everybody must perform Mahler?

[alpsman]

I think that this will be a long and hot discussion.
Which are the reasons, so that every(i exaggerate but a little) conductor in the world must play Mahler?( After all, there are a lot of music-lovers, concert-goers, professionals in music etc. that doesn't like Mahler). Fashion? Zeitgeist?

Who are the musicians in past and more significaly now that not perform Mahler?

I considere that  a situation of uniformally acceptance of someone works is not so healthy.After all we are not living in a perfect Platonian society where we all understand the genious in the art. Also I think there are motivations of other kind( I am talking about the musical industry, and not about us Mahler lovers. We have nothing to earn, other than our pleasure).

Now we all know than pioneer Mahlerians and friends and pupils of the composer were critical about his works. Klemberer, Walter, Mengelberg.....
The other generation also: Giulini, Davies,Karajan, Muti( I bet than he will do a lot of M with CSO),.....
We have those who made no or little Mahler, for various reasons: Toscanini(profesional rivartry and hostility),Furtwangler,Bohm,Krauss,Jochum,Wand(all these maybe guards of German art).......

And from the present generation only a handful and maybe not for long time: Thielemann, you may continue i can't find another.
Let's see your view.

[barry guerrero]

For me, Alpsman, this is going to be a short discussion because conversations about conductors are terribly uninteresting to me. I see a conductor as being a medium; little more than a necessary evil. I say this as somebody who does some conducting myself - when I have precious free time to do so. There's a good and bad side to the current "Mahler boom", and I think that's really the more relevant issue.

Every conductor, and every budding musician who wants to audition for professional orchestras, has to know his/her Mahler cold before they dare venture into any concert hall these days. Is that a bad thing?     .     .    yes, but only in the sense that Mahler is no longer just the realm of specialists and enthusiasts. Everybody now is an instant expert, simply because the information is available to everybody. But the plus side is even more important: every city on earth has a right to put on their own Mahler performances. And as long Mahler keeps packing concert halls, that's not a bad thing.

I think what perhaps Dave Hurwitz would take exception to (and frankly, I'm happy as hell about), is the idea that all of these orchestras and conductors need to record their Mahler for posterity. As a full time critic, I think that David is somewhat tired of the endless parade of recordings. As a Mahler enthusiast, I'm perfectly happy to play the percentages: hoping to stumble upon a few jewels in the rough.

But as for the conductors themselves, I just don't care! Among those who are still working, I think that Zinman has a pretty strong track record in many composers.

Also, just by way of example, I think that it's far more interesting to compare the differences between the three big orchestras that performed at the 2000 Mahlerfest in Amsterdam, than it is to try to compare the different conductors involved. Anyway, that's just me. I just don't find conductors interesting in any exclusive way (myself included).

Barry

[Don]

Audience demand?? I know several people who basically have a passing interest in classical music, listen to it occasionally, but make a point of going to a concert or buying a recording featuring Mahler's music. Mahler also seems to be the choice of conductors to open or close a season, open a new hall, start or close out their terms as conductor or music director, etc. Mahler has gone from a rare commodity to a public piece d' occasion in the last 30-40 years.

[sperlsco]

As a Mahler enthusiast, I'm perfectly happy to play the percentages: hoping to stumble upon a few jewels in the rough.

Barry

That really sums it up for me.  Generally, I am happy to (endlessly) purchase multiple recordings of the same piece in the hopes of finding recorded nirvana.  That does not mean that I am completely disappointed when a recording falls short of making it into my first tier of favorites for a piece.  A big part of the process is just being entertained, and many second tier recordings are successful to that extent.  And from an entertainment standpoint, it is much cheaper to purchase a recording (or even 3-4 recordings) than it is to go to a live concert (not to mention the convenience aspect).   

In terms of conductors and live concerts, I really don't care if every CONDUCTOR plays Mahler -- so long as my ORCHESTRA plays him. 

[Dave H]

Barry:

I think you're interpretation of my position is only partially correct. I have no problem with tons of Mahler performance locally with individual orchestras. I have a big problem with the notion that all of this activity needs to be documented for posterity, as much of it is really mediocre, and no one, critic or otherwise, wants to spend hours and hours listening to mediocre Mahler symphony recordings. That's all.

Dave H

[barry guerrero]

Certainly I don't need to stump for you, Dave, but that was obviously the point that I was trying to make. I just wasn't precise enough.

Barry

[barry guerrero]

OK, well, now I feel guilty for having killed this thread. So, I will elaborate a bit (I generally hate talking about conductors).

Harnoncourt is someone who has made it clear that he's not interested in performing Mahler. Too bad, because I'd love to hear what he could do with M1 in the Concertgebouw (I've very much enjoyed his Dvorak from Amsterdam). And, as Alpsman has already pointed out, Thielemann has done just about everything short of declaring himself a German nationalist. You won't be hearing any Mahler from him! There must be a fair number of conductors in Asia who aren't particularly interested in Mahler. Kobayashi, on the other hand, seems to be really good at it.  It does seem that Mahler has already caught on in South America, so I'm sure we'll be hearing more from those folks. In contrast to that trend, it seems that maybe the Scandinavians aren't quite as interested as they once were, I don't know.

Then there's always Roger Norrington, who now loves Mahler. I'm sure that are many people who wish that Norrigton had remained indifferent or hostile to Mahler (Dave is certainly one of them!). Personally, I find his Mahler kind of whacked, but highly entertaining. Dave promises that there's more of it coming down the pike, and I, for one,  can't wait (can you imagine what he'll do to the Sixth!?!).

I'm sure that there are a fair number of Bruckner specialists who don't particularly want to do Mahler. However, most of the old guard of Bruckner specialists are dieing out now. I can't imagine that Kurt Eichorn ever did much Mahler. Still, there must be some rabid anti-Mahlerites among the newer generation of Bruckner buffs.

I'm sure we won't be hearing any Mahler from Christopher Hogwood either. Although, Hogwood has really turned into a fairly decent, well rounded conductor.

But for the most part, anybody who wants a serious, well paid career is going to have get in line and learn their Mahler. Even Marin Alsop has begun taking a swing at it lately.

[Dave H]

II considere that  a situation of uniformally acceptance of someone works is not so healthy.

I understand your point, but I still find this an odd statement to make in a forum devoted to classical music, the very concept of which presupposes a body of acknowledged "classics" that constitute the basic repertoire of acknowledged masterpieces and major works. This body of work is not completely monolithic. It evolved over time; works are added, and deleted as a function of what actually gets played. The case of Mahler is particularly interesting in that it illustrates the process of becoming a "classic" with singular vividness. So I would agree with you that complete uniformity is probably not healthy, but that is not what I see. What I see is a process of ongoing, gradual change, and to me that IS healthy.

As to conductors who do not play Mahler, Barry has given a very good overview, but more interesting (and fun) to me is the list of conductors who SHOULD NOT conduct Mahler. Barry finds Norrington entertaining just to hear something different. I too enjoy the occasional mustache painted on the Mona Lisa, but after one example the fun rapidly diminishes and becomes boringly predictable, particularly when the outrageousness is dressed up as serious historical scholarship. I also feel sorry for the orchestra, which is having a miserable time (I know for a fact) and knows just how terrible it sounds in Mahler and just about everything else.

It is very rare that any conductor avoids whole swaths of the standard repertoire--they have a professional obligation, particularly if they have a regular position with an orchestra, to put together varied and interesting programs that will attract an audience. Therefore it's a mistake to consider what they do in a vacuum. As an example, consider Mahler himself, whose programs with the New York Philharmonic included a lot of (then) contemporary music and pieces that he didn't particularly like, but which he knew the audience liked, or thought were important, or which worked well in an overall programming concept. We shouldn't assume that all music that a conductor plays, even very well, reflects a deep affinity with the composer or represents a larger aesthetic statement of some kind. Often he is just doing his job as any professional must.

So again, the fact that most conductors today will conduct Mahler I regard as a healthy sign of a modern professional at work. I wouldn't give it any deeper significance than that. As for those who refuse to conduct Mahler, some do it out of honest lack of sympathy for the idiom (like Wand or Celibidache), and others are simply using it to grandstand or create a specific persona (Thielemann, so it seems). And there is of course a third possibility that conductors will never mention, and which may be just as true--that they couldn't conduct the music effectively if they wanted to because they simply lack the technique, or don't believe that the players can master the music in the limited amount of rehearsal time available. This was certainly the case with Karajan and Berlin (remember 50 rehearsals for Mahler 5?), and it's a real issue both with conductors who don't conduct Mahler, and with even more who do.

When Hans Vonk took over St. Louis from Leonard Slatkin, I was astounded to read an interview in which he claimed he planned to do lots of Brahms (difficult given that he only wrote 13 orchestral works), but "of course" felt no affinity whatsoever for Dvorak. Now who doesn't like Dvorak? But evidently Vonk didn't. I respect that, and if audiences in St. Louis want Dvorak, then that's why God invented guest conductors. Still, it was very unusual, and it will become more so not because of the state of the arts in our society, but simply because orchestras are often full-time organizations asked to play week-in, week-out, and conductors have to conduct many more concerts than at any time in the past. So let us not lose sight of pragmatic considerations. Conductors who limit their engagements (as Giulini did in Los Angeles) enjoy the luxury of playing just the works that they feel closest to. Those who work more continuously need more music because there are so many more concerts, and Mahler has benefited from this trend as well.

Dave H

[sbugala]

II considere that  a situation of uniformally acceptance of someone works is not so healthy.

When Hans Vonk took over St. Louis from Leonard Slatkin, I was astounded to read an interview in which he claimed he planned to do lots of Brahms (difficult given that he only wrote 13 orchestral works), but "of course" felt no affinity whatsoever for Dvorak. Now who doesn't like Dvorak? But evidently Vonk didn't. I respect that, and if audiences in St. Louis want Dvorak, then that's why God invented guest conductors.

Pretty awesome memory, because I recall that Vonk quote, too. In fact, I was going to use it, too! I admired Vonk for that honesty, even though I thought it was weird.

Here it is via the New York Times Proquest, a database we have at our library:

MR. VONK, speaking recently after an arduous rehearsal of his own, in works of Messiaen at Carnegie Hall, cited American music -- second only to Dvorak, of all things -- as repertory he is not good at. But he is a seasoned interpreter of standard fare, and he pointed to versatility as his prime strength.

From an article Mar. 21, 1999 on Leonard Slatkin and Vonk a few years into their respective tenures.

I can't find it offhand, but I recall a quote from Leonard Slatkin where he dismissed a lot of newer works he did during his years with the SLSO. It struck me as odd and kind of hypocritical. I thought if he didn't like it, and the audience thought it was cheesy, why do it? I can't tell you how many times you could tell an audience was coughing, fidgety, and unfocused, sitting through certain works.
So far, I get the feeling that the current director, Robertson, only does works, he totally believes in, and I think it shows. I'm not a big Carter fan, but Robertson led a performance of the Variations for Orchestra with a cogent pre-work talk. And while my coughing/fidgety/unfocused meter is probably unscientific, I can say that the audience is so much more focused...even if it's a work they don't quite like.  He's not phoning it in. You knew everyone was "onboard," so to speak. There's been works featuring Carter and George Benjamin that could've passed for studio recordings were they ever released. 

The bottom line is I agree that conductors should program what they believe in, and leave the rest to others. 

[Dave H]

Actually, I don't think I said I agreed with Vonk, only that I respected his decision! My point was that conductors should be professionals--that they should create interesting programs consisting of music that they like and the audience likes. And of the two, the audience is far more important. Frankly, I don't believe that an artist has to have a deep affinity for a piece to give a superb performance--the result may be great or lousy regardless, and some of the most interesting and rewarding performances come from artists struggling to come to grips with an idiom that they may find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that they hold themselves to the highest standards no matter what. To use the excuse that a performance was poor because the conductor didn't "feel" the music in his bones (or some such) is to me simply childish. If I buy a ticket he damn well better "feel" it, or fake it to the point where it doesn't matter. Why should any of us care what the artists think or how they feel? What matters is how well they perform, and short of death or maiming, they have neither the right nor the excuse not to give their best effort every time.

Dave H

[alpsman]

The bottom line is I agree that conductors should program what they believe in, and leave the rest to others. 

Yes that's my point starting this topic.

Dave H,
the "healthy' issue, refers that no person can aprreciate everything. At least this is my believe. Everyone has his or hers likes and dislikes. Even among Mahlerites we have a lot of paradigms. One of the most recent: Ivan Fischer declare his dislike for M8 and so he is not going to complete his cycle.
Now IF at last complete it, we have the right to think of him as opportunist. Maybe he will enligheted and change his mind, but maybe he does it for his label, for money for anything. In this case I consider very healthy that a conductor will perform only what he feels inside himself.
From the professional point of view, Dave, you are right: The orchestras become better(techically) learning Mahler, the same with maestros and after all audience want him. But I refer to something more deep and mature in music art.

As for the today maestros:
I am only curious and nothing more for Harnocourt's Mahler. I can listen to some of his Romantic repertoire( as Dvorak) better than his baroue and classical recordings. Even his Strauss(Johann et all), I think is eccentric, self-consious and not even fresh for listening with new ears. This is my opinion.
I haven't listen to Norrighton's Mahler, so I have no right to express opinion. But I consider the reviews of David Hurwitz to be on target. Anyway, you know what to expect of any artist. Any artist has a special, unique sound code and he serves this for life( at least this must be the truth. All of us know the artistry of say Karajan, Abbado, Solti etc..etc and we anticipate what we are going to listen. Of course the situation is not so rigid, but I think you get the point). With Norrigton I had the worse musical experience in my life when I heard Fantastique symphony back in 1989. You know the one with the ecstatic reviews. I hate it. Same with other of his recordings, so Norrighton not for me.

As for Thielemann: I aprecciate a lot of his work, unlike DH, and I will be happy to hear his efforts but only in a handful of symphonies; M9,M10,M7,M6. These decadance works full of central european zeitgeist and fin-de-siecle spirit, will match his mentality better than the others.

[sbugala]

Actually, I don't think I said I agreed with Vonk, only that I respected his decision! My point was that conductors should be professionals--that they should create interesting programs consisting of music that they like and the audience likes. And of the two, the audience is far more important. Frankly, I don't believe that an artist has to have a deep affinity for a piece to give a superb performance--the result may be great or lousy regardless, and some of the most interesting and rewarding performances come from artists struggling to come to grips with an idiom that they may find unfamiliar or uncomfortable. It really doesn't matter. What matters is that they hold themselves to the highest standards no matter what. To use the excuse that a performance was poor because the conductor didn't "feel" the music in his bones (or some such) is to me simply childish. If I buy a ticket he damn well better "feel" it, or fake it to the point where it doesn't matter. Why should any of us care what the artists think or how they feel? What matters is how well they perform, and short of death or maiming, they have neither the right nor the excuse not to give their best effort every time.

Dave H

Good points. I didn't mean to misquote.  I suppose I've probably sat through concerts where the conductor didn't like a work, but I was in my seat thinking, "Wow, he's good." 

[barry guerrero]

How is it that David still only has one star?    Shouldn't he be up to two by now?   

[John Kim]

How is it that David still only has one star?    Shouldn't he be up to two by now?   

In order to honor Dave with 5 stars as quickly as possible, we should encourage him to split his long sentences into many smaller ones and post them as separate messages.

How about that?

John,

[Dave H]

Sounds like a

Dave H