 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Kurt Masur interviewed on Tony Rose PBS show last night posted by DWPC on May 22, 2002 at 09:35:02:
Masur was a competent conductor in NY, with not much to say. His successor, Maazel, will be even more so. I cannot believe that an orchestra like the NYP survives serving up warhorse repertoire. Old conductors, with old ideas. I'll say this: I don't expect much from live performances, and I'm never dissappointed. They should bring in Gerard Schwarz, Marin Alsop, Paavo Jarvi or some young Scandinavian to get the intellectual and emotional juices flowing again in this venerable corpse of an orchestra.Masur had 10 years to complete whatever he had in mind. He clearly didn't have much other than transposing Leipzig into the big city.
Follow Ups:
Lorin Maazel, unless he has mellowed since his Cleveland days, will not last very long in NY. It's interesting Masur mentioned "arrogance" amongst the European musicians- The NYPO has been the most-notorious for that in the US. I can picture a clash of egos between Maazel and the NYPO.My problem with Maazel personally is he tries to come off as "flashy" to the audience- As if he was the most-important part of the concert. Many concertgoers in Cleveland couldn't stand him. OTOH, unlike his predecessor Christoph von Dohnanyi, Maazel preserved, if not enhanced, the "Szell sound" of the Cleveland Orchestra. But he is not exactly a paragon of interpretation, save for some modern composers such as Respighi and Ravel.
Masur touched on that...said that in his tenure he had broken through the "prima donna" barrier that most of the NYPO had when he arrived and developed a strong working relationship with most of the orchestra. He implied that NYPO management was the major problem; trying to impose itself on artistic decisons and interposing itself between him and the musicians. In '97, when he learned they wanted him to "retire" in 2000, he suggested that NYPO immediately recruit a young associate conductor so there could be continuity instead of a sharp turn-over. This idea was rejected.Isn't it more typical of the really successful conductors that they be showmen too; Stokowski, Bernstien, Karajan. Perhaps Masur was too workmanlike in his manner; a NY conductor NEEDS a big ego. It will be interesting to see if Maazel can introduce the strict Szell-style discipline to NYPO that he successfully reintroduced in Cleveland.
There are so few young conductors of note, it's a gamble for an orchestra with an established support base. Cleveland is taking such a gamble with Franz Welser-Most... It will be very interesting to see how he's received in what I think is still a musically-demanding audience.New York opted for a long-established maestro. The Maazel-New York marriage will be interesting too.
Masur was recommending more of a long apprenticeship. Recruit the musical talent, and develop the leadership and people skills over a period of years.In todays orchestra environment of frustrated soloists and unions, it takes much more than scoring genius to succeed. Conductors are like generals, the requisite talent is common enough, but its full development and maturation are rare.
I would expect that there are always very few "young conductors of note" because the term is almost an oxymoron. No disrespect to youth intended, but as with any senior executive position, it takes a very long time to gain the breadth of skills necessary to be a successful conductor. The occasional genius appears, but I think we'd be (or perhaps already are) foolish to expect thirty-something conductors to have the requisite depth of skills to carry a major orchestra.
and he doesn't (at least he hasn't recorded) ANYTHING by contemporary composers as far as I know. That said, looking at the NYP program for 2002/3, he is conducting:"The Enchanted Wanderer" (Shchedrin) -- a NYP Commission)
Penderecki Adagio (from Sym. 4)
Rozsa Violin Concerto (NYP Premiere)
Knussen Sym.4 (NYP Commission)
Varese "Ameriques"
Bolcom "Ragomania" (NYP Premiere)
Kernis "Simple Songs" (NYP Premiere)This is not so bad. It has GOT to be harder for a conductor to make himself the center of attention for new, unknown music that -- if well performed -- will require EVERY bit of attention from the audience merely to succeed as music. I'd REALLY like to see him (and the orchestra) RECORD some of this stuff!
I got the impression from Masur's comments that NYPO was committing to too many new compositions based on $$ from patrons, not content, and to the detriment of his developing the orchestra. He feels much of the new stuff was mediocre.
based on his own deeply conservative, Central European, standards? That's a tough one to call. New commissions aren't written "for the conductor" or "for the audience". This has been a tricky thing historically as well. Many composers had their creations "rejected" by orchestras or conductors. Many of these works found other outlets for performance, and entered the repertoire. That composers like Howard Hanson and even Samuel Barber, both deeply Romantic, have NOT truly permeated the "standard repertoire", concisely illustrates the fact that nobody -- not audiences, conductors or management -- really knows what "they want" outside of the Top 100.It boils down to opinion, I guess. In the same way that you and I may have different appetites for new/experimental music (there are surely some new pieces I hate, but I'm also assuming there are some new pieces you enjoy), Masur has his priorities and agenda, and so does NYP management. I think the audiences, themselves, are divided in opinion.
In the end, I think none of us wants classical music to atrophy. I don't believe that the key to reinvigorating the genre (or an orchestra) rests in merely recycling 100 year old music -- we agree on that, right? It's also probably unrealistic to expect contemporary composers to "write another New World Symphony" either stylistically or for the sole purpose of "audience acceptance". They are artists, and they are going to write what they feel (the good ones, anyway). Lots of people are purchasing the pseudo-classical mutterings of Billy Joel and Paul McCartney, and the performances of artists like Bocelli, Brightman and Church, but I'd hate to think that these audiences will EVER have this much influence -- although it looks like they are starting to.
No matter what, the audiences for classical are greatly diministed...GREATLY. Fragmentation among what remains is just another nail in the coffin.
"nobody -- not audiences, conductors or management -- really knows what "they want" outside of the Top 100."Excellent point, and this is precisely why it is the COMPOSER'S job to figure that one out. Let them write, play the stuff, and let time sort the good from the bad.
DWPC and I have gone around about modern music before. I like modern stuff the best and think it's rather underrepresented in much programming (but getting better), DWPC complains that it's all that's being played. Opinions and perception, I guess.
One question for DWPC--Can you name a single composer who has emerged in the last 100 years whose music you actually enjoy?
dh
Hmmm...starting in 1902? Does Dvorak make the cut? DeBussy? Ravel, Prokofiev, Warlock, Bruch, Copland, Laurindsen, Saint Saens, Hovhaness (just a bit); I'm sure I'm leaving some out. Ask me about the last fifty years, though, and the list shrinks to a handful.I see from other posts that you're an accomplished musician. I never got much past the hack stage. I believe well skilled musicians percieve music much differently than we mere listeners, and seem far more receptive to contemporary compositions; probably because a musician can discern the structure, complexity and technique of the musical line more readily, and appreciates its intrinsic difficulty.
My wife weaves. When she sees the work of another weaver, she sees a textile. She inspects the yarn, the dye, the way its warped. The appearance of the pattern is secondary to its complexity and composition. She doesn't much care whether its a tapestry, or a shawl, or an abstract work with no function or whether the whole is appealing to a layman. I've seen some gawd-awful looking things win major weaving awards. I, however, do see a full tapestry or rug and I judge it on its appeal as a whole. Regardless of the weaver's skill, I'm never going to like a tapestry that looks like a shaggy tangle of cloth hung on a clothesline.
I believe contemporary composers are using their highly refined skills and talent to produce contrived entanglements; if you get the analogy.
Most contemporary classical music will have future music scholars shaking their heads and saying, "What were they thinking? ...so much talent squandered on superficiality". Another generation of this tonal bungee-jumping may well kill off the American symphony orchestra for good.We have Salonen here in LA. Scandinavians are wonderful technicians, but who wants their orchestra to be a Volvo?
Was your original point just a gripe against contemporary classical music? If so, I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
