In Conductors, What You See Is Not What You Get
The Philadelphia Inquirer Blog - Artswatch
In Conductors, What You See Is Not What You Get
Peter Dobrin, Inquirer Classical Music Critic
People hear what they see. It’s always been true to some extent, but it’s the case to a greater degree today than any other time I can remember, and I suspect this is largely what the Gustavo Dudamel phenomenon is about.
A lot of listeners I talk to reveal that they’re not listeners at all. They talk about how much fun he is to watch, his energy, his smile.
It’s important to know why you’re responding to a conductor, especially at a time when so much is riding on it.
In Philadelphia, what’s riding on it is a music director search in which the orchestra has no publicly stated criteria. Are we looking for the best musician, or the most magnetic poster boy? (Sorry, they’re all boys.)
In New York, it means getting to know a new music director whose big problem, in the words of one woman quoted in a Los Angeles Time piece, is that he’s just not the Dude.
“We live half the year in San Diego, and Alan Gilbert just doesn't have that Dudamel spark,” she told the paper.
No, I’m not anti-Dudamel. He’s probably good for classical music. He’s talented, promising, charismatic (see for yourself at the Kimmel in May) and has a great personal story to tell. How much musical substance he has isn’t clear yet. And whether he’ll be the Messiah, earned-revenue-wise, that everyone expects him to be remains to be seen. Subscription ticket sales for his first season in Los Angeles are down seven percent from last year despite heavy marketing dollars and a public relations dazzle (see Vogue) rare in classical music.
The Philadelphia Orchestra’s next music director is likely somewhere on the roster for the season that opens in three weeks. Will the orchestra’s board chase the Dudamel formula and engage someone who looks great on the podium? Or will the board make music (revelatory interpretation, unity of ensemble, cultivation of sound) the sole criterion?
That it’s even a question is the most stunning marker of institutional change this orchestra has seen in decades. The outcome will declare whether the Philadelphia Orchestra will continue to aspire to be one in a handful of the world’s top orchestras, something less, or at least something else.
I find conductors who make too much of a show on the podium annoying to the point where I generally close my eyes to just focus on the music. Ah, for another Sawallisch.— phlmaestro- You ask, "Or will the board make music (revelatory interpretation, unity of ensemble, cultivation of sound) the sole criterion?" If the board cared about all of that rubbish, they wouldn't have turned the flippin group into a youth orchestra, would they? I'm not even old yet and I find the change visually jarring as well as musically unsatisfying. I mean, have any of these people played ANY of these pieces together before? It doesn't sound like it. If we are to assume, then, that the board will choose a conductor based on visuals and public appeal, we don't have to look far back to find that they chose an Eschenbach, a bizarro caricature who looked like a shaved cat in a Nehru jacket. A Dr Evil clone. I have no confidence whatsoever. Bring back Muti.— ratbag
- PS: Does anyone remember the Valentine's Day concert w/ Muti? I was there. The cheering, the stomping, the screaming, the electricity, the expectation, the excitement,the MUSICMAKING! What a moment! Glorious, rapturous, fun. We had him! We had The Dude, The Man, The Golden Boy! And the seats were full and the buzz was alive. The question you have to ask is, why did they let him go? The next question you have to ask is, has anything about the board changed since then? The last question you have to ask yourself is, "Do ya feel lucky, punk? well do ya?" Well, I don't. Just shoot me now. It'll be easier than sitting through another season of Dullsville.— ratbag
- Ratbag, are you joking? Muti was an unmitigated disaster here. He inherited an orchestra with an identity, a soul, and did his best to turn it into a bland, homogeneous mish-mosh devoid of any originality or direction. You can listen to any recording prior to his tenure and instantly recognize it as the Philadelphia Orchestra (in the best sense). Granted, his directorship coincided with the declines of many long-tenured orchestra members, and he did do his best to make a few high-profile personnel changes (read: Fire some guys). But he diluted the product beyond repair as he attempted to cultivate the "lean" sound of the opera orchestras with whom he still works best-- I can't imagine what's going to happen in Chicago. He was also personally disinterested in this community and in engaging in forward-thinking artistic direction. When Sawallisch was hired, the great cry form the masses was, "Who?!" But he did something equally prescient and pressing: He helped restore a sense of identity in direction during a tenure in which he successfully hired at least seven principal players and many section players. Yes, it is a younger orchestra than it used to be, but the upside is that the nucleus of the group should continue to proceed down the path that Sawallisch helped clear. All Muti did was alienate himself, create friction within the band, and essentially cement his reputation as an unreliable enigma.— SupportTheArtsInPhilly
- Based on a few performances I've heard in the past couple years, I actually think Muti is a much better conductor of orchestral music now than he was during his Philly tenure. It's probabaly a case of him being more mature as an interpreter. I firmly believe a lot of conductors have up and down periods during their careers, and we didnt' catch Muti at his best. I agree that his impact on the Orchestra, espcially it's sound, wasn't a positive one during that period, but I don't think that means Chicago is in trouble. And sticking with the topic, I still remember how many youngish females just adored Muti, but there was rarely anything musical about it. It always had something to do with how sexy he looked on the podium. That's not his fault of course.— phlmaestro
- Unmitigated disaster? Depends upon your definition of success. The seats were full and people were having a good time. All's I'm sayin' is, I was one of them. And if "forward-thinking artistic direction" means making us listen to stuff we don't want to hear played by people who came on the cheap, then you can keep it. And judging by the empty seats lately, I ain't the only one who feels that way.BTW, Sawallisch must've replaced people whom HE himself got rid of because I remember a stable sea of faces under Muti. And I miss those faces. I'm a consumer, not an insider. And I vote with my ticket money. Sorry.I may not be entitled to a seat at the table where you people who know stuff make these decisions, but I don't have to pay for what you come up with.— ratbag
- Support, check your sources. Muti didn't force anyone out. Sawallisch and Eschenbach forced the retirements of nearly 40 between them, I reckon.— altekakker
- Right. It's long been my impression that Muti didn't get involved with much personnel replacement and that Sawallisch was proactive in "forcing" some of the aging musicians to retire as soon as he took over the MD position.— phlmaestro
- While Muti may not have been *successful* in having anyone let go (or having someone accept a golden parachute, as the case may be), he did in fact initiate sanctioning procedures against a principal player in the orchestra during his first season. My use of plural "guys" was ill-advised, I suppose. Yes, phlmaestro, you are accurate: Sawallisch indeed spearheaded an effort to infuse new blood in the orchestra, sometimes in the form of early retirement incentives. There's no hiding that fact. In my opinion, though, the hiring decisions made during Sawallisch's tenure will ultimately prove to be those that allowed this orchestra to turn the corner and reinvent itself after the disastrous Muti era. I suppose the jury is still out on Eschenbach, but it would be difficult to imagine too many people calling Eschenbach's tenure at least a short-term success.— SupportTheArtsInPhilly
- Another reason for me to buy tickets to something else-- mistreatment of employees. Support, don't forget to cast your vote for the next Nazi they come up with.— ratbag
- Eschenbach hurt the orchestra in many ways, with forced retirements, poor hires, and dreadful performances. There was a trainwreck every week. Muti sold out every concert for years, at home and on tour. The orchestra has no parachutes, gold or otherwise. They are too broke for that.— altekakker
- Ratbag, sorry, I seem to have missed reading your post. I believe you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, and yes, you are indeed the audience... the person of whom we should all be thinking as we continue to bring music to the masses. And alas, you are also correct in pointing out all of the empty seats. One of the realities of our current economic climate is that we have lost a great deal of the market sector which chooses the arts as an outlet for their discretionary income. There are simply far more options available for those interested in the arts, both live and via digital delivery. That isn't to say that the Orchestra couldn't do a better job in developing programming that appeals to more of the consumer spectrum; it surely could. However, presenting new repertoire is a crucial element of maintaining the vitality of any performing body. As the cliche goes, every piece has had its premiere. We all know about the riots after The Rite of Spring; can you imagine how audiences might have reacted to Symphonie Fantastique? Even Beethoven's First Symphony raised a few eyebrows. As far as the "stable sea of faces", you are correct that there were a great number of long-tenured musicians still performing during the Muti years. This orchestra owes its legacy to many of them. Sadly, everyone's playing career comes to an end at some point. Some retire gracefully, and some do not. Being a performer is very, very difficult, and takes its physical toll. All orchestras owe it to their patrons to put a product on the stage which is consistent with its reputation. Sometimes, tough decisions need to be made. It's always difficult to see familiar faces fade away, but such a cycle is the harsh reality of what is a terribly, terribly demanding profession. Thank you, ratbag, for your continued support of the arts.— SupportTheArtsInPhilly
- Altekakker, I'm not going to fight you on Eschenbach... I agree that he set this orchestra back many, many years.— SupportTheArtsInPhilly
- Ratbag, I understand your frustration, but comparing anything we're talking about here to the mass murder of six million Jews is off-the-charts offensive. Yes, I lost family there. Please do not associate me with that garbage, nor be so cavalier in tossing that term out in any circumstance.— SupportTheArtsInPhilly
- Making musicians "fade away" has never worked. Normal attrition is all the orchestra can handle. With all the turnover, it looks like a youth orchestra. Too many new players, not enough experience. Thank you Wolfy and Eschy.— altekakker
Peter Dobrin is a classical music critic and culture writer for The Inquirer. Since 1989, he has written music reviews, features, news and commentary for the paper, covering such topics as the Philadelphia Museum of Art at the Venice Biennale, expansion of the Curtis Institute of Music, the Philadelphia Orchestra's bankruptcy declaration in 2011, Philadelphia's evolving performing arts center and the general health of arts and culture.
Dobrin was a French horn player. He earned an undergraduate degree in performance from the University of Miami, and received a master's degree in music criticism from the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, where he studied with Elliott Galkin. He has no time to practice today.
