
> on the enjoyment that so many derive from his art.
Your assumption that that is the motive is questionable. Is that your
motive for making the following comments on Toscanini?
HenryFogel
>From: "FI" fel...@netvigator.com
>Date: 1/1/2002 11:04 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <a0sq30$pd...@imsp212.netvigator.com>
>
>What did Asahina do during the war? I've read somewhere that he was
>conducting in China. Why? Did he contribute in any way to the Japanese war
>effort?
>
>Perhaps Henry could comment on this?
During the War years, Asahina conducted in Shanghai. Shanghai was a city that
accepted many Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe and Germany, and the
orchestra consisted almost entirely of those refugees. I have spoken with some
of the musicians who played under him at that point, the beginning of his
conducting career, and they have been very complimentary of him both musically
and personally. Asahina told me that he felt he learned a lot from these
musicians, many of whom had been with leading European and Russian orchestras
before being forced to flee.
Henry Fogel
HenryFogel
>Another question is of course also why, with one single exception, the
>leading US orchestras did not see fit to invite him. This thread seems
>to be concerned with (on some hands, not all) accusing Europeans for
>latent racism - based on the evidence at hand, it seems an equally
>strong case could be made for accusing US concert organizers (outside
>Chicago) for the same.
>
>
I think it is more accurate to say that US orchestra administrators simply
never heard of him. I had not heard of Asahina until I first saw him conduct
the Alpine Symphony in Tokyo in 1991 -- I went not expecting anything
particularly special (precisely because I had never heard of him), and was
deeply moved. When in 1994 I heard him conduct the Bruckner 8th in Tokyo, and
had in the intervening years become familiar with his recordings, I then
decided to invite him to Chicago. I played his Bruckner 8th recording for
Barenboim, who as Music Director had to agree to the engagement, and he did so
enthusiastically.
I can tell you that almost without exception, every American (and British)
music administrator to whom I mentioned his name had simply never heard of him.
So I don't think prejudice entered into it at all -- he was simply unknown to
them.
When I raised the issue of the possibility of a cultural bias among Germans and
Austrians about an Asian conducting Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruckner, I did not
mean for it to become the centerpiece of this thread, and I regret that it did.
I raised it as one part of a complex tapestry of reasons for Asahina's lack of
a world-class career, a career that I personally feel he deserved.
I believe there were many, many reasons - some related to Asahina's relatively
reticent personality - for the directions his career took and did not take. He
did not have (and I believe did not seek) European and American management. He
did not have much of a self-promotion instinct. But I also believe that a part
of the picture are the other, non-musical, factors that I mentioned -- I never
meant to imply that they were the whole picture.
I also don't know whether, given the exposure, Asahina would have become a
"superstar." That had never been my point. I simply felt, and continue to feel,
that here was a quality of conductor at an international level who at least
deserved to have been known by, and engaged by, important orchestras throughout
the world -- and that those orchestras and their audiences would have
benefitted from having heard him in his prime (which in his case I believe
lasted into his mid-eighties). Look at the kind of career Gunther Wand is
having, most of it after he reached the age of 75 (and, by the way, permit me
to point out that the only American orchestra Wand ever conducted is also
Chicago). Although there are musical differences between Wand and Asahina,
there are some similarities too -- and on purely musical grounds I would
personally have expected similarly successful careers from each.
Henry Fogel
David Hurwitz
>
>He was not given an opportunity to conduct a major American orchestra until he
>was in his late 80s. I'd hardly call that "limitless opportunities to prove his
>detractors wrong."
But you would be wrong. What has America got to do with it? People travel, word
travels, he conducted in Europe and the success of his career in Japan could
very easily have become a springboard for success elsewhere. The point is that
he was continually working and well regarded; that's all the opportunity an
ambitious artist usually needs.
>
>The fact is that Asahina has far more admirers than detractors but the
>detractors (as most are) are a vocal lot who would just like to pour cold water
>on the enjoyment that so many derive from his art.
I don't think you can demonstrate this one way or the other. Nor do I think
questioning the motives of his so-called "detractors" is justified or rational.
People have differing tastes, as you so clearly indicate by your rather
gratuitous Toscanini comment below, and have every right to express those
tastes. Nor can anything a "detractor" says prevent those who enjoy Asahina's
art from enjoying it. Either his work withstands comparison to that of others in
the same repertoire, or it does not, and each person can decide for himself.
Someone who decides it does not is not attempting to destroy the enjoyment of
others. That's paranoid.
>
>It is ironic that they are the same people who continue to worship at the
>shrine of the cult of St. Toscanini -- a man whose career in this country was
>propelled by power, money, and a recording contract that was in inverse
>proportion to the worth of vast quantities of what he produced.
>
Oh they are? I'd like to see you prove that one.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020101121437...@mb-ca.aol.com:
One might note that Seiji Ozawa was indirectly associated with the Japanese
war effort -- he was born in occupied Manchuria (called "Manchujuo"). His
father was a dentist, and thus served his country in war in precisely the
same manner that my father served ours.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:a0sre...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>It is ironic that they are the same people who continue to worship at
>>the shrine of the cult of St. Toscanini -- a man whose career in this
>>country was propelled by power, money, and a recording contract that
>>was in inverse proportion to the worth of vast quantities of what he
>>produced.
>>
>
> Oh they are? I'd like to see you prove that one.
Of course, he'll cite that Joe Horowitz book, about which the worst I'll
say is that the pages are too thick to be properly used as toilet paper.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>>I don't think anyone missed anything. But we'll never really know, will we?
>>
>
>You obviously did or you wouldn't make the above statement which seems more
>based on the hearsay you decry rather than on experienced listening.
No, it's based on listening to virtually everything he recorded that I could get
my hands on, carefully and comparatively.
>
>Anyone who has heard Asahina's Alpine Symphony recording made in the 1960s with
>the NDR couldn't possibly think they weren't missing anything.
>
Well, I don't think any performance of the Alpine Symphony will determine this
one way or another (and I've heard that one--it's good and as I say I'm hoping
to get NDR to issue it and make it more widely available than it has been
hitherto, so I am by no means the "detractor" you seem to believe I am).
Anyway, we're getting rather far afield here. I return to my original
contentions, which were (a) there is no evidence that anti-Japanese prejudice
played a significant (or even detectable) role is restraining or inhibiting
Asahina's career as opposed to other more plausible factors, and (b) one of
these factors was probably the fact that in the repertoire he felt most
comfortable he was merely one among very many exponents in the 50s and 60s, a
substantial number of them really outstanding. Had he been "all that," I have no
doubt his career would have flourished in the West had he expressed those
ambitions and followed them up aggressively, as all artist must one way or
another. As it is, from the recorded evidence I have heard, he was not
sufficiently "special" to warrant such attention, good though he may have been
from time to time.
David Hurwitz
says...
WW2" at the same time that Ozawa made his appearance on the scene (in the early
60s), and Asahina was certainly still young enough then to enjoy the same
measure of support. After all, youth is no recommendation in the world of
conducting, particularly with major orchestras: experience and reputation count
for far more. And the above comment begs another question: if "big corporate
Japanese money" was available to support Ozawa's career abroad, and given the
claims of Japanese "reverence" for Asahina, why was he not the beneficiary of
similar largesse? Surely not because of anti-Japanese prejudice!
Torgny Gustafsson
Excellent points, which I agree with. It was indeed unfortunate that
so much of the discussion here veered off on a tangent.
I think the parallel with Wand is an interesting one. I was aware of
the fact that the only symphony orchestra in the US that Wand has
conducted was the Chicago (and I believe the same is true also for
Carlos Kleiber, although his visit there [I think] occured in the
pre-Fogel days). Wand, though, had/has the backing of a major record
company with widespread distribution in the US, so his work should
have been known to other US orchestra managers also.
I also remember you on one occasion stating here that part of the
reason Wand did not conduct more in the US was his
elaborate/ineffective/time-consuming rehearsal techniques - could you
elaborate on this? One of the things that have been most striking for
me when attending orchestral rehearsals in the US is how very very
little time there is, and how effectively it has to be used. Perhaps
this tends to favor conductors that are wonderful technicians, who in
a very short time can produce a professional result. Perhaps this also
is one of the factors why so many of the performances today are a bit
faceless.
TG
HenryFogel
>Message-id: <a0stl7$pm...@imsp212.netvigator.com>
>
>> >What did Asahina do during the war? I've read somewhere that he was
>> >conducting in China. Why? Did he contribute in any way to the Japanese
>war
>> >effort?
>> >
>that
>> accepted many Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe and Germany, and the
>> orchestra consisted almost entirely of those refugees. I have spoken with
>some
>> of the musicians who played under him at that point, the beginning of his
>> conducting career, and they have been very complimentary of him both
>musically
>> and personally. Asahina told me that he felt he learned a lot from these
>> musicians, many of whom had been with leading European and Russian
>orchestras
>> before being forced to flee.
>
>from the refugees... What are the years precisely?
I don't know the specific years, nor do I know the reasons as to why he was
there.
Henry Fogel
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020101132441...@mb-ca.aol.com:
> I don't know the specific years, nor do I know the reasons as to why he
> was there.
Perhaps Asahina visited China for exactly the same reason Weingartner
visited Japan -- a concert promoter made him a good offer, and it was an
excuse to travel in style to an interesting and exotic locale. (Felix
Weingartner loved to travel, loved to stay in seaside areas, and most of
all, loved to watch solar eclipses!)
Bob Reith
>the fact that the only symphony orchestra in the US that Wand has
>conducted was the Chicago (and I believe the same is true also for
>Carlos Kleiber, although his visit there [I think] occured in the
>pre-Fogel days). Wand, though, had/has the backing of a major record
>company with widespread distribution in the US, so his work should
>have been known to other US orchestra managers also.
>
Carlos Kleiber, to my knowledge, has only conducted CSO in America. However,
he conducted several operas with the Met in New York between 1988 and 1990.
Bob
Heybrook
>with
>>the NDR couldn't possibly think they weren't missing anything.
>>
>Well, I don't think any performance of the Alpine Symphony will determine
>this
>one way or another (and I've heard that one--it's good and as I say I'm
>hoping
>to get NDR to issue it and make it more widely available than it has been
>hitherto, so I am by no means the "detractor" you seem to believe I am).
Was it issued by Ode Classics already? But again perhaps it's only a pure luck
for Asahina to make such a wonderful performance. He is a lucky man.
You won't miss anything if you don't know or don't care such thing exist.
Bobby
HenryFogel
>>I think the parallel with Wand is an interesting one. I was aware of
>>the fact that the only symphony orchestra in the US that Wand has
>>conducted was the Chicago (and I believe the same is true also for
>>Carlos Kleiber, although his visit there [I think] occured in the
>>pre-Fogel days). Wand, though, had/has the backing of a major record
>>company with widespread distribution in the US, so his work should
>>have been known to other US orchestra managers also.
>>
Wand's work was known to many in America -- the problem was Wand's rehearsal
demands exceed the norm for US orchestras. We were willing to bend them and
give him what he required in order to have him visit the CSO.
Henry Fogel
Heybrook
>visited Japan -- a concert promoter made him a good offer, and it was an
>excuse to travel in style to an interesting and exotic locale. (Felix
>Weingartner loved to travel, loved to stay in seaside areas, and most of
>all, loved to watch solar eclipses!)
Excecpt at that time China was in the midst of WWII. His job was to reestablish
the musical scene in Japanese occupied Shanghai.
Bobby
Xiaowu Sun
occupied by Japan during (even before) WW2).
I guess that's part of the reason his name is so sensitive to many audiences
in China not to mention, while Ozawa is widely welcomed,
even for his hash-rush, stiff new year's concerto just heard through the
radio. Interesting though, VPO now a days just sound
like a secondary marching band, or least for the most part of this year's
performance.
Nick
"HenryFogel" <henry...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020101132441...@mb-ca.aol.com...
HenryFogel
>> Perhaps Asahina visited China for exactly the same reason Weingartner
>> visited Japan -- a concert promoter made him a good offer, and it was an
>> excuse to travel in style to an interesting and exotic locale.
>
>Shanghai...
>
Except it wasn't a Chinese Orchestra -- it was an orchestra almost exclusively
consisting of Jewish Refugees from Russia, Eastern Europe and Germany
Henry Fogel
Heybrook
Who?
Heybrook
>to make music for the Chinese public? That his orchestra offered employment
>for refugees from the West gives an impression that he was on the side of
>the victims of the war. In fact, as a Japanese in wartime Manchuria and
>Shanghai, he was part of the invaders. My question now is, did he actively
>participate in Japan's aggression or was he more of a Furtwangler-type
>propaganda machine?
It just a conduting gig. Besides, Ashaina got his fame much later than that.
Furtwangler was not a propaganda machine. He proved himself to be a great
musician and he helped a lot of jews esacpe from the Nazis.
Bobby
Matthew B. Tepper
@imsp212.netvigator.com:
>> One might note that Seiji Ozawa was indirectly associated with the
>> Japanese war effort -- he was born in occupied Manchuria (called
>> "Manchujuo"). His father was a dentist, and thus served his country in
>> war in precisely the same manner that my father served ours.
>
> But that was his father not Seiji himself.
I'm not making any value judgements, merely stating history. Apologies for
my misspelling of "Manchukuo." The fingers are slipping a bit more than
usual today.
David Hurwitz
says...
That's the one, and I give him full credit for a fine performance. Luck has
nothing to do with it. Though it's not better than Kempe, Ashkenazy/Czech Phil,
Karajan, or three or four others I could name. The issue, Bobby, is always a
matter of comparisons. Good Strauss conducting is not in terribly short supply,
nor was it in the early 60s when Asahina made his version. I find your last
sentence particularly perplexing in light of the fact that not only do I know
Asahina's recordings, I'm actively involved in trying to make some of them more
widely available because, irrespective of whether or not I think that they are
wonderful, I know that there are others who do. So why be sarcastic and snide?
James P. Axtell
being and a great musician but has turned into a rather narrow debate.
If Mr. Asahina was in Shanghai during the war, I can't assume (especially 60
years later) that he was part of the Axis/Imperial war effort. It would be
a little easier to assume that the chief conductor of the Tokyo orchestra
was.
Eugen Jochum and Gunter Wand (to cite two of my favorites) lived and worked
in German-occupied lands during the time Mr. Asahina was in Shanghai. Both
of them, however, were known to have been at odds with the regime. Neither
Jochum nor Wand had any problems with reclaiming leading positions in the
aftermath of the war. The judgment of distance is too easily affected by
revisionism, it seems to me....
Jim
"FI" <fel...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:a0t3k6$pd...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> > Except it wasn't a Chinese Orchestra -- it was an orchestra almost
> exclusively
> > consisting of Jewish Refugees from Russia, Eastern Europe and Germany
>
Hou Fang-Lin
work is greatly admired in Japan as well. Fang-Lin
"FI" <fel...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:a0t5r7$r0...@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> I don't think so. He went to China with the troops when he could have
chosen
> to stay at home. Doesn't the fact say something about his wartime beliefs?
>
> I do not attempt to cast asperions on Asahina's competence as a conductor.
I
> only want to set the record straight. It is probable that Asahina was at
> least as much a war criminal as HvK.
>
> (Sorry about my previous comments on Furtwangler.)
>
>
>
Terrymelin
>dissatisfaction. How much detraction have you found?
>
Simon you'll see that the operative word I used was "vocal."
>Your assumption that that is the motive is questionable. Is that your
>motive for making the following comments on Toscanini?
>
No, I just found it interesting that the detractors of Asahina's just happened
to be those who seem to think that Toscanini is god.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>word
Mr. Hurwitz, you are the one who used the word "limitless" and one can hardly
use that word and leave an entire country and continent out of it. Or are you
now back-tracking on YOUR choice of word?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
Yes, Mr. Hurwitz, they do. But your posts on the subject of Asahina in the past
few days seems to indicate that you do not respect any taste that differs from
yours -- which is exactly the point I was making with my gratuitous Toscanini
remark. Afterall it was you who said -- without prefacing the remark in any way
-- that even given his "limitless" opportunities there was nothing in Asahina's
performances that would have changed anyone's mind that he was anything other
than a dull conductor.
You can't have it both ways although you seem to think that you can.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>say is that the pages are too thick to be properly used as toilet paper.
>
No, Mr. Tepper, I won't. I don't much care for that book as I don't much care
for much of what Toscanini did with the NBC Symphony. Inflexible, driven, and
harsh are just some of the words that describe those recordings to me. That is
my opinion. I grew up with Toscanini's recordings as a boy and like many
thought they were the be all and end all of music-making. Then I grew up and
discovered that there was a whole universe of other conductors out there --
most of whom I found more interesting, more flexible, less driven, and more
inspirational. There is not a single work in the classical canon for which I
would cite a Toscanini recording.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>WW2" at the same time that Ozawa made his appearance on the scene (in the
>early
>60s), and Asahina was certainly still young enough then to enjoy the same
Mr. Fogel has already addressed but you don't seem willing to look at that
seriously. You just seem content to repeat the same thing over and over and
over again.
When Mr. Ozawa came onto the scene in the early 1960s he was in his mid 20s;
Asahina was already in his mid-50s. Surely you can see the difference there?
I'd like you to name one conductor in the past 50 years who was given his first
opportunity to conduct a major Western orchestra when he was past the age of
55?
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>war effort -- he was born in occupied Manchuria (called "Manchujuo").
Yes, but Asahina was already in his 30s when WW2 started while Ozawa would have
been a small boy. That speaks to what Mr. Fogel has already said. People would
be less likely to have ill will towards a boy growing up in Japan during the
war than to someone who was "of age" and active during it.
Terry Ellsworth
Terrymelin
>having, most of it after he reached the age of 75 (and, by the way, permit me
>to point out that the only American orchestra Wand ever conducted is also
>Chicago). Although there are musical differences between Wand and Asahina,
>there are some similarities too -- and on purely musical grounds I would
>personally have expected similarly successful careers from each.
>
>Henry Fogel
>
>
And look at the career that Wand has had in that time period. But part of that
has been pushed by enthusiastic music critics in Gramophone and a nice
recording contract. Something that Asahina never hard.
And American orchestras reluctance to hire Mr. Wand may be the large number of
rehearsals that he requests/requires which may put off the managements here in
the States.
Terry Ellsworth
David Hurwitz
>> least as much a war criminal as HvK.
>>
commit atrocities during wartime, and those who conceive of and order the
commission of those atrocities. Karajan was an opportunist, Furtwangler both
vain and naive to the point of foolishness, and neither was a "war criminal."
Moral failings are as common to artists (perhaps even more so, as the breed does
tend to be a tad self-centered) as to any of us, but there's a big difference
between opportunistic acts, patriotic beliefs, and war crimes. There's no
evidence that Asahina was any better or worse than any other Japanese citizen at
work during WWII. One does not become a "war criminal" by accident of birth,
ethnicity, residence, or job description.
There is no evidence that Asahina did anything other than conduct, and while the
result may have been an atrocity in a musical sense (just a joke, folks!), to
suggest that he was a "war criminal" absent any concrete evidence other than his
presence in Shanghai is to debase the very term unconscionably. By the same
token, the fact that the orchestra may have consisted largely, or even entirely,
of Jewish (or other) refugees is not exculpatory, or especially relevant,
either. (Come on Henry! You don't need to defend him that way. He did not go to
Shanghai out of some altruistic desire to help Jewish refugee musicians make
music, and the composition of the band has no bearing on Asahina's presence
there. That's about as preposterous as calling him a "war criminal" in the first
place.)
Eric Nagamine
What kind of rehearsal time did Asahina ask for? I seem to recall my
teacher mentioning the reason he only did the two series in Honolulu was
because he asked for extra rehearsals, something that management here at
the time was unwilling to do.
--
-----------
Mele Kalikimaka and Haouli Makahiki Hou!,
Eric Nagamine
Matthew B. Tepper
news:EdpY7.2850$dK4.44946@rwcrnsc52:
> If Mr. Asahina was in Shanghai during the war, I can't assume
> (especially 60 years later) that he was part of the Axis/Imperial war
> effort. It would be a little easier to assume that the chief conductor
> of the Tokyo orchestra was.
Who would that have been? Hidemaro Konouye?
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020101162254...@mb-fy.aol.com:
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but Toscanini performances
that I would consider essential listening include:
Beethoven 3rd (1939 and 1953)
Beethoven 5th (preferably 1933, but also live 1939 and 1952)
Beethoven 7th (especially PS-ONY, BBC, and 1947 NBC)
Beethoven Missa Solemnis (1940)
Verdi Requiem (1940)
Berlioz Harold in Italy (1953)
Berlioz Roméo et Juliette
Wagner various overtures and other bleeding chunks
Haydn "Clock" (PS-ONY)
Debussy La Mer (1950)
Debussy Ibéria (Philadelphia)
Barber Adagio
and that's just for starters.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020101161631...@mb-fy.aol.com:
And then there are those of us who do *not* think that Toscanini (or
Furtwängler, or Mengelberg, or Walter, or Koussevitzky) was "god," but just
"an honest musician." And I think those other conductors were, also.
Xiaowu Sun
>
> I don't think this discussion is ridiculous. It is likely that Asahina was
> at least in support of Japan's aggression during the war, perhaps more so
> than any ordinary Japanese citizen at that time since he actively
conducted
> in occupied cities, and I feel it is important to point this out. As I
said
> in an earlier post, what I do not like is the way his biographical
> information is given -- the omission of details of his wartime activities,
> and the emphasis on the fact that refugees played in his orchestra. (I
know
> it isn't Mr. Fogel's fault. The Japanese biographies have similiar
things.)
>
OK, I guess it's better to leave others to make their judgments. Let music
comes first.
I am a Chinese too myself and came from the mainland (I know certain folks
from
across the straight more or less tend to response differently) but with
this regard,
I am neutral, or more forgiving if you like to say. So, it's better to merit
him based on
his music interpretations. Sorry I can't say anything else so far, as my
first Asahina recordings
are still on their way here from Amazon.jp, which happens to charge much
less than HMV.jp on
shipping fees. Too bad it takes them too long, but I did noticed that one of
my orders
(Bruckner's No.4) is not in stock right now. As you might have expected, all
my orders are
highly recommended by Mr. Fogel. I am looking forward to listening them and
let the music tell
myself.
Nick
Paul Goldstein
says...
>It is ironic that they are the same people who continue to worship at the
>shrine of the cult of St. Toscanini -- a man whose career in this country was
>propelled by power, money, and a recording contract that was in inverse
>proportion to the worth of vast quantities of what he produced.
I've been participating in this newsgroup for quite a while, and it has been a
very long time since there has been a Toscanini cultist among us. Who are you
referring to? For me, the surprising thing is that so few of the regulars seem
to like Toscanini at all.
Paul Goldstein
Matthew B. Tepper
> I am a Chinese too myself and came from the mainland
I have been restraining myself from asking this, but finally, ask I must:
When you are back at home, are you Nick Sun in China?
Xiaowu Sun
roughly same time joined this group as a lurker. I went back to China last
year to
see to my parents there. Now, I haven't got my Ph.D yet, don't know when
will be
back again. Quite a shame!
Happy new year.
Nick
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ipsY7.13927$yi.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...