Vinyl v Digital: The Thirty-Five Year Con

[Hailey]

I do not want to spoil the tread's topic, still do you really believe French music is best played by "French" Orchestra by default?

 

By default? Certainly not. The orchestras of France tend to be...well, let's just say uneven. (Of course, the Boston Symphony is an American orchestra.)

 

That said, I do think, in certain very distinctive cases, orchestras do have a certain affinity for certain types of music, often times, although not always, defined by nationality.

 

How does that work as a practical matter?

 

Well, imagine an individual instrumentalist with a particularly sympathy for a particular composer. That's not hard to imagine, right? Now, sometimes that affinity is the result of, well, wiring. Nature. But other items, it's influenced by training. The teacher. The culture.

 

Now imagine an entire orchestra made up of individual instrumentalists all of whom have the same affinity for the same composer or "school" of composition. The conductor doesn't have to teach such an orchestra how to play a piece that falls within its "affinity group." All of the individual musicians act in concert, as one.

 

That's not going to happen by nature. But by nurture? You bet.

 

I should add, it doesn't happen nearly so much as it used to: Nowadays, most orchestras are made up of interchangeable parts. But that distinctiveness can still be found in those ensembles that consciously work to maintain and perpetuate a certain distinctive culture.

 

Two specific examples:

 

When I was a music student, I attended a NY Philharmonic concert in Central Park with a fellow music student, a friend from Germany. The orchestra was playing a Strauss waltz--I can't even remember which one--and my friend got angrier and angrier. I remember him sputtering "Americans have no idea what they are playing when they play Strauss. The Vienna Philharmonic, which is a much better orchestra, knows how to play Strauss."

 

I thought he was just being a bigot. Later, when I heard the Vienna play Strauss at a concert in London, I heard what he meant. That whisper of a tug on the third beat...it's hard to get just right so it's not exaggerated yet not only imagined. Whatever it was, it was magical...and effortless. It just sounded innate.

 

Vienna, of course, goes to extremes. Not only does it train its own musicians, its wind and brass players play instruments used nowhere else. But the point is, it's an orchestra steeped in its traditions. And you can hear it.

 

Another example, here in the United States, is the Boston Symphony. Most of its members attended its summer music academy at Tanglewood. Over a third graduated from the New England Conservatory across the street from Symphony Hall. As far as I know, all of them studied with a member of the orchestra prior to their successful audition (some believe that is "de rigeur").

 

I don't believe there is an orchestra in this hemisphere that perpetuates its traditions the way the Boston Symphony does. When I was a student at Tanglewood ('79 and '80), well over half of the members of the BSO had played under Koussevitsky (who brought a number of actual French musicians into the orchestra), and Munch, and many had played under Monteaux--not necessarily as members of he BSO but as members of the Berkshire Music Center (as the Tanglewood Music Center was then called) student orchestra. And then there was Ozawa himself, as a Tanglewood student himself the conducting protege of Charles Munch. (Forget the Germans: His forte was French.)

 

I don't see how that Francophile tradition could be as strong as it once was, but the BSO still maintains those transmission belts of tradition. And when we're talking about the BSO circa 1973, yes, we are taking about a rather singular enterprise: One of the rare late-twentieth century ensembles with a distinct, idiosyncratic, personality rooted in a self-reinforcing loop of personnel and culture.

 

By any technical measure, today's Boston Symphony is certainly a "better" orchestra than its 20th century version(s). In fact, I'm not sure there's a better orchestra to be found anywhere. And, again, the BSO works to maintain its distinctive culture, in a way no other orchestra in this hemisphere can. But the inertial forces of global homogenization are such that it's probably a bit more generic, as well.

 

In conclusion, yes, any great orchestra can play a great concert. All things being equal, however, I'll choose to hear Strauss played by Vienna, Brahms played by Berlin, and Ravel played by Boston.

 

 

 

[N.B. In fairness, I should add that I once used that line "world's greatest French orchestra" on a former teacher of mine who had been a principal player in the BSO. I could tell from the look that flashed on her face that it annoyed her...whether because she thought it was diminishing the orchestra with faint praise or because she thought it was an idiotic observation...or both...I'll never know. But Bernard Holland of NYTimes later wrote the same thing, so at least there's that...]

[Hailey]

It is clear that you love the Boston Symphony, and for good reason. It is a remarkable institution, a great orchestra with a great tradition that also has the good fortune to play in one of the world's greatest concert halls.

 

Local fan boy that I am, I am just as impressed, if not more so, with my own Philadelphia Orchestra, which I believe has traditions just as deep and comparable to, but different from, the BSO. Those were developed in a long span starting in the early 20th Century under only 4 Music Directors: Stokowski, Ormandy, Muti and Sawallisch. I think you will find consistent references in out-of-town concert reviews to a unique "Philadelphia Sound", even today under Yannick Nezet-Seguin, who we all absolutely adore. That nuanced sound, primarily of the strings, owes a great deal to the Orchestra's long traditional ties to the great Curtis Institute of Music in downtown Philly. A majority of our players, especially string players, went to school there.

 

But, is it a nationalistic sound? No, I do not think so. It works for Rachmaninoff or Brahms, Beethoven or Sibelius, Shostakovich or Jennifer Higdon, etc. It worked beautifully under Charles Dutoit, Principal Conductor for a time, in Debussy or Berlioz. It has also worked outstandingly for guest conductors of many different nationalities with music from many different countries.

 

Especially today, a certain nationalistic sound is a false stereotype, more than anything else, stemming from the myths of past traditions. Orchestras and conductors cannot limit their repertoire along nationalistic lines. They cannot be easily pigeon holed, as they perhaps once were. Audiences demand that diversity, as well. And, the orchestra members themselves come from increasingly diverse backgrounds, mostly multi-ethnic American for US orchestras.

 

I also think that you have underemphasized the role of the conductor in shaping a particular performance and in getting a certain sound out of the orchestra. I think the "French Sound" you refer to with the BSO, may have more to do with RCA producers emphasizing French repertoire under Monteaux and Munch in the recordings made and released than with the actual sound and playing style of the orchestra. So, the myth was established. And, audiences, in their superficial, but false, "wisdom", loved to believe that LPs by Munch featuring his BSO sound were more authentically French than anyone else.

 

But, I do not buy that line of reasoning with any conductor or orchestra. If they are good, they must transcend that, and many do. So, do I love Bernard Haitink conducting Shostakovich with the Concertgebouw? Do I find it better than a lot of Russian orchestras with Russian conductors? You bet. The list goes on and on.

 

And, the BSO may be great, but take this, you Boston snob: the Philadelphia Orchestra is waay better. Actually, we had our very rough spots under Eschenbach, but we dearly love what Nezet-Seguin is doing. And, he is signed for the next 10 years, shuttling also to the Met in NYC. I do also admire the BSO's Nelsons, and I expect great things from him. I will mention a favorite BD video I have from the Lucerne Festival of him conducting the Concertgebouw in the Shostakovich 8th. Highly recommended.

 

The sad thing about it all is that today we do not have the steady flow of great recordings, especially of great American orchestras, like we did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. That has dwindled even as recorded quality today is, in my opinion, much better than ever. So, unfortunately, I do not get the quantity of BSO releases, or others, I would love to have. Oh, well, there is always Ivan Fisher with the Budapest Festival Orchestra on Channel Classics or the Concertgebow on RCO Live. And, they are immensely enjoyable in hi rez multichannel, which is easily the best recorded sound of my lifetime.

 

Actually, I'm not from Boston, but I did spend formative time at Tanglewood, and lived in Boston for several years. So there will always be a nostalgia factor.

 

But I've been to more concerts NY Phil, LA Phil, and Chicago Symphony. I've only heard Philly once, live, in Carnegie Hall. Great orchestra for sure.

 

But, yes BSO is one of my favs, although only in the last three or four years would I have ranked it among the very best.

 

Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with you about Philadelphia. It's still a great orchestra--and I hope it always will be--but...

 

I think finances play a role. BSO is the most heavily endowed orchestra in the world, the Pops are a cash cow, and Tanglewood is the American Salzburg. The salaries are good and the quality of life in and around Boston is hard to beat...so long as you're ok with snow.

 

When Moennig closed shop in Philly that was a sad day, end of an era. Curtis is still going strong though. But some wonder about the strength of Philly's commitment to the orchestra.

 

I have no idea about that or opinion on the matter.

 

As for record producers shaping the sound. I suppose there's that but, I can tell you from personal experience that the BSO players in my day acutely felt that sense of tradition, culture, what made Boston different. That's what drove it. Not saying other orchestras didn't (or don't) have that but I guess it's a matter of degree.

 

As for music directors shaping the sound...well, yeah, that's huge. But if the players aren't willing to go along...

 

That's why they bounced Erich Leinsdorff out there and how Ozawa settled in for waaaay to long.

 

By the time he left, everybody was ready for a new direction. Levine began steering the ship in a more Germanic direction...Nelsons follows apace.

[Hailey]

I am sure you know Koussevitsky was Russian Jew and Ozawa was from Japan. Many great American conductors (and musicians in orchestras) were from Central or Eastern Europe. Many great performers of modern time are coming from such different places as China, former USSR, Latin America and so on. Some of my preferred recordings of Schubert are originated not only in Austria, but in UK or France, Beethoven not only in Germany, but in Holland, Belgium or Scandinavia, Bach in Japan, Mahler in UK or US, and so on.

 

If we are speaking about deep national and cultural performing traditions, it was popular belief that Russian music is played best by Russians. I thought I never heard 5th and 6th Tchaikovsky Symphonies performed better than did Mravinsky/Leningrad on early DG mono. But now I cherish wonderful Jansons/Oslo set and some other great non-native recordings. My choice of Tchaikovsky violin and piano concertos is from those played by Western musicians. My favorite Rachmaninov 3d Piano Concerto is by Martha Argerich. Others top Rachmaninov 3d pianists in my personal list are not Russians as well (only Rachmaninov himself). Argerich gives astonishing Prokofiev and Ravel(!) Concertos too. Many believe top Shostakovich Quartets set is from Borodin Quartet, but Shostakovich himself was very particular towards recordings by Fitzwilliam SQ.

 

P.S.: Thank you for extended comments.

 

Completely agree. I would have phrased that concluding paragraph differently if I hadn't been thumbing it out on a smartphone.

[Hailey]

There is no question that finances play a huge role. And, Philly is weak in that regard, as are many other symphony orchestras. No one will ever catch up to the BSO endowment in that area. However, that does not guarantee artistic success.

 

So, finances do not really tell the story. Quite frankly, as non-BSO subscribers or attendees, the reaction of all my classical-loving friends and I from afar about the really lengthy Ozawa era in Boston was a huge shrug of the shoulders. We just do not understand from our perspective how and why this went on and on. We base that primarily on the available discography, and few of us have any cherished Ozawa/BSO recordings of any note from that era. I also heard many syndicated BSO concerts on FM hosted by the legendary William Pierce, whose Bostonian stuffiness I could not stand, but tolerated. I listened, but I was seldom impressed by the music itself under Ozawa. It was not bad, but ...

 

I grant you, the same could easily be said of the 10-year Muti era in Philadelphia. I have no cherished recordings from then, nor was I personally ever a big fan of his at that early stage of his career. Actually, I was not that impressed later either. Frankly, I was glad to see Muti replaced by Wolfgang Sawallisch, who I thoroughly and deeply enjoyed live countless times. Sawallisch, the consummate, humble musician, became deeply loved by concert goers in Philly in a way that Muti never achieved, his youthfulness, "Maestro" hairdo and his appeal to the ladies notwithstanding.

 

In any case, there are those conductors we love, and those we do not. It is really tough to get the right guy to perform magic in the concert hall these days, which seemed a less formidable task in the days of Stokowski, Toscanini, Beecham, Reiner, Solti, Szell, Von Karajan, Bernstein, and many, many others. Sir Simon Rattle, though I deeply admire him, had not become the superstar icon I expected in Berlin, for example. I think the decline of classical music recording in general may be the issue. I wish him every success at the LSO.

 

We we do not have the old fashioned "giants" we used to have. But, I am greatly impressed by the sheer musicianship of many of today's younger conductors and Music Directors, Yannick Nezet-Seguin being at the very top of my list from his totally well deserved, world-class perch atop both the Met and the Philadelphia Orchestras.

 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of other guys now who I just do no get, starting with Gergiev, Paavo Jaarvi, Thielemann, and others.

 

Time will tell.

 

Yep. You're right. Finances in and of themselves are no guarantee of artistic success.

 

But they sure can help.

 

The Ozawa years. What a mess. From 1985 until about 2000, the BSO was an artistically depleted enterprise. Capable of greatness, but as often as not just checked out. As an ensemble, I don't think it was playing consistently in the same league as its "peer orchestras"...eg, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco

 

The problem was that the orchestra lost respect for Ozawa as a musician but the Trustees loved him: He was great for the bottom line. The BSO's monster endowment bloomed under Ozawa. The orchestra was getting worse and worse, but the players were getting better and better (as they are everyplace: the proficiency needed to land a job in any orchestra nowadays is almost beyond reason.)

 

And Ozawa did do things that music directors should do but, too often, don't. At least not the big time music directors. For one thing, he didn't take a second gig. He became a member of the community, a fixture at Red Sox games, a suburban homeowner, part of the local fabric. (Will Andris Nelsons become a Patriots fan? Somehow I doubt it).

 

Another thing--on balance, a very good thing--Ozawa, like Bernstein, took Tanglewood, and his role as an educator, very seriously. When he left the BSO, he left the orchestra in artistic disrepair, but Tanglewood an institution without peer.

 

Ok so now they have a guy who's pretty good, although he's splitting his time, roughly 70/30 (or maybe it's 65/35 with Leipzig. I don't think he's the best out there: I'm with you on Yannick, for example. But he's probably good enough.

 

In fact, I wonder if the orchestra musicians might prefer it that way. I'm just speculating here but a funny thing happened during the Levine years: The inmates sort of took over the asylum. By that I mean, during the two year interregnum between Ozawa and Levine and the two year (or whatever it was) interregnum between Levine and Nelsons (and for much of Levine's tenure, for that matter; the guy was so often indisposed) a committee of players took charge of holding auditions, filling seats...and, yes, shaping the sound of the orchestra. Stuff that falls under the music director's purview.

 

But I have no idea how that plays out now.

 

My guess is they won't f**k things up in Boston, but who knows. The only thing I do know is that right now they're playing frightfully well.

[Hailey]

I quite agree. Music is the international language. Great conductors, performers and orchestras can come from most anywhere, including many nations without a well established classical music tradition. Surprises abound, often unexpectedly. And, classical music is, or should be, open to a wide range of interpretation in performance.

 

A performance must be judged in musical terms, not the nationalistic ones of the past. An open mind is essential in listening. Nationality labels play with our minds and interfere with our appreciation of the music performance itself on its own terms.

 

I don't welcome a homogenized world, although the inertial forces of globalization are pulling us in that direction. Orchestras are sounding more alike and I'm not at all sure that's a good thing.

 

I think art should be infused by the region and culture in which it's created. Civilization is richer and stronger for that.

[Hailey]

But aren't Orchestras only a vehicle, the instrument that is used to "materialise" the score (itself the art)?

 

Should Bruckner's 7th sound Czech, Berlinese, Bostononian or Peterburghese depending on who is playing or directing and where?

 

(not that I have a definite opinion on the subject)

 

R

 

Well that's an excellent question. I don't believe there's any one right answer to it.

 

But I don't think performers are "player pianos." I think they collaborate with the composer, bringing their own perspective to the notes on the page.

 

I do think one can take regional/cultural affinity too far. There's no reason someone from, say, Venezuela can't bring new life and new insight to the work of Sibelius.

 

Oh the other hand, as I think about it, the legendary performances of Sibelius' violin concerto are credited to Heifetz and Oistrakh, not Francescatti and Szering.

 

When I heard Dudamel lead the LAPhil in Sibelius' second symphony, I found it emotionally overwrought. Just off kilter. On the other hand, his Mahler can be exciting.

 

Is that just a function of marketing? I don't think that theory gives performers, or culture, enough credit.

[Hailey]

Well that's an excellent question. I don't believe there's any one right answer to it.

 

But I don't think performers are "player pianos." I think they collaborate with the composer, bringing their own perspective to the notes on the page.

 

I do think one can take regional/cultural affinity too far. There's no reason someone from, say, Venezuela can't bring new life and new insight to the work of Sibelius.

 

Oh the other hand, as I think about it, the legendary performances of Sibelius' violin concerto are credited to Heifetz and Oistrakh, not Francescatti and Szering.

 

When I heard Dudamel lead the LAPhil in Sibelius' second symphony, I found it emotionally overwrought. Just off kilter. On the other hand, his Mahler can be exciting.

 

Is that just a function of marketing? I don't think that theory gives performers, or culture, enough credit.

 

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think I'm describing a world that no longer exists. Like it or not (I don't: I think something is lost in the process), globalization has brought about an emerging global culture.

 

Also, I misspelled Szeryng.