|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.232.224.41
musicians have been bringing higher musicianship to schools and that elite schools have been graduating unprecedented numbers of them, now elevated to the highest technical proficiency.
In the linked NYTimes piece, by Anthony Tommasini, it is said that this has translated into an explosion of technically amazing performers who also show formidable interpreting skills. This, according to Mr. Tommasini, is a new Golden Age, unprecedented (a logical deduction from his comments) in the long history of Western music.
What say you?
Would you choose to attend performances by Richter, Rubinstein, Horowitz, Gilels, Backhaus, Serkin--- or the amazing flood of today's talent? (Remember, many of the "old" greats were acknowledged as such by the same age as these "young guns….").
Edits: 04/15/14 04/15/14Follow Ups:
But, the appearance of one bird with a forked tail does not cause the season of Spring to arrive... .
And if one can count Joel Fredereicksen as "young," he is a genius, IMHO.
There is one aspect that I think needs to be taken into account--an involuntarily-chosen few of the older generation's older generation, let's take Menuhin and Oistrakh as examples, had both personal circumstances that are not very likely today, and also had musical formative experiences that were by definition unique.
Oistrakh supposedly carried or had carried for him a huge music satchel with clean underwear and basic toiletries and some cash. Not that he was planning to jump over the border. He was apprehensive that some time when he least expected it, they would lower the boom on Shostakovich and he would be swept up in the purge. He wanted to be able to maintain his basic human dignity in the Gulag as long as possible, or at least have goods to barter for less-brutal treatment.
And of course, being the dedicatee of Shostakovich's first violin concerto and also the late violin sonata ain't chopped liver. BTW, there is a recording of Shosty and Oistrakh playing the sonata (Op. 134?) through in Oistrakh's apartment, and you can hear a fancy clock chime about 2 minutes into the first movement. A priceless intimate moment, frozen in amber forever.
Menuhin did not eat a morsel of food prepared by someone other than his mother until he was over the age of 16. IIRC, he never attended public school. Talk about a hothouse upbringing. And his contacts with Ysaye, Enescu, and especially Elgar are the stuff of history books, or at least music-history books.
Tracy Silverman's realization of the electric-violin part of John Adams' The Dharma at Big Sur is a heroic feat. But recording the Elgar concerto at age 16 while being conducted by the composer is in another league entirely. Or at least I think so.
I think that the popular classical stars who were just that will just be the subject of nostalgia and ephemera in future years--can you imagine a Eugene Fodor Society to perpetuate his legacy, hapless chap that he was?
But the real giants will stay giants. And I'd even put Oistrakh two giant steps above Heifetz when it comes to the future assessing their legacies. I don't think that Heifetz was connected with any music of the stature that Oistrakh was, and I think that Heifetz' technique-driven style will become more and more a period piece, while Oistrakh's humanistic approach and sense of monumental architecture in great music is for the ages.
The headline is from having witnessed Andris Nelsons' BSO Salome dress rehearsal, which he did not interrupt even once. He is a big picture/long phrases kind of guy, and not a musical micromanager. I hope for great things from him.
JM
along came a Rufous Hummingbird.
Spring, in Oregon's Willamette Valley, has sprung.
My perception of David Oistrakh is totally different from yours.....Although Oistrakh's form is as close to "textbook" as can be (I think), he's the one renowned violinist that if mixed with 100 recent performers (audio only) performing the same piece, I'd have a hard time picking him out..... I always thought his phrasing was "generic" in character. If nothing else, he was very consistent. I react to everything he plays the same way. Technically stellar, musically uninteresting.
In contrast, I think I can pick out Heifetz or even Perlman's performances rather easily. Although I'm not always fond of Heifetz's phrasing either. He too often wears his "virtuosity" on his sleeve, and often comes off as "choppy" or "stiff" with certain works. Unlike some pianists (most notably Horowitz and Van Cliburn), there is no violinist that I thought that was great with a wide range of composers/works.
Edits: 04/17/14
What???
I will not stand for the music of Franz Waxman being impugned like that! ;-)
At 4:27 in the 3rd movement, there is a gesture that is pure "Star Wars."
JM
I do too. Unfortunately, despite its glories, it is almost never played in concert anymore. Instead we get the same old warhorses, over and over and over.
There are other great violin concertos that are even more rarely played in concert. Audience loss, for sure. Thankfully, some labels specialize in recordings of forgotten masterpieces. I love CPO and Sterling and other specialty labels!
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Hadn't been but a few years since the last time, I believe.
dh
I was accompanying a couple of students this past weekend in one of the local competitions (Oakland East Bay Symphony's Young Artist Competition), and one of the competitors I played for did the Bruch No. 2 - but she had to get special permission when she entered in order to play it! I guess the judges liked the change of repertoire because she ended up winning first prize! It's actually not a bad piece - and it was a welcome change for me from the innumerable Bruch No. 1's over the years! ;-)
The romantic temperament is gone from society, for the most part. When one is not sufficiently romantic it becomes difficult to interpret romantic-era classical music, the most popular classical music category of today.There is a new feeling in society, however, and it shows itself as an insect-like fastidiousness in almost everything we do. Our pronged forearms keep charging forward, working patiently and incessantly to express perfection of form and uniformity of finish. It's not the most romantic of feelings, however.
The romantic feeling seems to have persisted for a time during the early part of the twentieth century. Yehudi Menuhin was a good example of this persistence. Comparing some of his early recordings to those done by stars like Zuckerman or Hahn much later on, I cannot help but feel that we are celebrating a different aspect of musical development today.
Edits: 04/16/14 04/16/14
You have to believe in old souls to think that today's very young musicians have much to offer aside from incredible technical skills.
Insight requires time, not just time, but time nonetheless.
Although you do get a very limited number of individuals who can transcend any kind of rule or belief.
Music is not the circus...
And criticism is not catch phrases. Could you be specific? Do you have certain performers or, better yet, performances in mind to exemplify your points?And, surely you have heard of the "flash of insight"? Seems to me that can happen at any time.
And lastly, I contend that there IS a show-business aspect to music making, but if some listeners prefer the pious "sackcloth and ashes" aspects of it [EDIT: an approach which, I'm convinced, is itself a type of show business!], who am I to criticize their taste? ;-)
EDIT: BTW, if you're worried that "music is not the circus", you might want to direct some of your criticism to old masters such as Vladimir de Pachmann who, as George Bernard Shaw once reported, "gave his well-known pantomimic performance, with accompaniments by Chopin"! ;-)
Edits: 04/16/14 04/16/14 04/16/14
Paganini comes to mind.
Would you argue, MG, that early recordings by Heifetz or (insert your favorite "old master" here) are poor interpretations because of the (then) age of the performers? Sure, we can allow that they should get better with time, but were they not worth listening to when they were young?
dh
Well put!
Elders grew up listening to the likes of Heifetz and Oistrakh, Horowitz and Rubinstein and Richter, Starker and Rostropovich, Callas and Fischer-Dieskau, Klemperer and Toscanini. They imprinted on the recordings and performances of those great talents. So, as a result, that era of musicians defined the pinnacle of achievement for all those listeners.
Those elders handed down their assessments to the next generation, along with their collections of recordings, and their opinions become the core of subsequent reviews .... down the line.
As a result, even now, when you ask for recommendations for recordings, the old ones continue to pop up. Are they really more talented than more contemporary artists? Are their recordings really so much better that they remain the standard against which all young artists must be judged?
I'm not so sure they were any more talented. But I am sure of one thing. They had more freedom to interpret music than today's musicians do. Listen to any 10 contemporary recordings of Dvorak's cello concerto. Then listen to Piatagorsky's. Listen to any recent recordings of Beethoven's 7th symphony, then listen to Toscanini's's or Furtwangler's. Listen to any recent recordings of Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto, then listen to his own recording or Horowitz playing it.
IMO, we do live in a new golden age of talent. The number of outstanding musicians is really amazing. But I don't hear the kind of singular interpretations and unique performances coming from them.
To me, the reason is because, in our era, the score has become some sort of sacred document. Today's artists don't have the freedom to interpret and stretch as much as they did "back in the day." If a musician deviates much from the score, s/he gets skewered by the critics and left behind by the dozens of equally talented competitors.
So, unfortunately, despite the plethora of incredibly talented artists today, those old recordings (and the musicians who made them) still stand as great recordings that still compel our attention.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
. . . I think there might be some additional factors. One is the psychological predisposition on the part of certain listeners to be impressed/awestruck by performances from the distant past - the more distant the better in many cases. (The great opera critic, Conrad L. Osborne, admitted he had this kind of predisposition!) One justification for this view is that these older performances were just that much nearer to the time during which the music was actually written, and therefore they must possess a degree of authenticity which was gradually lost in subsequent generations. After all, Klemperer and Walter knew Mahler, Monteux played for Brahms, Reiner knew Strauss, Dorati was a student of Bartok, etc. Then there are other listeners who are psychologically inclined the opposite way - always seeking out the newest.
In my own case, sure, I grew up with Toscanini doing the Beethoven Symphonies (my imprint version), Casals doing the Bach Cello Suites (also my imprint version), Schnabel doing the Beethoven Sonatas (a couple of them anyway), etc. But it didn't take long for me to appreciate the comparative virtues of Reiner and Dorati in the Beethoven Symphonies, Starker in the Bach Cello Suites, or Moravec and Richter in the Beethoven Sonatas. The reasons are varied, but a common thread in all of these performances is that I could actually hear exactly what the performers were doing so much better, rather than having to imagine what they were doing through the muck and limited range of the 78 rpm surfaces! And in the case of Casals Bach recordings, I grew awfully tired of the grunting and scratching after awhile! (And, BTW, I'm going to have to re-listen to that Piatagorsky recording of the Dvorak - I'm assuming you're referring to the collaboration with Munch. I heard that recording when it first came out and my main impression was not how individual it was, but how out of tune Piatagorsky was!)
Anyway, moving on to the question of individuality in the interpretation, I think, in general, your point (and tin's below) is well taken, but I think it's not just the more modern performers who are responsible for the kind of "convergence" around literal fidelity to the score - I think the performers who interpret this way (e.g., the Perahias, the Brendels, et al) have been rewarded over the years by both listeners and critics, so, in a way, WE are responsible for this convergence too. At the same time, there are a number of performers today who invariably offer very original interpretations of certain works - you suggest that Rachmaninoff and Horowitz have unique takes on Rachmaninoff's Third Concerto (which they do!), but what about Martha? - if hers isn't a unique take too, then I'm not sure what unique means. Heck, I'd even say that Yuja's recent recording of that concerto is also unique. (I just wish I could hear it without being so aware of the sonic manipulations on the part of the Tonmeisters!) What's so unique about Yuja's playing? Well, for one thing, no one else I'm aware of had such mastery of the leggiero touch as she does, and no one else finds passages to apply it in a way that works as surprisingly (and arrestingly!) as she does.
Even aside from specific works, there are certain artists these days who regularly approach almost all the repertoire they play in an individual manner - certainly, someone like Khatia Buniatishvili sounds like no one else (although, based on her recent SF solo recital I heard last weekend, there's a worrying aspect to this too - I hope to post about this soon). Ivo Pogorelich (back when he could play), Piotr Anderszewski, and Grigory Sokolov also represent contemporary artists who approach their interpretations in a way every bit as unique as the great pianists of the past did.
Which brings us to another problem with the present generation vs. previous generations: there's simply more of a critical mass of listeners who are familiar with the historic older performances - just because the recorded legacy of these performers has been around longer and may have been extolled by certain critics who had access to the limited mass media outlets prior to the internet, such as newspapers or Gramophone-type periodicals. (Of course, this is less of a problem these days.) But in any case, the number of years we've had to listen to, say, Anderszewski's Diabelli Variations is far, far less than what we've had to listen to Rudolf Serkin's recording of the same work. So in this sense, contemporary artists are operating at a relative disadvantage. But of course that's no reflection on the innate stature of their playing - it's just hard for us listeners to keep up with all the new stuff that's happening in classical performances!
In general, I'd say that there are some complex tendencies swirling around, which tend to minimize the achievement of today's artists, as accomplished and deserving as they are.
I think we can both pick out individual recordings or performances to illustrate our points. Personally, I am not as slavishly adoring of the old greats as might seem. I have found many contemporary recordings I really, truly enjoy. I have heard and met musicians who I think are exceptionally talented. I think we both agree that some of the performances/recordings for generations past were great, and in some cases definitive -- and that there have been some very worthy recordinghs in more recent times.
I have talked with quite a few musicians, mostly young conductors and touring solists, who have felt hobbled by the current situation in classical music -- the shrunken repertoire of warhorses that they are required to repeat over and over, the need to perform modern composers they really don't like that much, the parade of soloists or conductors who are talented but not accomplished, but most of all, being locked into artist management systems sand contractual requirements that limit their ability to expand.
There was a very interesting piece written by Martin Kettle in The Guardian over a decade ago that meditated on the declining art of the piano. It was titled "Why are today's concert pianists so boring?" I couldn't really disagree with what he said, but to me, he missed the cause of the circumstances -- the marketing of musicians and the tyranny of the score.
You've probably seen the article. It's here, for those who haven't:
Why are today's concert pianists so boring?
Yes, I think Yuja has some interesting takes on Rachmaninoff, but also mixed in her recordings/performances are a lot of really weird moments that, to me, seem like lapses in either technique or concentration or understanding. But she's not going to rewrite entire passages the way Horowitz did, or improvise the passages the way Rachmaninoff did. And by appearing in those skimpy dresses and doing these little interpretive moments, she's put herself into the position (right or wrong) of being an "act" like Lang Lang or Hough or Salerno-Sonnenberg, instead of an "artist" like Lugansky. It may be unfair to the musicians, it may be inaccurate in terms of talent, but it is a result of marketing and management that defines artists today.
BTW -- I wasn't saying that Piatigorsky's Dvorak was iconic. I was simply using it to illustrate the freedom that performers had in personal interpretation back during that era. (And I was thinking of Piatigorsky's recording with Ormandy, not Munch.) Same with Furtwangler or Stokowski or Toscanini. One can argue about the merits of their personal vision, yet still appreciate that personal visions were valued much more than today.
There are many wonderfully talented musicians these days, but there is a lot about the current classical music environment that limits them (and us).
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
I saw Yuja Wang play the Rach 3 here in Cleveland last week, conducted (wonderfully) by Giancarlo Guerrero. She put her own stamp on the music but didn't Lang-Lang it to show everyone "Look what a wonderful pianist I am!" Everything she did was musical. It was a phenomenal performance--as is her recording, which was not exactly the same interpretation we had here last week. BTW, she did NOT wear a skimpy dress.
nt
Curious to know what your take on her performance.
That recital needs a long, considered post. I'll try to post it tonight or tomorrow.
But it was 'The Show Time!' for sure.
I'll wait for your professional opinion.
the performer's personal appearance? I mean this seriously, since you have so many posts where you make that the centerpiece. Would a Roseanne Barr-like pianist, of marvelous talent, rate in your panoply of excellence?
Edits: 04/16/14 04/16/14
Not a realistic question.
Roseanne Barr is a pig, and there aren't any pig classical performers.
Why don't you name one that you find physically repulsive and ask the question of him or her?
Hi, tin - In all seriousness, musicianship is musicianship and appearance is appearance. I've got my late (i.e., stereo) Clara Haskil recordings to prove it! ;-)What's different these days is how slick the promotion is - especially, as we've all noticed, with the more photogenically favored musicians - both male and female. Quite often, I feel that these performers are excellent musicians in spite of it all, and I try to point out the performance virtues while at the same time having a bit of fun with the label's promotion of the physical side of things.
Generally, I don't post about about glamorous musicians whose musicianship I'm not that interested in (e.g., Olga Kern) - so the fact that I do post about babe musicians who I feel give us some noteworthy performances perhaps gives a misleading impression that I love babe musician recordings no matter what. Also, I think we all tend to gravitate to musicians whose performances have been satisfying to us in the past, so the fact that I've been very happy with, say, Lisa Batiashvili's recordings tends to make me focus on her new releases with anticipation. Her looks are just a "bonus"! ;-)
BTW, speaking of Olga Kern, I heard she has a person on staff whose responsibility is to have the hairspray ready to go anytime she needs it - even when she's in the wings about to go onstage, her guy with the hairspray is ready and waiting. Basically, he just follows her around with the hairspray and sprays as needed! ;-)
Edits: 04/16/14
Chris, I can vouch that the hairspray story is true.
Chris, why single out Olga Kern? I mean, I'm not overly wowed by her musicianship, but .... Do you think the other female stars do NOT have personal groomers on tour with them, hovering about to fix their hair, fix their dress, fix their makeup? Do you think Yuja would be wearing those skimpy dresses if her label/agency handlers did not heartily approve as part of their marketing promo ploy? Do you think she doesn't have a groomer on tour with her? In my experience on the board of several orchestras over the years, you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage. The stars all have personal groomers or "advisers" or "companions" traveling with them. And male stars are not immune.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
"Chris, why single out Olga Kern? I mean, I'm not overly wowed by her musicianship, but .... Do you think the other female stars do NOT have personal groomers on tour with them, hovering about to fix their hair, fix their dress, fix their makeup? Do you think Yuja would be wearing those skimpy dresses if her label/agency handlers did not heartily approve as part of their marketing promo ploy? Do you think she doesn't have a groomer on tour with her? In my experience on the board of several orchestras over the years, you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage. The stars all have personal groomers or "advisers" or "companions" traveling with them. And male stars are not immune."
Where to start? Let me start by saying that Yuja is a personal friend of mine and I do here makeup for the fun of it whenever I get the chance. She does not have any full time makeup artist or hair stylist on staff. As for her dresses. She picks them herself and her agenda is quite simple. She wants to look good as one would expect any 27 year old girl to want to look good. There is no team of strategists picking her dresses. No special marketing strategy in play. As for advisers...every now and then I get a text with pictures asking which dress I think she should wear. I know jack about fashion. Yuja mostly travels on her own, does her own hair and doesn't wear much makeup.
"you would be hard pressed to find any female star who just buys her dress off the rack, puts on her shoes, combs her hair and walks out on stage." This is quite often exactly what Yuja does. And she represents the norm not the exception
.
"Life without music is a mistake" (Nietzsche)
Feel free to name names. Give us a little perspective
d
Yes, and IMO another reason for the sameness of interpretations is the technological revolution, first of recordings and radio, then TV, internet and downloads. A handful of major stars now have an overwhelming worldwide influence that can last decades. This applies to all kinds of music, not just classical.
such as jazz and bluegrass. I've been paying a lot of attention to blue-
grass of late, and I can tell you there are so many phenomenal players
of guitar, banjo (especially), mandolin, and fiddle today that it boggles
my mind. These people have talents that defy belief, and they are YOUNG!
I do think people today are biased over a performer's looks..... The article says virtuosos are a dime a dozen..... There have always been virtuosos..... But so few actually go beyond that.
Yuja Wang is a nice pianist, but if you mixed her performances with 100 others, I'd have a hard time picking hers out. (In contrast to Horowitz, Cliburn, or even Ayako Uehara.)
observing composer instructions, but with an original interpretation.
Not all, as the article mentions, musicians have the chops technically perfect. But more than a few of these can interpret the music much better, i.e. they can produce arresting versions.
I too find it hard to distinguish many of the younger piano players. Or violin players.
It's like the young guitarists: they're technically proficient, they can copy famous solos better than the original players did---- but the phrasing, tone, rhythm? Nah. Somethings can't be gained, no matter how long the practice sessions.
For all the criticism leveled at him, Lang Lang has passion and musicianship. I could care less if he slurs a few notes, skips a few. If the soul of the music comes through, I'm happy. I also don't enjoy seeing musicians that sit or stand like statues during performances. It, first and foremost, is entertainment.
It's not just the playing all the notes..... It's the embodiment of the (musical) experience. Anybody playing a piece of music (or doing anything else, for that matter) can be deemed a performance.
And of course, there are superlative performances, awful performances, and everything in between.
"I too find it hard to distinguish many of the younger piano players. Or violin players."
This is why I often try to pick out who I believe are the standouts..... Not everybody will agree, and that's OK too.
I think even "chops" is a subjective quality. I've encountered opinions of "great chops", and I don't hear it.... And vice versa..... Like the interpretations, no two people perceive it the same way. I often think less than stellar "chops" often compromises an interpretation, because what the performer wants might exceed his/her abilities to deliver it. And on the other hand, I encounter performances where the musician(s) seem more focused on showing off their "chops", and end up compromising the spirit of the music. (This was my complaint of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra during Solti's tenure. And a lot of musicians, most notably Martha Argerich, are offenders as well.)
"For all the criticism leveled at him, Lang Lang has passion and musicianship."
Can't argue about the passion.... But I think his charming personality has won him more fans than his actual playing.... (I have a similar opinion of conductor Gustavo Dudamel and violinist Maxim Vengerov.) Just listen to the audio without the video, his playing isn't all that great.
I've always stated this.... Listen to the audio, without watching the video. Often, people realize the performance isn't quite as great as it seemed with the visual cues.
Wanna put that to the test?
"Wanna put that to the test?"
I don't know what test you're alluding to, but I'll bite........
Over on the Steve Hoffman forum I used to do blind listening comparisons between various pianists playing the same piece of music. The results were often quite surprising. Most the participants had a lot of fun doing them. But even the most expert listeners were rarely able to identify an artist just by hearing them play.
"Over on the Steve Hoffman forum I used to do blind listening comparisons between various pianists playing the same piece of music. The results were often quite surprising. Most the participants had a lot of fun doing them. But even the most expert listeners were rarely able to identify an artist just by hearing them play."
Do you have a link?
Just do a search for blind comparisons threads. We did over ten of them.
Whatever happened to Ayako? I have three CDs and can't find anything more from/about her.
By the way, I was given a bootleg of Ayako performing Rachmaninoff's Prelude #2 Op. 23. It's a somewhat muffled recording, but still the best performance of this particular piece I've ever heard.
Thanks for sharing this. :-)
"Whatever happened to Ayako? I have three CDs and can't find anything more from/about her."
I think she burned herself out. She performed at a superhuman level, then crashed to earth.
Ayako was a "babe", but not naturally attractive like Yuja..... If she were attractive like Yuja, the whole world would have gone zonkers.
The most recent stuff I heard from her, Chopin Nocturne #2 Op 27 and Scriabin, she was a mere shadow of herself.
Thing is, there have always been superstar babe musicians, though back in the day they were nearly always opera singers, since the instrumentalists were all men. Sure, with TV and the internet, looks are as important as ever, but the Yuja Wangs of the classical world have tough competition babe-wise, as most hot movie stars, celebrities and super models now routinely appear nude, and many have hard-core sex videos.
I'm not making a value judgment here, but when the NY Times praises Kim Kardashian for having a "more vigorous" sex video than Paris Hilton (yes, that actually happened), I think we're reaching the limit of the sex sells angle.
I first saw "Anthony Tommasini" as "Arturo Toscanini".......
The only real difference is, top classical musicians are no longer mainstream stars. Of course, even in the golden age, only a tiny minority were stars. The rest may have had jobs that are mostly gone today, but they were mainly low-paying jobs with long hours.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: