Wednesday, Oct 13, 3 p.m. ET
Classical Music Forum
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; 3:00 PM
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
We will be discussing the educational value and sheer entertainment factor of reading the important critics of the past. I've always enjoyed reading the works of people such as W.J. Henderson, Hermann Klein, James Gibbons Huneker and, of course, Virgil Thomson. More recently, I learned a lot from Harold C. Schonberg and B.H.Haggin -- in part because I reacted against them so strongly. The leader of my panel is Alan Rich, who is now almost 80, but I don't consider him a "critic of the past." In fact, I'm always dazzled by the verve and energy and fresh thought he brings to his criticism -- if I didn't know otherwise, I'd guess he was in his 30s or 40s.
I'm thinking I'll start a little bit early today, as I won't be able to be here two weeks from today. As such, it will be almost a month before next we "speak."
And so let's dive right in and see what is in the bank today.
Michael Hersch is very gifted, and he continues to grow and branch out. He's in his early 30s.
I can't imagine anybody interested in songwriting not owning and appreciating Stephin Merritt's "69 Love Songs" on Merge Records. It is exactly what it says it is -- 69 songs about love, written in styles that range from Steve Reich-ian to Gilbert and Sullivan.
Don't forget the older radicals -- Alvin Lucier, Alvin Curran, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pauline Oliveros and the late Ralph Shapey -- who take music into completely unexpected directions.
Hmm... Stephen Hartke? Daron Hagan? Peter Lieberson? Paul Moravec writes luscious and well-crafted music with a Gallic wit.
I really enjoyed your article on the Young People's concerts. Mr. Bernstein was someone whose artistic vision was one that was very compelling to me. In any event, my question is about the Corigliano concerto the NSO is doing this week. From a preview on Amazon of a recording it sounded very generic 20th century atonal. What is your take on what we can expect?
Tim Page: Thanks very much for your good words on the Bernstein DVDs. They are truly spectacular -- about the best introduction imaginable to classical music.
I don't know the Corigliano piece well. I think it is probably more chromatic than some of his later works, but there was always a lyrical quality to Corigliano's music that set it apart from the fiercest modernism.
Look, it may not have been the best "Ariadne" ever staged, but it proved successful in at least one way -- it made you a devotee of the opera. And that is something. I hope you will find other performances, maybe buy a recording or a DVD or something. If it has inspired a hunger for Strauss -- and for this opera in particular -- the production can't have been a total loss.
Remember, critics are quirky and fallible, too, like the rest of humankind.
(Joe -- can we post those words?)
I think I would have been less annoyed if there had been any real passion in the applause. It sounded dutiful, pure and simple, as though it was something the audience thought it had to do. I wish the performers had come on at the beginning of the second half and said something like "We are very grateful for your enthusiasm and thank you for it. But the next piece builds a mood very carefully and we wonder if we might ask you to hold your applause until all four movements are done."
Something like that, anyway. After that, I believe the audience members (only a small number) would have caught on and the rest of us wouldn't have had to be snapped out of our deep listening again and again.
I agree that it is a difficult question. But a critic can comment on the situation in a review and maybe, with a little luck, the listeners will know a little better next time.
I reviewed the record a couple of weeks back. In addition to the reservations I had about it at the time, another one has come to bother me. Simply put, there is too much activity on the record: it goes from high point to high point without any level ground. In short, I wish there were more filling in the piece -- some perfectly good connective passages to give the listener's brain a rest.
As I suggested, I don't think this is the echt 1967 "Smile" by any means. I think it was a highly professional editing job that took a lot of inspired fragments and put them into a mold -- a mold that probably had little or nothing to do with what Wilson had in mind in the mid 1960s. I'm glad to have the record out -- don't get me wrong -- but I still think the fragments are more interesting and more musical.
Klein wrote for the Gramophone for years and a huge compilation was published by Amadeus some years back. It is well worth tracking down. Also -- 30 Years of Musical Memories in London. (Again, I don't have my library with me. These are approximate titles.)
James Huneker published about 20 books, all with Scribner except for a lively little volume called Old Fogy that came out from Presser.
Harold Schonberg's best books are "The Great Pianists," "The Great Conductors" and a study of the leading composers called "The Great Composers" in one edition and then given another title, I think, when it was reissued.
B.H. Haggin's best book by far is "Music in the Nation" -- a collection of his early work and marvelous and biting criticism. You might also investigate "Music Observed," which was reissued as "35 Years of Music." The rest you can probably skip, unless you are a Toscanini-mane.
The book "Olin Downes on Music" is a collection of works by the man who was the chief critic for the New York Times for about 30 years. It is a classic example of criticism by somebody who listened better than he wrote. Most of his opinions stand up, but his prose style had all the grace of a hippopotamus.
Winthrop Sargeant wrote a lively book in the 1940s called "Geniuses Goddesses and People" which gives a good sense of what the life of a working critic must have been in those days.
I didn't mention Peter G. Davis's "The American Opera Singer," which is a delightful, opinionated and informative volume by one of my most admired contemporaries.
All of Virgil Thomson is worth reading. Also, the music criticism of Shaw. Their opinions are idiosyncratic -- indeed, sometimes infuriating -- but they always make you sit up and take notice.
Check out some of the prima donna autobiographies too -- especially Frances Alda's "Men Women and Tenors." Ira Glackens wrote a terrific biography of Lillian Nordica, the "Yankee Diva."
As for biographies of composers, there are too many to mention here.
Your best bet to find these books would be through bookfinder.com or abebooks.com. I'm sure you'll find a good sampling of them, and probably not for too much money. (The Klein book on London is rather pricey.)
I've recently had some very diverse experiences with recitals by female opera singers: Bernarda Fink at the Kennedy Center, Alessandra Marc at the National Gallery, and - a CD actually - Dawn Upshaw's latest. My guess is that you heard most or all of these and I'm wondering if such a juxtaposition of styles in song recital teach/reinforce what you know about your own tastes. Marc, a true old-school diva, has superior technique and a huge voice that overwhelm even selections from Porgy and Bess. Listen to a singer like Upshaw, though, whose critics fault her for singing with pop-ish mannerisms. The voice may not be what Messiaen had in mind, but her ecstatic singing is hard to resist. With regard to Fink, she's a great singer, but her program was less than adventurous. Your thoughts?
(Yes--I am hoping that since you used to be affiliated with the SLSO that you will answer my question)
Sometimes I have a tough time immediately recognizing a piece of music. I was driving to work today and it took about 10-15 seconds to figure out that I was listening to Beethoven's 7th on a local classical station. Is that bad? I feel like a dummy when I can't immediately recall a piece. I have a tougher time with violin concertos. Is that normal for a classical listener?
Believe me, your problem with identification is not uncommon. I'll sometimes listen to a minute or more of a piece, knowing exactly what is going to happen next, singing along, and so on -- but I still won't remember the title. It is exasperating, but not uncommon. I fear it will get worse as I get older.
What really makes appraisal difficult is when a performance has any number of technical shortcomings and still seems beautiful and moving. And, of course, the reverse -- something that is played brilliantly but without a spark of real musical life. Think of all the mistakes pianists like Alfred Cortot, Artur Schnabel and Mieczyslaw Horszowski used to make -- and who cared? Think of all the noteperfect performances [FILL IN THE BLANK WITH YOUR FAVORITE SUPERSTAR] plays in a given season -- and who cares?
Babbitt, Alvin Lucier, Roger Reynolds, and in the younger
generation Jason Eckardt and Aaron Cassidy.
I think Schubert's Trout work is one of the most charming and delightful pieces of music. What was he thinking when he wrote it?
I will note that the fourth movement is a set of variations on his song "Die Forelle" ("The Trout") -- which gives the quintet its nickname.
Jean Sibelius used to say that he wanted people to leave performances of his Symphony No. 4 with no applause whatsoever, but in a mood of quiet and reflective dignity.
Glenn Gould went so far as to title one of his articles "Let's Ban Applause."
Now, I wouldn't go so far as either of these gentlemen. But I do wish people would hold their applause until the proper time. Remember Act I of "Der Rosenkavalier"? The curtain gets about half-way down and the marvelous music Strauss wrote to close the act is always lost in applause. It wrecks the spell that the composer and librettist have labored for more than an hour to build up. Ghastly -- and I don't know what to do about it.
Thanks very much for tuning in and I look forward to speaking with you again, four weeks from today.
And now I really must run. Thanks again.
