 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-19 16:44
Kaplan gets publicity for the music that he loves, and that we love.
For that alone we must thank him.
If there were a few more self-publicists like him in the music world, it would be a better place, not a worse one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-19 17:11
I think it is more complex than that.
Is this the sort of publicity that music/arts organizations really want? The NY Phil is one of the world's great musical institutions. I doubt that everyone on their governance board was thrilled with the publicity that hiring an untrained, uneducated businessman would bring to their organization.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-19 17:40
Well, Kaplan is not uneducated, was interviewed by Charlie Rose, and.....gave quite a bit of financial support to the orch. pension fund. I agree with Norbert.
What orch. management would turn down such a benefactor?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-19 17:43
Brycon - the LSO and the VPO have recorded Mahler 2 with Kaplan without apparent ill-effect to their reputations. I don't see why one performance with him is going to damage the NY Phil.
Even if it does cause some tiny passing dip in the NY Phil's reputation, I think this will be far out-weighed by the benefits he brings to the wider reputation of classical music.
To reach out to the wider public, classical music can do two things:
- It can put on performances of popular classics and cross-overs. The 1812 and Paul McCartney.
- It can put on performances of the real masterworks of the repertoire, of which Mahler 2 is one, and do something to make them newsworthy.
I much prefer the latter approach, and that is what Kaplan is doing.
It's also a little unfair to call Kaplan an "untrained, uneducated businessman". He is genuinely knowledgeable about the work, and I assume he received a good deal of professional advice before he first lifted a baton in public. Of course he doesn't do as good a job as Rattle or the late-lamented Tennstedt, but I suspect he does no worse a job than many professional conductors of obscure provincial orchestras.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-19 18:14
I'm curious about the LSO and VPO: I had read somewhere that they were ran by the players in the orchestra. Is this true?
Bob,
Kaplan is uneducated. I have read a lot of books on baseball and baseball players and even had a few batting lessons- do you think the Yankees would let me play for them? Maybe if I donated money?
Norbert,
I completely disagree with your assertion that music/art has to pander to the public for support. The Metropolitan Opera does not play pops concerts nor does it have Gilbert Kaplans guest conduct for newsworthiness. Yet they are doing well. There is something to be said of competitively priced tickets, great advertising, exciting musical directors, community outreach, et cetera.
Along the lines of something Ben Redwine was saying in another thread: the state of music education in America is abysmal. I think this is the main factor in the aging of concert-goers. I recently saw a very interesting lecture that analyzed the correlation between the age of concert-goers and the end of skill-based arts education in the public schools of NYC. Kaplan conducting does nothing for the overall state of the arts; Kaplan donating money does.
Just a few more points to discuss:
There are some good ways to achieve media attention: the NY Phil's trip to North Korea for instance.
Creating a media buzz was not necessary to put on a financially successful concert. The NY Phil sells out concerts many nights, especially with large pieces like the Mahler 2.
Kaplan- and if there are others like him- are taking away opportunities from young, talented, and educated conductors/musicians.
Post Edited (2008-12-19 18:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-19 18:37
The LSO and VPO are both self-governing. I don't know how rare this is among orchestras.
...........
I think we are agreed that we would like to see more people going to concerts. And we would like these to be concerts of varied, worthwhile music, not endless repeats of the "popular classics".
Do we agree on that?
Then orchestras have to reach out to a wider public. They have to say to the public, not just "We are playing Mahler 2 tonight, it's a really cool piece, you should come and hear it", but also "and there's a good, newsworthy reason you should come tonight, not just file it away on the list of things to do some time." Kaplan is one technique they can use; there are others. Personally I'd like to see more concerts where the conductor talks to the audience, explains the piece before playing it, but that idea never seems to have caught on.
I don't think visiting North Korea will have the same publicity effect. Nobody is going to say, "Well, I don't normally go to classical concerts, but since the orchestra visited North Korea last month, I think I'll go and hear them tonight."
I don't doubt that the NY Phil can sell out a Mahler 2 concert without the help of Kaplan. But that's not the point of a Kaplan concert. You don't invite Kaplan so as to ensure a full house for Mahler 2. You invite Kaplan to lure NEW audience members, who will then return and give you full houses on other nights, with other repertoire and other (no doubt more skilled) conductors.
Finally, I don't buy the argument that every concert conducted by Kaplan is one fewer conducted by up and coming talent. I don't think the NY Phil invites too many young unknowns, does it? (I may be wrong on this point.) But even if it does, I don't care. What classical music needs is more audience members, not more conductors. If the occasional young genius never gets his big break because Kaplan gets the gig in his place, that's very sad for the young genius in question. But I'd rather we had fuller houses and slightly fewer geniuses. Think about it, when did you last hear anyone say "The number one thing wrong with classical music today, is that there are no good conductors."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2008-12-19 21:36
Call me dumb, uneducated, or whatever else you want, but I just can't seem to rap my mind around why classical music is only for those who spend their entire lives engrossed in it. It does not seem fair to criticize Kaplan because he is not as good as Maazel, many aren't. If it was a fine performance and the audience enjoyed it, where is the harm being done? It seems as though, to put it plainly, Finlayson is being quite snobbish, along with the others in the orchestra who spoke out against him. Yes, these are some of the finest musicians in the world, but that only means they get entire careers of working with the finest conductors in the world. What is one night with a less than desirably maestro in comparison to how ever many hundreds (or thousands) of concerts they will play in their lifetimes? Kaplan genuinely loves the Mahler 2nd, I say no harm, no foul.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-19 21:48
brycon wrote:
> Kaplan- and if there are others like him- are taking away
> opportunities from young, talented, and educated
> conductors/musicians.
Not really. The guy only conducts one piece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-19 22:01
I have no doubts that Gilbert Kaplan has contributed a great deal to the arts since he has a great love of music and is rich enough to give substantial sponsorships, but he has not contributed anything to the art of conducting. He has come as far as any mediocre amateur can get but he simply has no talent for conducting.
I have played Mahler 2 with him twice. Both times he gave exactly the same instructions because that’s what he has been told to do. His teachers have pointed out the spots to keep in mind and he just parrots what they have told him.
The only new audiences I have seen in these concerts are people from the business world and the Queen who apparently is a good friend of his. Only a few seats were left to ‘normal’ people. I strongly object to that charlatans like him enter a podium in professional venues. They can contribute with their money but stay out of the process of the arts. Not even Avery Fisher conducted the N.Y. Phil as far as I know.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-12-19 22:18
Alphie wrote:
> Not even Avery Fisher conducted the N.Y. Phil as far as I know.
But we might be listening to the NYPO through his speakers. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
Seroiusly...With the current price of NYPO tickets, one has to seriously weigh the cost of seeing/hearing the NYPO led with an amateur conductor...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-19 22:55
Mrn,
Kaplan can conduct 2 pieces: Mahler 2 and the Adagietto of Mahler 5. Give the guy some credit
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2008-12-19 22:56
Whatever the merits of the various points of view being put forth here, it's worth keeping in mind--is it not?--that the initial objections to Mr. Kaplan's appearance came from members of the orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2008-12-19 23:16
Read the NYPO trombonist's blog http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes/, which clearly describes the disaster. Kaplan is a joke, and the Times reviewer is either incompetent or deeply dishonest. and probably both.
OK, the guy loves music and gives away barrels of money. If the Philharmonic auctioned off the right to conduct, say, the first movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, that would be fine. It's short and easy, and nobody would expect it to be good. To give a buffoon an entire concert and hundreds of real musicians is disgraceful.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-20 00:03
brycon wrote:
<<Mrn,
Kaplan can conduct 2 pieces: Mahler 2 and the Adagietto of Mahler 5. Give the guy some credit>>
OK, 2 pieces (or a piece and a "piece of a piece"). My point was that he isn't causing anybody else to be out of a conducting job by only conducting one or two pieces (on a roughly semiannual basis).
They still need somebody to conduct everything else!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marshall
Date: 2008-12-20 00:17
>Yes, these are some of the finest musicians in the world, but that only
>means they get entire careers of working with the finest conductors in the
>world. What is one night with a less than desirably maestro in comparison to
>how ever many hundreds (or thousands) of concerts they will play in their
>lifetimes?
Very, very few musicians spend their entire careers with an orchestra of the NYP's caliber. They spend a good portion of their careers getting to that point, and getting to that point should come with perks, like not playing with untrained conductors...that's for youth orchestras. Many of the musicians in that orchestra worked for most of their lives to get where they are. They are exceptionally dedicated and have spent countless hours of time practising their instruments, not to mention they all possess more raw talent than 95% of the population. Why should an untrained, uneducated, talentless man with a ton of money have the right to conduct them, when they've sacrificed everything to get where they are?
Also...I think weberfan raises a very good point. It would be one thing if it were a bunch of outside musicians raising the initial fit about it...but it was the orchestra he was conducting that spoke out about it in the first place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-12-20 00:18
Now, if we could only combine everything - Kaplan pays for the orchestra and hall and has a young, competent conductor work on and conduct Mahler 2 with them after being able to look at the original manuscript and work with experts on the nuances ...
I've got a son who works in the Tokyo area as a conductor - he'd be more than happy to work with Kaplan and conduct the NHK, Tokyo Symphony, Tokyo Phil, or any of the other fine orchestras in the area.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-20 00:22
Mrn,
My last post got cut short for some reason- I was only joking.
Norbert,
American orchestras are not governed by the musicians (at least not major ones). I cannot speak for the NY Phil's board, but I imagine the musicians have only a little (if any) say in what the board does. If a self governing orchestra invites an amateur to conduct their organization, the musicians (or at least the leaders) know what they are getting into.
I agree that more concert attendees (especially younger ones) is great. I do not see how inviting an amateur conductor- and I use the word conductor liberally- to conduct a top notch orchestra will draw in more audience members. I do not think someone that has never been to a NY Phil concert will be enticed by the prospect of seeing an amateur conduct, and then be so enthralled that he/she will become NY Phil patrons.
NY Phil going to Korea was very big: front page of the Times, on many US and international news programs. I doubt Mehta and company only had soft diplomacy in mind with their trip. Kaplan's media buzz is nothing in comparison.
I believe Kaplan may take opportunities away; it is not any stretch of the imagination. Not necessarily a job, but an opportunity to conduct in front of a great orchestra which may lead to a review, work later on, et cetera. At the very least he is taking the opportunity of hearing this great work interpreted by an artist away from many listeners.
I do not think this is snobbishness or that any of the orchestra members complaining are snobbish. The NY Phil is a great institution; its members have studied and practiced for years. They have a sense of artistic integrity and pride in their organization. Many other elite institutions would be in uproar if a hack/amateur powered his way into the profession.
Post Edited (2008-12-20 01:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-20 11:32
What's that old saying about a "gift horse".....
I wonder what any of those NY dissenters would do if Kaplan offered them the loan of a fine Guarnieri or Strad.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-12-20 11:55
Many years ago, I played in a local adult concert band that was quite good. Most of the members were music teachers or very serious amateurs, and we played some very difficult literature. Our conductor wasn't the best, but he was a serious musician with a PhD in music. Then, there was the assistant conductor--a wealthy businessman who would come in to conduct on occasion. He was a jolly fellow who had played in his well-known college band, but let's just say that his conducting left a lot to be desired. We weren't always happy when he conducted, but he did contribute a lot of money to the band.
After this businessman had conducted portions of several of our programs, we were quite surprised to learn what he had done for us. Thanks to his connections, he arranged to have Victor Borge appear in concert with us. It was really an unforgettable evening. Borge was a decent conductor, and he was such a nice (and very funny) man. None of this would have happened without our assistant conductor.
Many US symphony orchestras are in trouble. Speaking as a loyal orchestra supporter, we need to do everything possible to obtain more support for orchestras. I know that the NY Phil members might not like it, but Kaplan sounds like a sincere man (and he is hardly a regular conductor of the group). Who knows? He may one day be able to do something fantastic for them. And, without sounding morbid, be may leave a lot for them in his will.
On a related note, some of you mentioned the sorry state of music education in the US. I taught music in a large school district for many years. Without going into a lot of detail, music education is almost gone from my former district. Because of financial pressures and the ridiculous No Child Left Behind Act, many districts across the country are neglecting music education. Very sad, but true.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-20 18:17
Norbert wrote: "Kaplan gets publicity for the music that he loves, and that we love.
For that alone we must thank him.
If there were a few more self-publicists like him in the music world, it would be a better place, not a worse one."
I have some problems with an opinion like that.
First off, who's to say that this kind of publicity is somehow worthwhile--or, rather, at all worthy--compared to the kind of publicity generated by a truly, genuinely good performance of the work? I am certain that there are many, many conductors that are, in fact, more qualified and would give a better performance. Why is Kaplan suddenly qualified to work with an orchestra of this caliber? Because he's enthusiastic about the piece? Unfortunately, it takes FAR MORE than sheer enthusiasm to put together a quality performance--unless you're willing to settle with mediocrity.
Which also begs the question--a high quality conductor (which the NYPO has every right to expect) should be able to establish some kind of rapport with their musicians; if they are a jackass then at least you would hope that they excel as a musician. By all accounts from the orchestra, Mr. Kaplan seems to have failed.
Secondly-- if we were to rely on "self-publicists," I think it would be a terrible thing in the music world! The way things work right now are, of course, far from ideal, but at the same time I much prefer to hear someone who is able to let his or her performance speak for itself. So often these "self-publicists" are just incapable of actually producing a top-caliber performance. I don't care who he has recorded the piece with--it doesn't seem that this performance was exceptional, on an occasion where an exceptional performance should be expected.
And finally (this is not related to Norbert's original posting)--I really just don't understand how being an "expert" on the piece translates into a good performance in this case. If members of the orchestra are complaining that the conductor is ignoring details in the score, and even seems unable to keep time reliably, then, it seems, there are some matters of practical experience that are absent. I don't think that it's elitism to expect someone who calls themselves an expert to actually demonstrate their expertise.
Of course an orchestra of this caliber is going to complain, and I agree with them. I think it's a shame to use an amateur as a publicity stunt. If we want to bring in new listeners why don't we rent out some of the principal spots in the NYPO to anybody? Why stick with just the conductors? It's too bad Florence Foster Jenkins isn't alive still, I bet she would have done a wonderful job with the solo at the beginning of the last movement.
How can this possibly be a good thing for the music world?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-20 18:52
A question for Alphie - and for anyone else who has played under the baton of Maestro Kaplan.
How did the performance you played in actually turn out, compared to how it might have been under a professional conductor? That is to say, how did it sound to a well-informed member of the audience, familiar with the work and able to tell a good performance from a poor one?
I have read the blog http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes. It sounded to me like the over-excited rantings of a man with an axe to grind and a blog to fill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2008-12-20 19:03
"I have read the blog http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes. It sounded to me like the over-excited rantings of a man with an axe to grind and a blog to fill."
Let me just say that I've known Dave Finlayson for many years -- 8 of those as a colleague in the NSO. I know him as a level-headed individual and as an absolutely marvelous trombonist, thoroughly professional in every way. Reading his highly literate reaction to being subjected to the amateurish presidings of a would-be-conductor in no way strikes me as "over-excited rantings..."
Indeed, his gutty reaction to the Kaplan situation fulfills the fantasies of many orchestral players who, like me, didn't have the gonads to publicly protest.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-20 19:11
I found it difficult to take the blog very seriously, when it told me that:
"The musicians sit through countless rehearsals of a composition and are able to witness the culmination of careful, skillful study of a score combined with the conductor’s ability to communicate his or her ideas clearly."
Really? The last time you played Mahler 2 with a professional conductor, did you "sit through countless rehearsals"?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-20 19:38
I don't think it's wise in this case to discount the opinions of those who were actually involved in the matter. Who would you take seriously, then?
I found the post regarding Kaplin to a very thoughtfully written point of view. It is certainly quite critical, but if we are to value passion and enthusiasm alongside INTEGRITY, then open criticisms like this are what makes the music world a better place. Why should Kaplin be given ANY benefit of the doubt when the rest of us, who are spending every effort we have are put under all kinds of public scrutiny is beyond me.
I agree in particular with this:
"Much has been written about Mr. Kaplan’s passion for Mahler’s great symphony as if this emotion is unique to him. This assertion is an insult to all professional musicians who have dedicated their entire lives and have sacrificed much toward the preservation of all the great works of history’s finest composers."
Which implies that, yes, unfortunately, it takes more than just loving the music, calling yourself an expert, and throwing money around to pull it off (unless you are satisfied with a mediocre performance).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-20 19:45
MBrad - I would be more inclined to take the blog seriously if it were written seriously. When it makes claims that I don't believe ("countless rehearsals") that diminishes its credibility.
I would also take the blog more seriously if it had concentrated on what the audience heard, rather than what the musicians thought about it. The blog tells us "When musicians are denied that journey, they feel cheated, ..." well, do you know, I don't care. The performance isn't being done for the benefit of the musicians. It's for the benefit of the audience.
Post Edited (2008-12-20 19:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-20 23:09
Norbert wrote:
"MBrad - I would be more inclined to take the blog seriously if it were written seriously. When it makes claims that I don't believe ("countless rehearsals") that diminishes its credibility."
Norbert, I think you should read it more carefully before dismissing its credibility. As far as the "countless rehearsals": you seem to have missed the point. It looks like he was describing the act of preparing for a concert "at its best," in other words an ideal vision of concert preparation to show how far away this experience at hand was for them. I wouldn't be surprised if this trombonist REGULARLY complains about a lack of rehearsals.
I take this post to be one musician's serious opinion on this conductor, certainly worth paying some attention to if we're talking about what he is like; the few blurbs from other musicians in the orchestra don't help Mr. Kaplan's reputation any more.
"I would also take the blog more seriously if it had concentrated on what the audience heard, rather than what the musicians thought about it."
Really? You really expected to find an audience POV in a blog created by a musician from the orchestra? There are already quite a few reviews out there in the newspapers; in fact his posting seemed to be mostly directed AT those reviews to attempt to expose Mr. Kaplan as a charlatan. You can't criticize him for that--in fact I think it's far more rare to find opinions in public from this side of the stage. That would be like saying "I can't take Science News seriously because they don't talk about politics in depth enough."
"The blog tells us 'When musicians are denied that journey, they feel cheated, ...' well, do you know, I don't care. The performance isn't being done for the benefit of the musicians. It's for the benefit of the audience."
1) And what better way to draw the audience into a performance than to have performers drawn in themselves?
2) Maybe you're right, but the audience isn't benefiting from this, even if they don't know it. I'm sure we could put together some cognitive experiment with two audiences who must listen and rate two performances of the same piece: one with Mr. Kaplan and another with, oh any of the talented conductors that work with the NYPO. I'd put money on the other conductor. Isn't this a rationale for the idea of auditioning?
Norbert, I believe it is simply inane to praise him JUST for trying, and insulting to the vast number of musicians that are, in all honestly, are trying harder than Mr. Kaplan. Maybe if it was an 8th grade recital or if he was conducting his local community orchestra playing Mahler 2, most of us would actually be impressed. But this is a milieu that (supposedly) does not accept mediocrity. I'm happy to hear a member of the orchestra express their opinions on the matter. I bet the audience would be, too!
If it's only really all about getting the most people to enjoy it, I don't understand why they didn't just cancel the show and rent the hall to the latest "it" band. Where is the line? As a musician, we need to be capable of convincing people of our ability to express something; to an audience and to the other musicians on stage. This is *imperative* for the conductor of an orchestra. It seems that Mr. Kaplan failed, probably because of his lack of experience in performance settings. You can't just "will" a name for yourself, call yourself an expert, and expect that the orchestra will fill in the gaps:
and I certainly don't think we should THANK him, as you suggested.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2008-12-20 23:12
From an old cartoon:
A king bought a canary, put it in a gilded cage and hung it in the throne room.
"I refuse to perform as a slave," said the canary, "and inspiration doesn't respond to orders."
The king replied, "Who said anything about slavery or orders? I'm offering you a well-paid job, doing what you love and have trained years to do."
The canary then sang more beautifully than ever.
Moral: The arts have no objection to being patronized.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2008-12-21 00:04
First of all, with the bit about "countless rehearsals" I remember hearing about Carlos Kleiber and his request for (15?) rehearsals of a Beethoven symphony with the Vienna Philharmonic. I wouldn't get into a tizzy about two words in a blog, if I were you. Are YOU the 23-year member of the New York Philharmonic?
"I would also take the blog more seriously if it had concentrated on what the audience heard, rather than what the musicians thought about it. The blog tells us "When musicians are denied that journey, they feel cheated, ..." well, do you know, I don't care. The performance isn't being done for the benefit of the musicians. It's for the benefit of the audience."
Secondly, the benefit of the audience is the ultimate goal. There is SOME benefit, however, that should be passed off on the mere musicians. These musicians are offering their talents to the organization in order to fulfill their maximum potential for music-making. That is what they're being paid to do, and it's all part of why people go to see the NYPO. Conductors, and even Music Directors, come and go, but a large part of that audience will be there throughout to see the ensemble. How is it okay for a donor to hinder their performances?
Arguably, the musicians are the best qualified music critics in the house, so I would trust a among many of them before I would trust the opinion of a single newspaper critic.
Bradley
----Edit-----
I'd like to add that Mr. Finlayson's complaints seem to be directed at the archetypal Gilbert Kaplan, rather than this one occurrence. If people are indeed pandering to Kaplan's money, then their false praise is only harming the education of the public. For the orchestra management to claim that his contributions did not have any bearing on his invitation to conduct worries me. How is that not deceit? Does that mean he was PAID for the Mahler 2 concert? If he was just invited without pay, I find it hard to believe it would be only based on his proclaimed expertise.
One final thought: Is Gilbert Kaplan the Paris Hilton of the classical music world?!
Post Edited (2008-12-21 00:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2008-12-21 01:11
Norbert Said
"The performance isn't being done for the benefit of the musicians. It's for the benefit of the audience"
I wonder if that isn't a matter of perspective. My Uncle is a trumpet player that retired a couple of years ago from the Berlin Philharmonic. When he was younger and in Music school or shortly after music school, my grandfather asked him why he wanted to "do all this music stuff". My Uncle replied "well, to have musical experiences, of course".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-21 01:18
Ken Shaw said:
"... Moral: The arts have no objection to being patronized."
I'm not sure how starved the NYPO might be for money (in comparison to a canary ;-)...
Post Edited (2008-12-21 01:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-21 01:28
Here's an argument to the Finlayson article that a friend forwarded to me:
http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/
Please note, the writer is a self-described "long standing friend and admirer" of Kaplan.
I'm with Mark on this issue: let Kaplan donate all the money he wants, but stay off of the podium. If he has to conduct then start up an orchestra, create some new jobs, and play all the mediocre performances he wants.
Applying maxims like "don't look a gift horse..." etc to Kaplan is a farce. I cannot think of any other elite organization that would allow an uneducated, untalented fan to power their way into the profession.
This, however, is one of those "wedge" issues that is constantly discussed in the art world. How much artistic integrity should one sacrifice for financial benefit?
Post Edited (2008-12-21 01:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-21 11:42
"Please note, the writer is a self-described "long standing friend and admirer" of Kaplan."
And the originator of this series could have the same relationship to the 3rd trombone dissident for all we know. Isn't there some reference to "the 3rd trombone" in one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas?
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-12-21 11:52
Alas, it was Second Trombone. "Secret Crush On The Third Trombone" is probably what I was thinking of.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-12-21 13:57
I'm kind of surprised that this as become so noteworthy and controversial. In the grand scheme of things is it really that big a deal? How many concerts does the NYPO do in a season? 150 give or take? Does one concert really make a difference? So the guy is not qualified to conduct and gave a paltry effort. Big deal.
Some "Big Name" conductors give similar results and are not liked by the musicians they work with. It's the nature of the business. This one concert does not tarnish the NYPO's reputation in my mind although some concerts I have seen on TV and heard on WFMT radio in the past few years with Mazell have.
I have seen some of these discussions talking about "ideals" like what rights musicians have and what they deserve so they can make music. These are all valuable points but at the end of the day, these musicians have a job to do and get paid very well to do it. I would much rather play a bad Mahler 2 then my hours cut at a bolt and fastener factory because GM makes ugly cars that don't sell. The NYPO is the employer and the musicians are the employee. The musicians are lucky and live a blessed life to make music everyday in an ensemble like this. It does not matter how good they are or how hard they worked. Contrary to popular belief by some musicians I have encountered in my life time, musicians don't work any harder than a person picking peaches in California. The only difference is, the person picking peaches in California is lucky and thankful to make 25,000 for the year with no health insurance, elbow deep in pesticide.
Sometimes, musicians need to stop taking themselves so seriously. This is the attitude that is projected to an audience that keeps people away. This is not to say that art music is not serious work. What I am saying is that perspective is an important virtue that some musicians seem to lack. It would be so refreshing to see people make music for the sake of music and not the sake of their own ego's and self importance.
It was one concert and it is over. Interesting though that a discussion has bloomed about it. I guess bad publicity is better than no publicity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-21 14:41
Ryan25 wrote:
"It would be so refreshing to see people make music for the sake of music and not the sake of their own ego's and self importance. "
I think this is *precisely* the criticism that some have raised of Mr. Kaplan. Even if you want to equate the NYPO with industrial labor, I don't think hiring somebody who is incompetent is a good thing in either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bradley
Date: 2008-12-21 15:19
" Contrary to popular belief by some musicians I have encountered in my life time, musicians don't work any harder than a person picking peaches in California. The only difference is, the person picking peaches in California is lucky and thankful to make 25,000 for the year with no health insurance, elbow deep in pesticide."
The only flaw with that argument is......you can't compare the two for a second! Compare 100 of the most qualified doctors, lawyers, teachers with 100 people picking peaches, and hopefully you will see what I mean. Yes, they might not work any harder, but if you think someone picking peaches isn't dreaming every second of working their way up a given "ladder" and of better days to come, then you're wrong. These musicians are the fortunate few at the top of our "ladder", and their specialization came from childhood. With any menial labour force, the terrible conditions are accepted generally because a lack of specialized qualifications enabling them to do better.
Bradley
Post Edited (2008-12-21 15:20)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2008-12-21 15:50
I can't help thinking that there would have been no problem---nor, as far as i can recall, was there a problem---in having Jack Benny or Danny Kaye or Victor Borge, for example---conduct the New York Philharmonic.
The difference between the Kaplan engagement and these others, it seems to me, was that Kaplan's was essentially billed as a standard Mahler concert. (And by the way, I have not checked to see if it was a regular subscription concert or something apart from that.)
With Jack Benny, both the orchestra and the paying public knew precisely what they were getting. And most likely a performance of that kind was intended to raise money for the orchestra fund or for a charitable organization. The orchestra was in on the joke, if you will. The joke being that both the conductor and the orchestra knew who REALLY was boss and who was merely a pretender. The audience knew it, too. And while there may have been those in the orchestra who did not care for this arrangement, by and large I could imagine that it would have been well received by all. In fact, it might have been fun.
In the case of Mr. Kaplan, as many of the above comments attest, it's not entirely clear what one was supposed to make of this concert---whether in the brass section, the audience or as a Monday morning quarterback.
Post Edited (2008-12-21 17:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-12-21 16:48
"I think this is *precisely* the criticism that some have raised of Mr. Kaplan. Even if you want to equate the NYPO with industrial labor, I don't think hiring somebody who is incompetent is a good thing in either."
I definitely don't want to equate the NYPO with industrial labor. That would be silly. I guess my point is this:
It is what it is. It's a job and a wonderful opportunity. I don't see why members of the NYPO are entitled to special treatment or protection from this type of situation just because they have the job that they do. The job is the special treatment. Congrats to all of them and all of the people involved with groups of this calibre because it is quite an accomplishment. But I don't doubt that all of these people or most had a lot of luck along the way which I think ties in with my perspective comment.
I'm sure the Virginia Symphony with their current financial crisis would love to play Mahler 2 for this guy if it came with a donation to the organization.
I'm not trying to support Mr. Kaplan, especially since he seems to fancy himself something more than pedestrian, but orchestras need philanthropic support to survive. It seems that Mr. Kaplan has crossed the line between supporter and "musician" which I agree is a bad thing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2008-12-21 16:56
Suppose Mr. Kaplan didn't have a lot of money. Would anyone give him the time of day? Would any conductor take the time to teach him how ( to pretend) to conduct Mahler 2? Would any orchestra put him on the podium? Would the NY Times write a puff piece about him? Of course not. Mr. Finlayson is the only one involved in this matter who has displayed any integrity.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-21 17:19
I'm sorry to flog this moribund horse, but the blog says, and I cut and paste:
"Members of symphony orchestras truly have an unfair advantage over their audience. The musicians sit through countless rehearsals..."
It doesn't say anything about these mythical rehearsals taking place in an ideal word. It says "The musicians sit", present indicative active.
MBrad, please would YOU read the blog carefully before accusing me of not doing so.
Further to a couple of other points you make:
Yes, I do expect an audience POV. It is the only POV of any interest to me, because it is the only POV that reflects the purpose of a (professional) concert, which is to please the audience. I would not expect a doctor's blog to say "This is a really good drug, because doctors love administering it." I would not expect a farmer's blog to write "People should eat less bread, because wheat is a really dull crop to grow."
The writings of professional critics have their place, but to read an audience POV as written by a member of the orchestra would be of great interest. Shame that the blog misses this opportunity.
Let me give you an example:
- Musician POV, useless information: "Kaplan could not keep time".
- Audience POV, useful information: "Bars 100 to 110 were badly out of time, because the orchestra were unable to follow Kaplan's beat, a problem that would never have occurred with a professional conductor."
And when you say: "I believe it is simply inane to praise him JUST for trying" - I agree that it would indeed be inane, but that is not what I am doing. All I am saying that what Kaplan does is, on balance, good for music. Sure it has its downside, I don't deny that, but on balance it is positive. The management of the NYPhil obviously agree with me, as do the managements of all the other orchestras, including the self-governing LSO and VPO, who have worked with Kaplan. Do you think all these orchestral management teams are inane?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-21 17:31
Ryan25 wrote:
"I don't see why members of the NYPO are entitled to special treatment or protection from this type of situation just because they have the job that they do. The job is the special treatment."
Maybe that's true, but I think the question here is actually more what this job that they have to do is. Like anything, any job if you will, there are certain standards of quality to ensure, and for the NYPO they ideally *should* be able to demand the best quality and integrity from their musicians, conductors included.
Hah, incidentally at this point in my life I think my "industrial labor" might fill as much space on my resume than my professional playing experience--I am certain even at the plastic factory there were some Mr. Kaplans working as supervisors. ;-)
"I'm sure the Virginia Symphony with their current financial crisis would love to play Mahler 2 for this guy if it came with a donation to the organization."
That's interesting--actually, I'd be curious to hear what these musicians would have to say. You're right though--our modern orchestras seem to have certain dilemmas in balancing the need to support themselves as opposed to artistic integrity. Personally, I'd almost prefer a pop-concert-in-the-local-stadium-with-multimedia-presentation-and-light-show; at least that might be fun for some of the musicians, and there's fewer lingering questions about artistic integrity being compromised.
I agree with you: a line was crossed by somebody who fancies themselves as being 'serious' without the know-how. I liked the suggestion somebody else had: he is certainly free to create his own orchestra to do Mahler 2 if he wants to contribute to the music world; some of us might even audition!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-21 17:42
"A question for Alphie - and for anyone else who has played under the baton of Maestro Kaplan.
How did the performance you played in actually turn out, compared to how it might have been under a professional conductor? That is to say, how did it sound to a well-informed member of the audience, familiar with the work and able to tell a good performance from a poor one?"
One condition in order to play a good concert vs. an excellent concert is the level of mutual respect that conductor and orchestra have for each other. Charisma is not so bad either. With a highly trained, charismatic, well educated experienced conductor with musical visions the conditions are good to make an excellent concert and for the musicians to do their very best. With a conductor who apologizes for his inability to keep a steady beat and asks the orchestra for help in this matter does not create good conditions for an excellent concert. It can still be a good concert if the orchestra is excellent, but it can lack the sparkle you would expect from a piece like Mahler 2. Orchestra musicians are humans. They react on human impulses like anyone else. The chemistry between conductor and orchestra is fragile. The conductor has to give the impression of being superior and present visions that makes the humans in the orchestra to go WOW!! This creates respect and a willingness to deliver your very best. If the conductor gives a weak impression and basically just thankful to be invited he’s a lame duck. In this case the orchestra is superior and they have to relay on their professionalism. It does not make such a big difference who’s standing there in order for an excellent orchestra to play professional, but to deliver art with great artistry there must be a healthy relationship between orchestra and conductor with a clear hierarchy.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-21 17:52
Alphie, thank you for your response, but I really had hoped for something a little more specific. You are just telling me how it was the players; you are not telling me the effect on the audience.
I ask again, how was it for the audience - or the well-informed members of the audience - when you played under Kaplan? Was the performance:
- Superb in all respects (clearly, I am not expecting this answer!)
- Technically accurate, but failing to express the emotional content of the work
- Good on emotion, but with many technical shortcomings - passages out of time, missed entries, poor balance and dynamics
- A complete shambles from every point of view.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-21 21:41
Norbert, as I recall the last occasion it comes closest to your second alternative: "Technically accurate, but failing to express the emotional content of the work", except for one accident in the Scherzo movement for a few seconds when half the orchestra followed him and the rest followed the flow of the music. We had not worked out a strategy what we would do if this would happen. He is always constantly slowing down in the Scherzo. But there is more to it than that. Imagine an electric circuit where one plug is out = No Light. The audience doesn’t experience the light under Kaplan in my opinion. They hear the notes and what the orchestra can deliver on its own, but an orchestra is used to have a conductor who is in command and Kaplan is NOT. It’s a bit like driving a car with pedals. Everything feels heavy and you don’t get any help at all.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-12-22 02:24
In order for a symphony orchestra to play at or near it's potential, the person on the podium needs to be the best musician of all musicians on stage. While it's obvious that that does not always end up being the case - and sometimes by slightly wider margins than others, there is, by comparison, a relatively huge distinction to be made between the musicianship of a not ready for prime time guest conductor and a Mr. Kaplan.
The old saw that one shouldn't bother listening to the "divided" or "disgruntled" musicians sounds like something heard from the bygone era of the authoritarian-like oversight by (and not necessarily in this order) conductors, orchestra boards, and critics alike. We performers in the orchestral world have, by profession, consistently proven to have been the most perceptive judges of whom is at the very least a minimally adequate musician since being on the receiving end, collectively, we have the expertise to evaluate the essential qualities that all conductors possess.
This meme forwarded by the critics and press that musicians are *not* capable of such expertise is shockingly misguided, naive, or both - it is the product of over-intellectualizing about something that they can at best only speculate about. The abundance of metaphors about this very thing have already been written about in this very thread. To take the position that the musicians of the orchestra are not adequately informed people to evaluate the ability of a conductor is really to stand logic on it's head.
By anonymously submitted surveys, our opinions are even sought out by managements of our orchestras in order to determine if any given conductor should be asked back - and these surveys are considered by management to be worth their weight in gold. Managements aren't in place to stifle communication about artistic matters, the good ones encourage it.
As professional musicians, we aren't obliged to play under *any* or *every* circumstance. That's why collective bargaining is alive and flourishing amongst the world of American symphony orchestras. We don't serve at the whim of any or every given member of the staff, administration, or for that matter, the conductor in every circumstance. That's why there is a tenure process agreed to by both musicians and management so that musicians, just like everybody else, are given due process if a disagreed-to situation occurs.
Mr. Kaplan may be an expert in the intellectual pursuits surrounding one particular piece of music, but I have yet to hear an explanation from anyone in the press or elsewhere as to why that qualifies him as a *performer* equivalent to stand in front of a major professional symphony orchestra and lead it in one of the most profound utterances of symphonic music ever created.
All other issues about funding, audience draw (for one event BTW), publicity, etc, are IMO, superfluous in the face of this one overarching issue.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2008-12-22 03:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-12-22 02:48
One of the most difficult tasks during the selection of a new music director is to demonstrate the difference to the board and some management between a well conducted/performed piece that doesn't get the massive rise from the listener because it is not as strong a pieces while alternatively demonstrating that a Tchaikovsky 4th that gets a standing ovation and bravos from the most mediocre of conductors says more about the composer than conductor.
As amateur or non-musicians, many have no concept of the relationship between quality of musical material and the actual interpretation of that material. Sure, the audience was rapturous after Kaplan's Mahler 2nd - but it was because of the Mahler 2nd many times more than it was from the quality of the conducting.
I had a friend that was a regular subscriber to the CSO in the 80's and 90's who was a very gifted listener and understood these kinds of things (he was the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at a big university here).
After a performance of the Brahms 1st Symphony one Friday afternoon, the interpretation of which he did not care for, this gentleman stood up from his front row first balcony seat, and throughout the hall could be seen and heard applauding wildly while simultaneously exclaiming, "Composer! Composer!" over and over again in his resonant, booming voice. We on stage certainly heard it! And we knew every bit what he meant by it.
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2008-12-22 03:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-22 05:50
I didn't expect this to turn into such a long winded back-and-forth but I appreciate the effort and consideration you have given to my arguments. It would be quicker and easier if we were face-to-face over a beverage, so please bear with me as I bear with you in this medium. I am not trying to insult you, but I do think that Mr. Finlayson was being serious in his criticism. I must stand by my accusation that you simply have not read it closely enough to understand what he was trying to express in his criticism.
Norbert wrote:
"It doesn't say anything about these mythical rehearsals taking place in an ideal word. It says 'The musicians sit', present indicative active."
On your first sentence, you're wrong, and on the second, so what? If he said "sat" it probably would be referring to some specific case. He isn't, though. He is attempting to portray a scenario of the ideal preparation for a major orchestral work. As I mentioned early, I would bet that this musician REGULARLY complains about the lack of "sitting in rehearsal" (whatever tense you want) since he seems cares about the quality of what is being produced. I don't think we should shame him for that!
Back to the first sentence, he actually does describe something about these "mythical" rehearsals taking place in an ideal world. Norbert, RIGHT AFTER THAT he writes:
"AT ITS BEST (emphasis added), the preparation of any great composition for concert SHOULD always be a profound, intimate and introspective journey shared between the interpreter and the instrumentalist."
If he didn't state it *right away*, I think it is still clear that he is describing what IDEAL concert preparation entails. More importantly, he is attempting to describe reasons that might qualify the musicians in the orchestra as having an advantage over the audience in terms of observing what a conductor is capable of. I have no idea how else you can read this paragraph, or why on Earth it shouldn't be considered a "serious" opinion or criticism. You can pick apart at this all you want but it seems pretty obvious to me what Finlayson's point is, and that you are more concerned with semantics. I stand by my point that you ought to read it more carefully.
Then you claimed that his opinion was, essentially, worthless:
"Yes, I do expect an audience POV. It is the only POV of any interest to me, because it is the only POV that reflects the purpose of a (professional) concert, which is to please the audience."
When it comes down to it, I *refuse* to believe that the audience is oblivious to the rapport between musicians on stage, especially since this is something we value in truly fine performances. We *notice* how well the musicians work together, and many of us (though, not all, including critics) are able to appreciate when this occurs fortuitously.
Before I continue: I don't think the argument is whether or not the audience would enjoy it or not (especially since this is very specific: it's Mahler 2). I think the argument is whether or not Mr. Kaplan is qualified to conduct an ensemble of this caliber. Your original response was "This is a good thing for the music world" (correct me if I'm wrong). I say "No, it might be a necessity (or better for PR) but I don't think we should encourage this." But, I digress.
"The writings of professional critics have their place, but to read an audience POV as written by a member of the orchestra would be of great interest. Shame that the blog misses this opportunity."
Again: how can you expect a musician who was performing to write from an audience POV? It would be interesting, but it's just impossible. I think it IS interesting to hear a POV from the member of the orchestra, since that happens rarely in comparison. How dare you ask him for anything else in his personal blog? I think we should applaud Finlayson, rather than shame him, for taking the opportunity to express HIS point of view as a member of the orchestra. You can find what YOU'RE looking for in plenty of other places, with the added bonus that the audience POV will actually be from the POV of the audience. (Incidentally, I don't disagree that those POV's would be interesting.)
As far as your analogy involving doctors and farmers: I'm not entirely sure where you were going with that. Yes, perhaps nobody cares what a farmer prefers to grow, I agree. But if a doctor suddenly was suddenly in charge of the farmer's wheat field (maybe he paid for the farmer's new irrigation system and wanted to try it out), I would be just as curious what the farmer had to say in addition to the bread-eaters. And I certainly wouldn't thank the doctor if the yield was less than usual or of poorer quality, except maybe to be polite. And I wouldn't call it something good for the farming-world.
"- Musician POV, useless information: "Kaplan could not keep time".
- Audience POV, useful information: "Bars 100 to 110 were badly out of time, because the orchestra were unable to follow Kaplan's beat, a problem that would never have occurred with a professional conductor."
This sounds completely backwards; I would be surprised if more people in the audience were aware that those were bars 100 to 110 than the musicians on stage. At best I could equally see either of these coming from a musician on stage or a member of the audience. As far as the criticism we have been discussing (from Finlayson)...these kinds of things are simply outside the scope of his argument.
"And when you say: "I believe it is simply inane to praise him JUST for trying" - I agree that it would indeed be inane, but that is not what I am doing."
Really? What about:
"All I am saying that what Kaplan does is, on balance, good for music."
"Kaplan gets publicity for the music that he loves, and that we love. For that alone we must thank him. If there were a few more self-publicists like him in the music world, it would be a better place, not a worse one."
You ARE praising him, it seems, just for trying, and I think that's inane.
"Do you think all these orchestral management teams are inane?"
Yes, in many instances I don't doubt it. And I would trust the opinion of the musicians before that of the management. As far as the LSO and VPO, I wonder if they approached this much as Finlayson (i.e. and open-minded "let's give this a shot"); perhaps they weren't familiar with him (since he doesn't really have a career as a musician); and either way we (or, I) have no idea how they felt after the fact. But, I guess, we're not supposed to care what the orchestra thinks?
For the record, I think it's *beyond* inane to discount Finlayson's opinion while applauding Mr. Kaplan.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-22 13:38
Kaplan recorded with the LSO in 1987 and the recording was a huge commercial success. The VPO recording is recent. If the VPO really didn't know what they were doing when they agreed to record with him, I agree, they must have been inane.
I haven't heard the VPO recording. There is some comparative discussion of the recordings on:
http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25436&sid=cb440de38d84efbba16baf3f615589fd
Much of this is the usual garbage found on unmoderated forums, but a few of the posts have something interesting to say.
........
You say repeatedly that I am "praising" Kaplan.
Not so.
I am saying that, on balance, he does more good than harm.
In my dictionary, that is not what "praise" means.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-22 14:21
"Kaplan recorded with the LSO in 1987 and the recording was a huge commercial success. The VPO recording is recent. If the VPO really didn't know what they were doing when they agreed to record with him, I agree, they must have been inane."
You know, I was talking more about orchestral management inanity than the self-governed type. I have no idea the circumstance involved in his recordings with the LSO and VPO as we were discussing his recent performance with the NYPO. I recall not feeling strongly about the LSO recording (I played the bass clarinet part in my undergrad so I listened to a few), without knowing anything about Kaplan at the time.
"You say repeatedly that I am "praising" Kaplan."
Your first post asked us to "thank" him, and that struck me as garnering praise for the man.
"I am saying that, on balance, he does more good than harm."
Fair enough, but I fail to see this as the case.
Post Edited (2008-12-22 14:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-22 15:57
"I fail to see this as the case after what you have given us"
In his favour...
He has produced what is claimed to be the best-selling Mahler recording ever. Is it not a good thing that lots of people buy recordings of Mahler? Or do you suppose that all the people who bought that recording would otherwise have spent their money another (better) one?
He has brought classical music into the news. Or are you elitist enough to prefer it be kept out of the news, where only the cognoscenti dare to tread?
On the downside...
He has probably upset a fair number of orchestral musicians, who find it below their dignity to work with anyone but the best. (Many of them don't, however, appear to find it below their dignity to play popularist trash.)
Perhaps he has denied opportunities to young conductors, though since he only conducts about four times a year, that wouldn't seem to amount to much of a hill of beans.
There is a long list of orchestras, some very prestigious, that have performed with Kaplan. I'd guess that there are quite a few more that he has approached and that have turned him down. (Berlin Phil? Concertgebouw? I'm not privy to this list.) The orchestras that have worked with him presumably agree with me. The orchestras that have turned him down may agree with you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-22 20:04
Norbert wrote:
"Or do you suppose that all the people who bought that recording would otherwise have spent their money another (better) one?"
Yes, I do, and you don't know that everybody who bought his record would disagree with me. I never said it was a bad thing to attract attention to Mahler, but I don't think Kaplan deserves due credit for attracting attention to mediocre performances; performances that might have been terrible had not the orchestras been so talented.
"He has brought classical music into the news. Or are you elitist enough to prefer it be kept out of the news, where only the cognoscenti dare to tread?"
Keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself. I don't consider myself an elitist, and much of my opinion in this instance *is based on* what I have read in the news; some of this news which you have hypocritically ignored as not "serious" enough. Those who go to listen to a world class orchestra, or are one, have a right to expect quality and we shouldn't shame them for being disappointed. If others think differently from me, I have the right to disagree, and that certainly doesn't give you the right to label me an elitist.
"The orchestras that have worked with him presumably agree with me. The orchestras that have turned him down may agree with you."
The thing is: Finlayson's report and the blurbs in the NY Times article show otherwise, and probably not only in this instance; or do their opinions not count? I think you've made an inaccurate generalization.
There are two reasons I have been responding to your posts:
1.) I don't think we should *thank* him for being a poor musician in this milieu, even if he attracted listeners to a piece that rarely has a problem with that. I believe we should be careful in what we thank anybody for, and I am beside myself in why you might think I should give Mr. Kaplan special treatment.
2.) I don't think you should have shrugged Mr. Finlayson's criticism to the side so quickly. It came off to me that you had formed an opinion before understanding the extent of his criticism.
I have tried to be thoughtful in my arguments, and am surprised to see you resort to labels in an attempt to get yours across. I've made my points, you've made yours. Thanks for taking the time to engage my thoughts on the matter.
Post Edited (2008-12-22 20:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: asabene
Date: 2008-12-23 20:28
I don't buy the big fuss over this whole deal... the guy was a successful businessman who decided he really loved Mahler 2 (how dare he!). He learned the piece inside-out and get training in conducting and hired an orchestra... and did clearly a decent enough job that orchestras began hiring him. Let's be real people: he wouldn't be hired by the Vienna Phil (an orchestra run by its players) to make a recording if he was such an awful conductor! The man has been conducting the darn piece for like 20 years now... regardless of his musical training, he knows it just as well as any other conductor by now. All we've heard is the one opinion of David Finlayson, who clearly did not like him... for all we know, there were probably plenty of players in the NY Phil who appreciated Mr. Kaplan's efforts and maybe even thought it was a decent performance... it seems like most of the reviewers think Mr. Kaplan does a good job! Let us all remember: concerts are for the entertainment of the public... if people showed up at to see Mr. Kaplan and enjoyed it, then he did exactly what he was meant to do... sold tickets, put on a good show... end of story.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-23 22:19
Well, we can all be happy that he didn't got equally fascinated about heart surgery. I wonder if anybody would have hired him with the same skills as his conducting skills? Something to think about maybe?
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2008-12-23 22:42
Alphie, I seriously doubt that anyone's life much ever hangs in the balance, based on how proficient a conductor of orchestras someone is. To equate heart surgery with conducting is just a little silly.
Jeff
“Everyone discovers their own way of destroying themselves, and some people choose the clarinet.” Kalman Opperman, 1919-2010
"A drummer is a musician's best friend."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-12-23 23:45
Andrew wrote:
>> I don't buy the big fuss over this whole deal...>>
Yes. I played Mahler 2 under Kaplan with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in London, I suppose 15 years ago now. Though he was nothing much as a conductor he clearly loved the piece, knew what he wanted from us and allowed us to help him get it. I have to say that I have had much more unsatisfactory musical experiences from technically adept conductors. The situation was even quite moving in its own way.
Simon Rattle told me that he consulted Kaplan on a number of points when he did the piece. "Well, he knows as much about that work as anyone, and owns the manuscript, so why not?" he said.
As always, it's difficult to judge these sorts of matter if you don't have direct experience. Another business person adopting the same tactic might be a miserable failure.
Norbert asked:
>> How did the performance you played in actually turn out, compared to how it might have been under a professional conductor?>>
It turned out well. It's hard to answer the second part without specifying the professional conductor, some of whom are anyway unpleasant to work with. It seemed to me that the players were on his side in a way they might not have been with a mediocre professional. We did our very best to make it work for him, and for the audience.
However, I don't think the experience would turn out to be very repeatable.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-24 00:23
JJAlbrecht wrote:
> Alphie, I seriously doubt that anyone's life much ever hangs in
> the balance, based on how proficient a conductor of orchestras
> someone is. To equate heart surgery with conducting is just a
> little silly.
I have studied music for nine years. I played the clarinet for nine years before that. I would have become a decent surgeon had I studied medicin for all those years. I have done countless hours of practicing to become a member of a first class philharmonic orchestra. I have the right as a full blood professional musician to be commanded on stage doing what I'm paid to do by someone who is at least as competent as I am. In what other profession than the arts is there room for charlatans. If we as musicians don't stand up for keeping them out from our profession who's gonna do it.
I don't know the reason why Kaplan came to our orchestra twice. Even though I've been in the artistic committee for many years that decision went over my head. He wanted to come back again for a Mahler cycle in 2010, but the orchestra said: ”access denied” this time. Good so!
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: asabene
Date: 2008-12-24 01:31
In a hypothetical sense, say you didn't know Mr. Kaplan's background... maybe even assume he had a significant amount of musical background if you like... would your feelings towards him change? He does in fact draw out respectable performances of the piece... I think his recordings attest to that... I think he gets a lot of disrespect just because of how he got to the podium, regardless of what he actually does on the podium.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2008-12-24 01:52
"I have the right as a full blood professional musician to be commanded on stage doing what I'm paid to do by someone who is at least as competent as I am. In what other profession than the arts is there room for charlatans. If we as musicians don't stand up for keeping them out from our profession who's gonna do it."
Welcome to the real world, Alphie. You don't believe that somewhere in the world outside of the halls of music someone who is not the most qualified might actually assume even a temporary leadership position? What you deem to be rights are more properly defined as privileges. You and your fellows in your organization are quite fortunate that you are so blessed. Most of us in the real world do not have that luxury. Let's face it: in this case, you got trumped by higher powers who felt it was expedient (for whatever reason, most likely financial) to have this man conduct your orchestra. Stuff like that happens every day in the real world.
I guess that you should count your blessings that nobody died as a result of falling off their pedestals when you all had to lower yourselves to being paid to perform on a stage, being led by somebody you felt was beneath your exulted stature. Life can be soooooo hard at times! I pity you and your fellows for how much pain and torture you must have endured for those two performances. How could you possibly have survived with your reputations and egos intact? I guess you probably had to avoid shaving for at least two weeks, because none of you could possibly bear to look yourselves in the mirrors after such indignities and atrocities were forced upon you. Life can be so unfair, can't it?
I sincerely respect professional musicians who have made it to the point where they can successfully perform on a daily basis, playing the most wonderful music ever written. I wish I had the talent and the perseverance to be among that class of performers. Unfortunately, I do not. I am an amateur. By definition, an amateur performs solely for the love and joy of the music. We aren't world-class, but most of us also lack the accompanying world-class conceit some people exhibit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-24 02:25
There's nothing conceited about principles.
There is plenty of room for amateurs in the arts, but maybe not at this level.
I love baseball. Maybe the Yankees will let me coach them because of my love and joy of the game. If anyone complains I'll just label them conceited.
Post Edited (2008-12-24 04:47)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: asabene
Date: 2008-12-24 02:37
But I'm sure if you paid the Yankees enough money under the sole condition that you would be allowed to manage a single game, George Steinbrenner would let you manage some insignificant game after the Yankees are either in or out of the playoffs should you offer a significant sum... say you get a good review from the players and even win, maybe some minor league team will sign you because of the cinderella story that will circulate everywhere... keep doing a decent job and your name and story will maybe get you a major league managing job... who knows!
Remember... Kaplan got to conduct because he BOUGHT OUT the orchestra (not because the orchestra wanted him because they knew he loved Mahler so much)... if I remember correctly, he then bought out another orchestra for his second performance... both times he got good reviews from the media (good reviews usually signify a decent job)... next thing you know, orchestras want the man with the cutesy story of having no musical background and loving Mahler 2 and working his butt off until he could realistically conduct it and get a decent performance out of it! He got hired by orchestras not simply because of his name, but because he can conduct the darn piece without a train wreck and, in the opinion of most of his reviews, he can draw out a pretty good performance!
I have a feeling that some people have an image of this guy walking on the podium, not understanding the piece at all, mindlessly waving his baton in an attempt to conduct, and the end result being so bad that it is almost ridiculous that this man is on the podium...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-24 04:11
Andrew,
What you propose is not realistic. An amateur without technique, talent, etc. could never play/coach for a pro sports team; just like they could not gain admission to a prestigious med-school, an elite military unit, or any number of other organizations and institutions. My post about solely playing/coaching for the love of the game was in reference to the previous post.
"He got hired by orchestras not simply because of his name, but because he can conduct the darn piece without a train wreck and, in the opinion of most of his reviews, he can draw out a pretty good performance!"
I would hope these are not the only prerequisites for conducting the world's best orchestras.
Many people have an image of Kaplan mindlessly waving his baton perhaps because Kaplan himself admits to having many difficulties conducting...
Post Edited (2008-12-24 04:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-24 05:58
You know, I don't know anything about this Kaplan fellow other than what I've read in the Economist (and now the NY Times), so I can't really agree or disagree "on the merits" with anyone's opinion of him. But there is something about Finlayson's blog entry that strikes me as being--at least potentially--somewhat unfair, and that is this: Kaplan's claim to fame, as I understand it, is not really his conducting--it's his research and study concerning Mahler's music (or, more specifically, Mahler's 2nd symphony), which has been well received in scholarly circles (or so I am led to believe). So to label Kaplan an *imposter* simply because his skill as a conductor apparently leaves much to be desired (which is what it appears Finlayson is doing) seems a bit harsh to me. From what I understand, Kaplan is not a conductor--he's probably best described as an amateur musicologist who's frequently asked to guest conduct. In fact, I think Kaplan is probably pretty well aware of the fact that conducting is not his game, which is why he admitted to the NYPO that he would be relying largely on the orchestra for keeping steady time--an imposter trying to convince everyone of his conducting ability would not likely make such an admission.
One might ask what difference this makes if his conducting is not up to the NYPO's usual standards. I'd say a lot. Music history is replete with figures who have made important contributions to music, but who are lousy conductors--many of them are composers. Stravinsky has been called a "terrible, terrible conductor." According to accounts, Glazunov's conducting was painfully bad. Yet nobody would dare call Stravinsky or Glazunov an imposter! Nor would it be controversial to ask one of these figures to guest conduct one of the world's great orchestras--after all, nobody expects them to be great conductors, because they're composers, not conductors.
Moreover, you don't ask a Stravinsky to guest conduct because he's a skilled conductor--and you don't ask him to guest conduct just anything, either. You ask him to conduct HIS PIECES because he supposed to be MORE FAMILIAR with them and UNDERSTAND them than anyone else. It seems to me that, if this Kaplan fellow is all he's cracked up to be in the Mahler-scholarship department (and there seem to be enough reputable people out there who think he is), then THAT'S the reason why you ask him to guest conduct your orchestra, and THAT ought to be the criteria by which you size him up--not over how well he can keep time and direct well-organized rehearsals.
So, if you think about it, to label Kaplan a total fraud based SOLELY on his conducting ability--as Finlayson's blog seems to do--is to hold Kaplan to a higher standard than Stravinsky! So unless Finlayson would also argue that an orchestra of the calibre of the NYPO shouldn't invite composers who are not also skilled conductors to guest-conduct their own works, it appears to me--in the absence of any additional evidence to the contrary--that Finlayson is simply singling Kaplan out for being an amateur, which seems a bit unfair.
Like I said, I don't know whether Kaplan is all he's cracked up to be or not, but that's not the point of my post. For all I know, he could be completely incompetent, but just lucky--the Maxwell Smart of the musical world. And I have no doubt that Finlayson has genuine complaints to make about Kaplan's conducting ability--I'm willing to take him at his word there. But, at the same time, the argument that a largely self-taught amateur musicologist is a *total fraud* if he does an unsatisfactory job of rehearsing and conducting the New York Philharmonic is not very convincing to me.
Post Edited (2008-12-24 06:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-24 10:26
Alphie asked: "In what other profession than the arts is there room for charlatans."
In most of them, I fear.
The professions sensu stricto (medicine, law, accountancy, engineering) have professional training and examinations which are, by and large, effective at keeping charlatans out.
But if by "profession" you mean "occupation", then I'm afraid charlatans are to be found here there and everywhere. Look into any IT or business consulting firm, and you will find plenty of senior people who are there by luck and by force of personality, rather than by any demonstrable skill at performing the task in hand.
Alphie, if there are only two occasions in your working life when you have had to obey the orders of somebody you considered to be incompetent, then I submit that you have been very very lucky!
And at least Kaplan is honest about what he is and what he is not. The really dangerous charlatans are those who attempt to disguise their incompetence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2008-12-24 11:42
Tony, both you and I know that a great musician don't necessarily have to be a trained conductor to be fantastic to work with. Even if Kaplan knows everything there is to know about Mahler and specifically symphony no 2 it's very appearent working with him that he's not a musician at heart in my opinion. Maybe he would do less harm as a scholar only and a resource of information. Having a son myself with an autistic syndrome, I can't help seeing the similarities with Kaplan. He conducts the piece from memory, he has all the facts clear for himself and everything seems to be very ”preset” as he enters the podium and nothing like a musical journey. His conducting is mechanical as if he has remembered every beat one by one, but without support by musical intuition. Everything he does seems to be based on facts only. Maybe this is his secret?
I do have had worse experiences with some professional conductors who have not been up to standard, but most of the times they have been honest musicians who have been maybe immature, misguided or have had a bad self confidence. Kaplan is just something else. Our concerts also turned out basically well, but that's not the point as far as I'm concerned. A performance is a give and take situation between the conductor and the members of the orchestra based on true musicianship and musical intuition, but with Kaplan you're basically mostly occupied helping him out. The focus is wrong during the performance.
A famous conductor I worked with told the story about the similarity between a conductor and a condom: ”It's safer with but more fun without.” ”Yes”, a cellist replied, ”but with you it's the opposite.”
Alphie
Post Edited (2008-12-24 15:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2008-12-24 15:07
<Moreover, you don't ask a Stravinsky to guest conduct because he's a skilled conductor--and you don't ask him to guest conduct just anything, either. You ask him to conduct HIS PIECES because he supposed to be MORE FAMILIAR with them and UNDERSTAND them than anyone else.>
And, FWIW, from the stories I always heard (I wasn't there during his rehearsals) when Stravinsky was alive and conducting, he didn't do much of his own rehearsing - he left much of the preparation to Robert Kraft.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2008-12-24 16:26
"But if by "profession" you mean "occupation", then I'm afraid charlatans are to be found here there and everywhere."
We are not talking about occupations such as IT businesses, et cetera. Professional orchestras have extremely high standards for employment- just like pro sports teams, elite military units, etc. There is simply no comparison between a professional orchestra and a consulting firm. Unfortunately the arts community must suffer mediocrity whereas it would not be tolerated in other elite fields...
I wonder how people on this board would respond to a wealthy clarinetist performing the Mozart Concerto with the world's most prestigious organizations. Perhaps he/she studied clarinet for 9 months with a fine clarinetist and was knowledgeable about the score and related documents. If he/she still performed at a mediocre, high-school level would it be passable like Kaplan?
For me, you can either play/conduct and have artistry or not. I would personally like those that do not meet these qualifications to stay out of prestigious ensembles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MBrad
Date: 2008-12-24 17:27
mrn wrote:
"I understand it, is not really his conducting--it's his research and study concerning Mahler's music (or, more specifically, Mahler's 2nd symphony), which has been well received in scholarly circles (or so I am led to believe)."
Good point! Although I kind of get the opposite impression--it seems most of these criticisms are more concerned with his conducting than his research/custodial abilities. I've pulled up a couple of his articles through JSTOR (I'm away from my subscription service and can't get my VPN up for some reason); anybody familiar with his articles? Beyond that--I think if someone is willing to publicly identify themselves as the world's foremost Mahler 2 "expert" and interpreter, they should expect some raised eyebrows and scrutiny. It's a surprisingly bold and immodest claim from an amateur.
"Stravinsky has been called a "terrible, terrible conductor." According to accounts, Glazunov's conducting was painfully bad. Yet nobody would dare call Stravinsky or Glazunov an imposter!"
No, but we might call them terrible conductors. I don't think we should lump Mr. Kaplan in with the likes of Stravinsky or Glazunov to make a point--these were some of the finest musicians of their time, regardless of their conducting ability.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NorbertTheParrot
Date: 2008-12-24 17:28
brycon: Alphie asked "In what other profession than the arts is there room for charlatans."
I answered his question: there are many professions (sensu lato) in which charlatans are to be found. Of course, you may define "profession" in such a way as to exclude these activities, but Alphie had not done so. The word "profession" sensu stricto is not normally understood to include musicians, so I felt it justified to assume that Alphie meant the word sensu lato.
If Alphie had posed his question in the form:
"Professions such as law, accountancy, medicine and engineering are pretty successful in excluding charlatans; why should music not do the same?"
...then I would not have posted as I did.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-12-24 17:46
Norbert, I think you broke the record for clarity of thought on the Clarinet BB. Congrats...(no sarcasm)
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-12-24 20:14
i always think of Florence Foster Jenkins..she really love music..but..well
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-12-24 20:19
Did they laugh during her performances? It would be hard not to.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-12-27 22:52
MBrad wrote:
<<I don't think we should lump Mr. Kaplan in with the likes of Stravinsky or Glazunov to make a point--these were some of the finest musicians of their time, regardless of their conducting ability.>>
Just so nobody gets the wrong idea, I wasn't trying to place Kaplan in the same league with Stravinsky or Glazunov--or even to make a comparison between Kaplan and these composers. Stravinsky and Glazunov were true musical geniuses. I don't think anybody thinks that of Kaplan, certainly not me.
The point I was trying to make was that you can't judge a person's total musical ability solely on their conducting, which is what Finlayson's blog entry appeared to do. The fact that Stravinsky and Glazunov were two of the finest musicians of their time, yet were notoriously bad at conducting, proves my point, because if conducting ability were a litmus test by which we could separate true musicians from impostors, we'd have to accept the absurd result that Stravinsky, one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time, was a fake.
Since we can't accept that absurd result (precisely because Stravinsky was so undeniably a musical genius), we can conclude the premise that we can judge a person's total musical ability on conducting skill alone must be false (and we can reach that conclusion without even considering whether Kaplan has any musical skill at all).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
