Deconstructing John Culshaw
Noam Schwanzfresser Eitan
previously posted my negative reactions to his PUTTING THE RECORD
STRAIGHT. Reading the RR and comparing it to the later book left me
wondering about Culshaw's integrity. RR was written while Culshaw was
still an employee of DECCA, and it reads like the politically correct
version of events. In RR he gives Rosengarten full unequivocal credit
for all the good things that happened in DECCA, including discovering
and signing up Solti. I believe he allows his contempt for Rosengarten
to come thru only in a very subtle, indirect and totally legitimate
way - he lets him describe in his own words how he discovered Solti.
What comes thru from Rosengarten's crudely concrete prose is a man for
whom trading in classical music recordings is no different than
trading in Herring fish. Rosengarten was not an intellectual or even
a man of any cultural refinement, he was a merchant, not the merchant
of Venice that Culshaw tries to make him in the later book, but a
businessman from a certain parochial small town pre-war Jewish
background.
In the later book, written after Culshaw left DECCA, Culshaw gives an
account that is not only a different perspective, but an almost direct
contradiction to the one he gave in RR. To put it simply, according to
Culshaw in the later book, he and only he was responsible for anything
good that happened in DECCA, including not only discovering Solti, but
actually TURNING him into a great conductor and saving him from his
tendency to talk too much (the incident in Israel when he recorded
Solti blubbering to the orchestra, and then playing it back to the
amazed Solti, who - according to Culshaw - shut up from that day).
Rosengarten, on the other hand, according to the latter book, was an
ignorant blood sucking Shylock that Culshaw had to outwit at every
turn to have anything done. Culshaw even goes as far as exposing
Rosengarten's illegal business practices and alleges that Karajan left
DECCA because of them.
As a board certified gay psychiatrist with psychoanalytical training I
cannot avoid seeing certain personality issues with Culshaw. Most
intriguing is his involvement with Flagstad. He writes about her with
a personal deeply felt affection as well as more than a hint of
idealization. He seems to be totally convinced that the feeling was or
became mutual. As proof he quotes from her letters, which he kept. To
me her letters to him are cold and impersonal. I believe his
relationship with her was never more than purely professional for her.
I think he needed her and idealized her in a way typical for many men
who have uresolved childish needs, and are unable to form mature
object relations. These men are susceptible to be infatuated with
strong, commanding women, e.g., operatic Prima Donnas. These men are
often gay, latent, in the closet or out, and often form a ruthless one
member fan club of the object of their adulation.
It seems to me Culshaw expected Nilsson to replace Flagstad in the big
super-human mama role. Somehow Nilsson's attitude to Culshaw was not
susceptible to be misinterpreted by him along the lines of the
fantasies he had about Flagstad. Everything he writes about Nilsson
bespeaks of a personal disappointment and resentment, of unfulfilled
expectations. I feel he experienced her response to the immolation
scene recording as traumatic. At any rate he could never get over her
healthy distrust of him. (Incidentally RR clarifies why some sections
of the Solti ring are better than others - the Siegfried act III duet
is not as ecstatic as it could be because Nilsson was ill-disposed
that day.)
Regine Crespin writes enigmatically about Culshaw in her memoirs, that
"he only liked snakes". I think I am closer to understanding what she
meant.
To summarize, I am proposing the following wild speculations, without
providing any evidence whatsoever:
1) Culshaw was a closeted homosexual. His involvement with opera and
its heroines is no different than that of the dozens of opera queens
that contribute so colorfully to this group.
2) Culshaw was a closeted anti-semite.
Noam
Charles H. Riggs, III
news:f9283e4b.01101...@posting.google.com...
> I feel he experienced her response to the immolation
> scene recording as traumatic.
What WAS her response to the Starke Scheite take??
Happy listening,
Charles
Noam Schwanzfresser Eitan
From memory: Culshaw Describes her response as totally paranoid. She
felt that her voice was covered by the orchestra, and that she was set
up by him. He was totally unprepared for her reaction. Her opinion was
important for him. I think he expected her to be impressed. On a
professional level that would have ensured her participation in the
last opera to be recorded. I speculate that on a psychological level
he felt he was giving her a precious gift and that in return she would
look favorably upon him in some personally significant (to him) way.
When she saw him again she refused to speak to him. When the take was
played to her on proper equipment she still felt it was a set up by
the engineers. Only when DECCA provided her with an adequate record
player and a sample to take to her hotel and listen to again was she
finally appeased. She apologized to Culshaw.
Noam
Richard Loeb
accept things at face value without analyzing them out of all proportion.
Nilsson thought that the the balance of the Immolation scene was faulty -
that's all there is to it. Culshaw played it to her on other equipment; it
sounded right and all was OK.
If Culshaw was a closeted gay - so what? That is of supreme indifference to
me and should be to everyone else on this board. The same goes for any
supposed anti-semitism, and that's a stretch just because he had contempt
for a Jewish exceutive at Decca. Tiana Lemnitz was a rabid anti-semite till
the day she dies and I enjoy her artistry anyway. Why don't you give
yourself a break and a rest, enjoy his books for the information they
contain and enjoy the day.
All the best Richard
"Noam Schwanzfresser Eitan" <schwanz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f9283e4b.01101...@posting.google.com...