why should we single out Abbado?

[JRsnfld]

I don't really want to see a long thread on this, but I am surprised that
Abbado should be singled out for not having conducted Shostakovich, when his
repertoire is both wide and admirable, with a distinguished legacy across so
many nationalities (including superb renditions of Russian masters like
Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Moussorgsky). I'll bet Abbado would have done a
good job with Shostakovich (or Nielsen or Sibelius, if we'd been lucky), had he
chosen to record any.

Consider other conductors of similar stature: What about James Levine?...No
Shostakovich, and anyway not nearly as much of a recorded repertoire as Abbado
in any nationality except maybe a little American music...

What about Daniel Barenboim-does he conduct Shostakovich (not much Prokofiev,
either)? Does Welser-Moest? Does Dohnanyi do anything other than the 10th? Do
Ozawa, Maazel or Muti (other than the 5th), Zinman, Blomstedt, Segerstam,
Salonen (not on record, but I hear he's done a bit in concert), Janowski,
Gielen, Chailly (those enterprising ballet suite recordings aside)...?

There's not much of recorded Shostakovich legacy from these major conductors. I
can't remember any commercial Shostakovich recordings from MTT either, though
he does a bit (the orchestra issued an 11th, of all things).

I don't see why Claudio Abbado, of all conductors, should be singled out; nor
should his orchestras. The question is, why are so many distinguished
conductors avoiding a great 20th century symphonist.

Have the record companies encouraged this repertoire only from conductors of a
certain nationality or two. Haitink aside, we've gotten symphonies in the
digital age from Barshai, Jansons, Temirkanov, Bychkov, Jarvi, Rozhdesvensky,
Svetlannov, Ashkenazy, Gergiev, Rostropovich, and Maxim you-know-who...oh,
yeah: Litton, Mata, Dutoit, Masur, Levi, Previn, and Lopez-Cobos,
Caetani--there goes that theory.

My guess is that musicians don't dislike Shostakovich, but many try to conduct
only one or two of the 15, because they figure they're all the same symphony or
two, written 10 or 15 different ways. So they don't become "Shostakovich
specialists," especially since the dark political edge to his music is so
ambiguous and obscure to Westerners. Most leave the heavy lifting to the
Russians, who are so numerous and good at Shostakovich. In such ambiguous
matters, it is intimidating to have people like Rostropovich and Barshai and
Maxim S. around--people who knew the composer very well.

--Jeff

[Guus]

Post by JRsnfld
What about Daniel Barenboim-does he conduct Shostakovich (not much Prokofiev,
either)? Does Welser-Moest? Does Dohnanyi do anything other than the 10th? Do
Ozawa, Maazel or Muti (other than the 5th), Zinman, Blomstedt, Segerstam,
Salonen (not on record, but I hear he's done a bit in concert), Janowski,
Gielen, Chailly (those enterprising ballet suite recordings aside)...?

About Zinman I've "seen" him saying in an interview that the music of "that
man" (Shostakovich) does not have to be played at all, in his opinion.

Post by JRsnfld
There's not much of recorded Shostakovich legacy from these major conductors. I
can't remember any commercial Shostakovich recordings from MTT either, though
he does a bit (the orchestra issued an 11th, of all things).
I don't see why Claudio Abbado, of all conductors, should be singled out; nor
should his orchestras. The question is, why are so many distinguished
conductors avoiding a great 20th century symphonist.

Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated composer of
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which most
conductors are not.

Post by JRsnfld
Have the record companies encouraged this repertoire only from conductors of a
certain nationality or two. Haitink aside, we've gotten symphonies in the
digital age from Barshai, Jansons, Temirkanov, Bychkov, Jarvi,

Rozhdesvensky,

Post by JRsnfld
Svetlannov, Ashkenazy, Gergiev, Rostropovich, and Maxim you-know-who...oh,
yeah: Litton, Mata, Dutoit, Masur, Levi, Previn, and Lopez-Cobos,
Caetani--there goes that theory.

Maybe some conductors (like Abbado) might think: those guys do a hell of a
job; I could never do better, so why should I try?

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated composer of
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which most
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated composer of
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which most
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

I guess it must be difficult for an innovative composer like Boulez to see
that Shostakovich didn't really innovate anything as such but still found a
very distinct personal style. That is what I actually admire about
Shostakovich, even though his music can get repetitive sometimes. But his
music does have an unmistakeable style.

[Dan Koren]

Post by Guus

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated

composer of

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which

most

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

I guess it must be difficult for an innovative composer
like Boulez to see that Shostakovich didn't really innovate
anything as such but still found a very distinct personal style.

And how exactly does one distinguish between
"innovation" and "personal style"?


dk

(who doesn't think Boulez innovated anything)

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Guus

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated

composer of

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which

most

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

I guess it must be difficult for an innovative composer
like Boulez to see that Shostakovich didn't really innovate
anything as such but still found a very distinct personal style.

And how exactly does one distinguish between
"innovation" and "personal style"?
dk
(who doesn't think Boulez innovated anything)

I can see the point you are implying: the unique mixture of elements or
however you want to define personal style is something which is "new"
because it hasn't been there before. OK. What I meant more here by
"innovative" is use of new composition techniques, formal concepts etc. In
all these respects, Shostakovich is a very conservative composer from the
point of view of those who looked very hard for new composition techniques.
For a lot of people who declared that you could not compose tonally anymore,
Shostakovich can not have been a favorite composer.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Michael Schaffer
I can see the point you are implying: the unique mixture of elements or
however you want to define personal style is something which is "new"
because it hasn't been there before. OK. What I meant more here by
"innovative" is use of new composition techniques, formal concepts etc. In
all these respects, Shostakovich is a very conservative composer from the
point of view of those who looked very hard for new composition techniques.
For a lot of people who declared that you could not compose tonally anymore,
Shostakovich can not have been a favorite composer.

Maybe the endless quest for the "new" really wasn't very interesting
after all.

[David7Gable]

Post by Paul Ilechko
Maybe the endless quest for the "new" really wasn't very interesting
after all.

Then again, maybe it was and you simply didn't make the effort to know even one
of the works that you so glibly dismiss.

-david gable

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
Maybe the endless quest for the "new" really wasn't very interesting
after all.

Then again, maybe it was and you simply didn't make the effort to know even one
of the works that you so glibly dismiss.

Which ones did I dismiss, Dave? You're reading what ain't there. I'm
open to all kinds of music, it was the academic critics who pushed the
new to the exclusion of all else who were not open.

[Dan Koren]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Guus

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most over-estimated

composer of

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself, which

most

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

I guess it must be difficult for an innovative composer
like Boulez to see that Shostakovich didn't really innovate
anything as such but still found a very distinct personal style.

And how exactly does one distinguish between
"innovation" and "personal style"?
dk
(who doesn't think Boulez innovated anything)

I can see the point you are implying: the unique mixture of elements or
however you want to define personal style is something which is "new"
because it hasn't been there before. OK. What I meant more here by
"innovative" is use of new composition techniques, formal concepts etc. In
all these respects, Shostakovich is a very conservative composer from the
point of view of those who looked very hard for new composition techniques.
For a lot of people who declared that you could not compose tonally anymore,
Shostakovich can not have been a favorite composer.

Excuse me, but your argument is equivalent to saying
that the taste of the food does not account by itself
for the overall experience, and that one should give
the chef extra credit for using the newest Teflon
pans, even if the food doesn't taste particularly
good.

The people who declared that one could not compose
tonally were incompetent, hypocrites and fucked in
the head. You know it, I know it, we all know it,
and even *they* know/knew it.

The obsession with "composition techniques" and
"formal concepts" is destroying classical music.



dk

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Guus

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
Because they have an opninion about the music by Shostakovich?
E.g. Boulez; he said that Shostakovich is the most

over-estimated

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Guus
composer of

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
the (20th) century. Possibly he said so as a composer himself,

which

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren

Post by Guus
most

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Guus
conductors are not.

I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

I guess it must be difficult for an innovative composer
like Boulez to see that Shostakovich didn't really innovate
anything as such but still found a very distinct personal style.

And how exactly does one distinguish between
"innovation" and "personal style"?
dk
(who doesn't think Boulez innovated anything)

I can see the point you are implying: the unique mixture of elements or
however you want to define personal style is something which is "new"
because it hasn't been there before. OK. What I meant more here by
"innovative" is use of new composition techniques, formal concepts etc. In
all these respects, Shostakovich is a very conservative composer from the
point of view of those who looked very hard for new composition

techniques.

Post by Michael Schaffer
For a lot of people who declared that you could not compose tonally

anymore,

Post by Michael Schaffer
Shostakovich can not have been a favorite composer.

Excuse me, but your argument is equivalent to saying
that the taste of the food does not account by itself
for the overall experience, and that one should give
the chef extra credit for using the newest Teflon
pans, even if the food doesn't taste particularly
good.
The people who declared that one could not compose
tonally were incompetent, hypocrites and fucked in
the head. You know it, I know it, we all know it,
and even *they* know/knew it.
The obsession with "composition techniques" and
"formal concepts" is destroying classical music.
dk

I thought about your post for a little while, but to be honest, I don't
understand at all what you are saying. What do you mean by the teflon
example? I don't really have an argument here, I am just wondering and
guessing what Boulez' reasons for his rejection of Shostakovich's music are.
I did some googleing with both names. Apparently I guessed about right about
Boulez' reasons.
I found this text interesting:
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/pierre_boulez.html

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren
Excuse me, but your argument is equivalent to saying
that the taste of the food does not account by itself
for the overall experience, and that one should give
the chef extra credit for using the newest Teflon
pans, even if the food doesn't taste particularly
good.
The people who declared that one could not compose
tonally were incompetent, hypocrites and fucked in
the head. You know it, I know it, we all know it,
and even *they* know/knew it.
The obsession with "composition techniques" and
"formal concepts" is destroying classical music.

I thought about your post for a little while, but to be honest, I don't
understand at all what you are saying. What do you mean by the teflon
example?

I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

Post by Michael Schaffer
I don't really have an argument here, I am just wondering and
guessing what Boulez' reasons for his rejection of Shostakovich's music are.
I did some googleing with both names. Apparently I guessed about right about
Boulez' reasons.
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/pierre_boulez.html

He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Michael Schaffer

Excuse me, but your argument is equivalent to saying that the taste of
the food does not account by itself for the overall experience, and that
one should give the chef extra credit for using the newest Teflon pans,
even if the food doesn't taste particularly good.
The people who declared that one could not compose tonally were
incompetent, hypocrites and fucked in the head. You know it, I know it,
we all know it, and even *they* know/knew it.
The obsession with "composition techniques" and "formal concepts" is
destroying classical music.

I thought about your post for a little while, but to be honest, I don't
understand at all what you are saying. What do you mean by the teflon
example?

I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

Post by Michael Schaffer
I don't really have an argument here, I am just wondering and guessing
what Boulez' reasons for his rejection of Shostakovich's music are. I
did some googleing with both names. Apparently I guessed about right
about Boulez' reasons.
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/pierre_boulez.html

He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

He's a conductor, isn't he? ;--)

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Dan Koren
Excuse me, but your argument is equivalent to saying
that the taste of the food does not account by itself
for the overall experience, and that one should give
the chef extra credit for using the newest Teflon
pans, even if the food doesn't taste particularly
good.
The people who declared that one could not compose
tonally were incompetent, hypocrites and fucked in
the head. You know it, I know it, we all know it,
and even *they* know/knew it.
The obsession with "composition techniques" and
"formal concepts" is destroying classical music.

I thought about your post for a little while, but to be honest, I don't
understand at all what you are saying. What do you mean by the teflon
example?

I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

I see. I sort of understood that, but couldn't figure out what he meant in
relation to what I had said. I didn't have an argument for technique above
content (taste), I merely said maybe that's what Pierre thinks. Although
it's not really a good analogy. If the food is the musical material, then
the new composing techniques would be not the pan, but new ingredients or
maybe a new way of cooking them. Now you might say the new pan is a new way
of cooking stuff, but it's really just a technological advancement of
secondary tools, like a music notation program for the computer over paper
and pen. Which makes the writing much easier but doesn't guarantee good
music.

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Michael Schaffer
I don't really have an argument here, I am just wondering and
guessing what Boulez' reasons for his rejection of Shostakovich's music are.
I did some googleing with both names. Apparently I guessed about right about
Boulez' reasons.
http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/pierre_boulez.html

He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

Not really. He just has a bit extreme views. Which you probably need to
have to be an avantgarde composer. As much as I admire Boulez for his
compositional achievements and as a conductor, I do think these statements
are a little hollow though. In interviews he often said stuff like, and I am
not quoting here, but just giving a rough example because I don't remember
the exact way he said it: I didn't know Mahler at first and only came to him
through the second Viennese school. Or similar remarks about parts of the
repertoire. It seems like he started out as an avantgardist without actually
knowing a lot of the stuff that he was declaring out of date, only to come
to that repertoire later. That is a bit odd.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Michael Schaffer

Post by Paul Ilechko
He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

Not really. He just has a bit extreme views. Which you probably need to
have to be an avantgarde composer. As much as I admire Boulez for his
compositional achievements and as a conductor, I do think these statements
are a little hollow though. In interviews he often said stuff like, and I am
not quoting here, but just giving a rough example because I don't remember
the exact way he said it: I didn't know Mahler at first and only came to him
through the second Viennese school. Or similar remarks about parts of the
repertoire. It seems like he started out as an avantgardist without actually
knowing a lot of the stuff that he was declaring out of date, only to come
to that repertoire later. That is a bit odd.

Hence my comment ... but you don't have to like the guy to respect what
he's done - I like some of his recordings of Mahler, Stravinsky,
Schoenberg & Bartok, and even some of his own music like Explosante Fixe.

[David7Gable]

In interviews [Boulez] often said stuff like, and I am not quoting >here, but

just giving a rough example because I don't remember

the exact way he said it: I didn't know Mahler at first and only >came to him

through the second Viennese school.

What's so surprising about that? Everybody comes to different corners of the
repertory in different orders. The repertory I knew the earliest was Italian
opera. I only really discovered Bruckner a few years ago. I've loved Boulez
since I was 19. I heard the middle movement of Berio's Sinfonia, which is
based on the scherzo from Mahler's 2nd, before I ever heard Mahler's 2nd.

There were virtually no performances of Mahler in France before the 1960's.
Boulez really encountered Mahler through Rosbaud.

It seems like he started out as an avantgardist without actually
knowing a lot of the stuff that he was declaring out of date, only >to come to

that repertoire later. That is a bit odd.

It's also quite simply untrue. It's a mistake to underestimate the extent of
the repertory that Boulez was familiar with at any point in his career. After
his years at the Conservatoire, he knew quite a bit of Renaissance music
through Messiaen, for example, of Monteverdi through Désormière. Earlier--by
the time he entered the Conservatoire--he would have been familiar with the
kind of random sampling of the so-called standard repertory that anybody
interested in classical music in France would have been familiar with at the
same age. He would have known keyboard music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,
Schumann, and Chopin simply from taking piano lessons.

Nevertheless, a large part of artistic creation involves renunciation, picking
and choosing from what has already been done, choosing what you can use in
forming your own language. This truism is given a special twist in France,
where both Debussy and Boulez always had ambivalent feelings about the central
Austro-German tradition. Debussy was enchanted by Wagner as a teenager but
soon sought to escape his influence and was dismayed when Klingsor kept turning
up in Pélléas. Debussy and Boulez envied the achievements of the Austro-German
tradition and had the ambition to "compete" with it, but always equivocally.
Both are highly allergic to prominent features of the music in the
Austro-German tradition, and both have wanted to compete on their own very
French terms.

Here's a very revealing quotation from Boulez: "In German music there is a
continuity and development, such as in Beethoven and Wagner, that the French
have rarely had. I tried to know more about this tradition; I had something
to acquire. This Frenchness--this instinct for harmony--is one I have in
myself and didn't have to fight for."

Finally, most of the most extreme statements that are held against Boulez are
the remarks of a very young man. (They are also very often quoted out of
context.) One is more apt to see things in absolutist black-or-white terms at
20 than when one is older. There is nothing remotely surprising about the fact
that the Boulez of today is more tolerant of more repertory than the
20-year-old Boulez. By this point, there can't be many human beings alive as
familiar with as much music from the Middle Ages to the present as Boulez. The
man has conducted Machaut's Notre Dame Mass, operas by Rameau, Haydn, and
Berlioz, obscure works by Beethoven, Schumann, and Liszt, and a larger
repertory than virtually any other conductor active today. He is not only
entitled to his opinions. His opinions are as well informed as it is possible
for opinions to be.

-david gable

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by Michael Schaffer

In interviews [Boulez] often said stuff like, and I am not quoting

here, but
just giving a rough example because I don't remember

the exact way he said it: I didn't know Mahler at first and only >came to him

through the second Viennese school.
What's so surprising about that? Everybody comes to different corners of the
repertory in different orders. The repertory I knew the earliest was Italian
opera. I only really discovered Bruckner a few years ago. I've loved Boulez
since I was 19. I heard the middle movement of Berio's Sinfonia, which is
based on the scherzo from Mahler's 2nd, before I ever heard Mahler's 2nd.
There were virtually no performances of Mahler in France before the 1960's.
Boulez really encountered Mahler through Rosbaud.

It seems like he started out as an avantgardist without actually
knowing a lot of the stuff that he was declaring out of date, only >to come to

that repertoire later. That is a bit odd.
It's also quite simply untrue. It's a mistake to underestimate the extent of
the repertory that Boulez was familiar with at any point in his career.

After

Post by Michael Schaffer
his years at the Conservatoire, he knew quite a bit of Renaissance music
through Messiaen, for example, of Monteverdi through Désormière.

Earlier--by

Post by Michael Schaffer
the time he entered the Conservatoire--he would have been familiar with the
kind of random sampling of the so-called standard repertory that anybody
interested in classical music in France would have been familiar with at the
same age. He would have known keyboard music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven,
Schumann, and Chopin simply from taking piano lessons.

Good point. It is hard to imagine what a musical world view a young man from
France at that time must have had.

Post by Michael Schaffer
Nevertheless, a large part of artistic creation involves renunciation, picking
and choosing from what has already been done, choosing what you can use in
forming your own language. This truism is given a special twist in France,
where both Debussy and Boulez always had ambivalent feelings about the central
Austro-German tradition. Debussy was enchanted by Wagner as a teenager but
soon sought to escape his influence and was dismayed when Klingsor kept turning
up in Pélléas. Debussy and Boulez envied the achievements of the Austro-German
tradition and had the ambition to "compete" with it, but always equivocally.
Both are highly allergic to prominent features of the music in the
Austro-German tradition, and both have wanted to compete on their own very
French terms.
Here's a very revealing quotation from Boulez: "In German music there is a
continuity and development, such as in Beethoven and Wagner, that the French
have rarely had. I tried to know more about this tradition; I had something
to acquire. This Frenchness--this instinct for harmony--is one I have in
myself and didn't have to fight for."
Finally, most of the most extreme statements that are held against Boulez are
the remarks of a very young man. (They are also very often quoted out of
context.) One is more apt to see things in absolutist black-or-white terms at
20 than when one is older. There is nothing remotely surprising about the fact
that the Boulez of today is more tolerant of more repertory than the
20-year-old Boulez. By this point, there can't be many human beings alive as
familiar with as much music from the Middle Ages to the present as Boulez.

The

Post by Michael Schaffer
man has conducted Machaut's Notre Dame Mass, operas by Rameau, Haydn, and
Berlioz, obscure works by Beethoven, Schumann, and Liszt, and a larger
repertory than virtually any other conductor active today. He is not only
entitled to his opinions. His opinions are as well informed as it is possible
for opinions to be.
-david gable

[David7Gable]

Post by Paul Ilechko
I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

In music, there is no difference between "process" and "result." The processes
in a piece of music are the music.

Post by Paul Ilechko
He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

No, he isn't. He's entitled to his opinions.

-david gable

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

In music, there is no difference between "process" and "result." The
processes in a piece of music are the music.

Post by Paul Ilechko
He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

No, he isn't. He's entitled to his opinions.

Nobody said he wouldn't be entitled to his opinions even if he were an
asshole.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I think it's pretty clearly an analogy addressing the elevation of
process over result.

In music, there is no difference between "process" and "result." The processes
in a piece of music are the music.

Post by Paul Ilechko
He's a bit of an asshole, really, isn't he ?

No, he isn't. He's entitled to his opinions.

Is this about Boulez, Dave, or is it about you?

[JRsnfld]

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

He is the better symphonist. But I'd like to hear Boulez's film music...

--Jeff

[David7Gable]

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez? More to the point,
do you know even one Boulez work as well as you know Shostakovich? If you
don't, you cannot know which you prefer.

-david gable

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez?
More to the point, do you know even one Boulez work as well
as you know Shostakovich? If you don't, you cannot know which
you prefer.

Not wanting to know is a legitimate preference.


dk

[Larry Rinkel]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez?
More to the point, do you know even one Boulez work as well
as you know Shostakovich? If you don't, you cannot know which
you prefer.

Not wanting to know is a legitimate preference.
dk

That may be, and I can't say I want to know the music of Yanni or John Tesh
either. But not knowing the works you affect to criticize is hardly the
strongest position from which to base an argument.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Larry Rinkel

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez?
More to the point, do you know even one Boulez work as well
as you know Shostakovich? If you don't, you cannot know which
you prefer.

Not wanting to know is a legitimate preference.
dk

That may be, and I can't say I want to know the music of Yanni or John Tesh
either. But not knowing the works you affect to criticize is hardly the
strongest position from which to base an argument.

Neither is assuming that you know what has not been said.

[Larry Rinkel]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by Larry Rinkel

Post by d***@gmail.com

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez?
More to the point, do you know even one Boulez work as well
as you know Shostakovich? If you don't, you cannot know which
you prefer.

Not wanting to know is a legitimate preference.
dk

That may be, and I can't say I want to know the music of Yanni or John Tesh
either. But not knowing the works you affect to criticize is hardly the
strongest position from which to base an argument.

Neither is assuming that you know what has not been said.

My response was to Dan Koren's remark, and made not assumptions about
yourself.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by Larry Rinkel
My response was to Dan Koren's remark, and made not assumptions about
yourself.

Apologies to you, someone else had made such assumptions and I
erroneously carried them forward to your comment.

[Paul Ilechko]

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez? More to the point,
do you know even one Boulez work as well as you know Shostakovich? If you
don't, you cannot know which you prefer.

Yes, I can name several works by Boulez, and some I even quite like. And
there is nothing there that I like even remotely as much as the string
quartets, preludes and fugues, or the better symphonies.

BTW, your condescension is very unpleasant, you should see someone about
it.

[Larry Rinkel]

Post by Paul Ilechko

Post by David7Gable

Post by Paul Ilechko
I'll take Shostakovich as a composer over Boulez any day.

How do you know? Can you even name one piece by Boulez? More to the point,
do you know even one Boulez work as well as you know Shostakovich? If you
don't, you cannot know which you prefer.

Yes, I can name several works by Boulez, and some I even quite like. And
there is nothing there that I like even remotely as much as the string
quartets, preludes and fugues, or the better symphonies.

I assume said quartets, fugues, and better symphonies are those of
Shostakovich rather than Boulez. I think I know the music of both composers
fairly well, Boulez's probably more than Shostakovich's, but I'm not about
to put them in rank order. Boulez in my opinion underestimates Shostakovich,
who had more first than third pressing of the olives in him, but given
Boulez's teleological sense of music history it is scarcely surprising that
he should have rejected a composer so firmly grounded in tonality. But
Shostakovich at his best has a distinct voice that is much more than a
distant echo of Mahler's. It's unfortunate that Boulez does not accept this,
but the anathemas often tossed at the Frenchman seem motivated as much by a
dislike for Boulez's personality and politics as by his music and musical
tastes. To put it another way, I can't imagine similar imprecations being
thrown at Benjamin Britten because the Englishman despised the music of
Brahms.

[rkhalona]

Post by JRsnfld

Post by JRsnfld
What about Daniel Barenboim-does he conduct Shostakovich (not much

Prokofiev,

Post by JRsnfld
either)? Does Welser-Moest? Does Dohnanyi do anything other than

the 10th?

Post by JRsnfld
Do

Post by JRsnfld
Ozawa, Maazel or Muti (other than the 5th), Zinman, Blomstedt, Segerstam,
Salonen (not on record, but I hear he's done a bit in concert), Janowski,
Gielen, Chailly (those enterprising ballet suite recordings

aside)...?

Post by JRsnfld
About Zinman I've "seen" him saying in an interview that the music of "that
man" (Shostakovich) does not have to be played at all, in his

opinion.
There must be something in the water in Baltimore. Commissiona used to
say the same thing. It's their loss.

RK

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by rkhalona

Post by Guus

Post by JRsnfld
What about Daniel Barenboim-does he conduct Shostakovich (not much
Prokofiev, either)? Does Welser-Moest? Does Dohnanyi do anything
other than the 10th? Do Ozawa, Maazel or Muti (other than the 5th),
Zinman, Blomstedt, Segerstam, Salonen (not on record, but I hear he's
done a bit in concert), Janowski, Gielen, Chailly (those enterprising
ballet suite recordings aside)...?

About Zinman I've "seen" him saying in an interview that the music of
"that man" (Shostakovich) does not have to be played at all, in his
opinion.

There must be something in the water in Baltimore. Commissiona used to
say the same thing. It's their loss.

Maybe after conducting all that Pettersson, he found Shostakovich's music
too cheerful?

[a***@aol.com]

Especially Barshai, whose conducting of S is lauded so much on here.
If only he could do it live:):) Maxim is good in some but useless in
others, 7 for starters. At his tempo, the Russian tanks of 1968 would
have been overtaken by those of World War II.

Ancerl didn't like it..."he got worse the more he went on" although you
left out Sanderling Senior and Kondrashin who do know what they are
doing.

I suspect that only Kondrashin, Rozhdestvensky, Sanderling Senior and
Svetlanov will live on beyond our time in Shostakovitch among those you
have named. Gergiev certainly won't if live performances are anything
to go by. Musicians are notoriously cynical, even those in America,
but I love their description of him: "Vanessa Mae with
stubble.........."

Exactly what the Rimsky sounds like: it's all there on the surface but
there is nothing at all underneath.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

[Matthew Silverstein]

Post by a***@aol.com
I suspect that only Kondrashin, Rozhdestvensky, Sanderling Senior and
Svetlanov will live on beyond our time in Shostakovitch among those you
have named. Gergiev certainly won't if live performances are anything
to go by. Musicians are notoriously cynical, even those in America,
but I love their description of him: "Vanessa Mae with
stubble.........."
Exactly what the Rimsky sounds like: it's all there on the surface but
there is nothing at all underneath.

Perhaps, although I quite like at least two of his recordings (Firebird and
Tchaikovsky 5).

Matty

[JRsnfld]

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by a***@aol.com
I suspect that only Kondrashin, Rozhdestvensky, Sanderling Senior and
Svetlanov will live on beyond our time in Shostakovitch among those you
have named. Gergiev certainly won't if live performances are anything
to go by. Musicians are notoriously cynical, even those in America,
but I love their description of him: "Vanessa Mae with
stubble.........."
Exactly what the Rimsky sounds like: it's all there on the surface but
there is nothing at all underneath.

Perhaps, although I quite like at least two of his recordings (Firebird and
Tchaikovsky 5).
Matty

I was dazzled by Gergiev when I first heard him conduct the Kirov orchestra.
Each successive concert has been superb but not quite as polished as the last.
Based on my limited sample, he's heading in the wrong direction. But I haven't
heard him try Shostakovich.

--jeff

[Michael Schaffer]

Post by JRsnfld

Post by Matthew Silverstein

Post by a***@aol.com
I suspect that only Kondrashin, Rozhdestvensky, Sanderling Senior and
Svetlanov will live on beyond our time in Shostakovitch among those you
have named. Gergiev certainly won't if live performances are anything
to go by. Musicians are notoriously cynical, even those in America,
but I love their description of him: "Vanessa Mae with
stubble.........."
Exactly what the Rimsky sounds like: it's all there on the surface but
there is nothing at all underneath.

Perhaps, although I quite like at least two of his recordings (Firebird and
Tchaikovsky 5).
Matty

I was dazzled by Gergiev when I first heard him conduct the Kirov orchestra.
Each successive concert has been superb but not quite as polished as the last.
Based on my limited sample, he's heading in the wrong direction. But I haven't
heard him try Shostakovich.
--jeff

I also saw him live with LA Philharmonic last year, with Rimsky-Korsakov's
"Dubinushka", Prokofiev 7, and unfortunately, "Pictures at an Exhibition". I
am saying unfortunately because, as nice as they are, can't we hear
something different for a change, please!!! But it was a very good concert.
It appeared well prepared but at the same time spontaneous. Actually, that
reminds me I talked to a friend who plays in the orchestra after the concert
and I said that it was apparent that they really watched and followed him.
He said, not sarcastically, but with a smile: "well, you have to, you never
know what he does next!"

[a***@aol.com]

In Kitezh, completely and totally obliterated by Vassili Nebolssin and
his 1956 cast. Nebolssin did not have stubble, although he did have a
modest moustache. The wind players (birdies in the Forest) also
obliterate the Kirov players.

There is no contest between Mr Nebolssin and his singers and players
and those of Mr Gergiev. The first 12 minutes or so are CRUCIAL...lose
that and you have lost the lot. And Gergiev loses it, spectacularly.
The technical term is a read through.

The difference is that Nebolssin puts you in good stall seats or a good
box and Gergiev puts you in a recording studio.

And Mr Rozhdestvensky's Mum outsings all of them. If you wish, forget
the singers and just listen to Nebolssin's balance and his wind
players.

Blimey, just listen to Fevronia and her Prince in their duets. They
sound as if they are love! Whatever next?

Most of all, listen to Nebolssin's response to his singers and his
phrasing. That's the difference. There aren't any birdies in
Gergiev....there are just wind players.

Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins

[JRsnfld]

Post by a***@aol.com
Especially Barshai, whose conducting of S is lauded so much on here.
If only he could do it live:):) Maxim is good in some but useless in
others, 7 for starters. At his tempo, the Russian tanks of 1968 would
have been overtaken by those of World War II.

Maxim led an intense live Shosty 5 on a CSO broadcast many years ago. However,
his recent Prague recording of 6 seems forgettable; 4, I believe, was pretty
good.

Post by a***@aol.com
Ancerl didn't like it..."he got worse the more he went on" although you
left out Sanderling Senior and Kondrashin who do know what they are
doing.

I purposely left out all but the "active" conductors, otherwise I would have
mentioned Mravinsky, Kondrashin, and Sanderling.

From what you say, Maxim's 7 isn't all that active, either.

Post by a***@aol.com
Musicians are notoriously cynical, even those in America,
but I love their description of him: "Vanessa Mae with
stubble.........."

!!

--Jeff

[a***@aol.com]

There is nothing wrong with his 5 (public performance) at all but 7 was
a disaster. He was also okay in 15. Seven was incredibly slow right
the way through and, honestly, I just don't think it worked.

He kept saying in 7, Movement I: "It's too fast". I wanted to point
out that on metalled roads tanks are quite fast (see 1968 when some
rolled in at close to 30 miles per hour) but admit I did not.

I do think he is a genuine musician, however, but we did not get the 7.
His 15 however was pretty good, ditto 5.

Kind regards,

[Paul Goldstein]

Post by JRsnfld
I don't really want to see a long thread on this, but I am surprised that
Abbado should be singled out for not having conducted Shostakovich, when his
repertoire is both wide and admirable, with a distinguished legacy across so
many nationalities (including superb renditions of Russian masters like
Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Moussorgsky). I'll bet Abbado would have done a
good job with Shostakovich (or Nielsen or Sibelius, if we'd been lucky), had he
chosen to record any.

I haven't been following this thread, so someone may already have said this, but
maybe Abbado has not performed Shostakovich because he thinks the symphonies
aren't very good music? If so, I would agree with him, with a couple of
exceptions.

[Raymond Hall]

Post by JRsnfld
I don't really want to see a long thread on this, but I am surprised that
Abbado should be singled out for not having conducted Shostakovich, when his
repertoire is both wide and admirable, with a distinguished legacy across so
many nationalities (including superb renditions of Russian masters like
Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Moussorgsky). I'll bet Abbado would have done a
good job with Shostakovich (or Nielsen or Sibelius, if we'd been lucky), had he
chosen to record any.

The above says it all. One could pick ANY conductor, save for a very few,
and pick on omissions of certain composers. Maybe Abbado simply chooses to
play music, and record, that which he prefers. This doesn't mean he
necessarily disliked DSCH. There is so much music to perform, and life too
short.

Incidentally, I wasn't aware of an Abbado Sibelius cycle either, or a
Prokofiev symphony cycle, or a Martinu cycle, or an RVW cycle. But I
seriously doubt whether Abbado disliked any of the composers, and probably,
like others, may have considered them fully covered by other interpreters
far more fully immersed in their music.

In fact, has Abbado done a Tchaik 5th symphony? Or Winter Daydreams? And so
we could go on and on. I think the thread on Abbado (and not doing any DSCH)
a pretty silly thread, and therefore didn't bother with it. A completely
stupid thread imo.

Ray H
Taree

[Floyd Patterson]

Post by Raymond Hall

Post by JRsnfld
I don't really want to see a long thread on this, but I am surprised that
Abbado should be singled out for not having conducted Shostakovich, when his
repertoire is both wide and admirable, with a distinguished legacy across so
many nationalities (including superb renditions of Russian masters like
Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Moussorgsky). I'll bet Abbado would have done a
good job with Shostakovich (or Nielsen or Sibelius, if we'd been lucky), had he
chosen to record any.

The above says it all. One could pick ANY conductor, save for a very few,
and pick on omissions of certain composers. Maybe Abbado simply chooses to
play music, and record, that which he prefers. This doesn't mean he
necessarily disliked DSCH. There is so much music to perform, and life too
short.

Ye gads...an intelligent idea...

Post by Raymond Hall
Incidentally, I wasn't aware of an Abbado Sibelius cycle either, or a
Prokofiev symphony cycle, or a Martinu cycle, or an RVW cycle. But I
seriously doubt whether Abbado disliked any of the composers, and
probably, like others, may have considered them fully covered by other
interpreters far more fully immersed in their music.
In fact, has Abbado done a Tchaik 5th symphony? Or Winter Daydreams? And so

Wasn't there a tchaikovsky cyle with the Chicago Symphony?

Post by Raymond Hall
we could go on and on. I think the thread on Abbado (and not doing any
DSCH) a pretty silly thread, and therefore didn't bother with it. A
completely stupid thread imo.

I agree...in spades...

[Van Eyes]

Post by Raymond Hall
In fact, has Abbado done a Tchaik 5th symphony? Or Winter Daydreams? And so

Wasn't there a Tchaikovsky cyle with the Chicago Symphony?

On Sony, and 2, 4, 5, 6 with other orchestras on DG.

Regards