Donald Satz wrote:

>Even in the western world, the significance of Previn is debatable.  I
>think that a hundred years from now Previn will just be a small footnote in
>musical history along with the likes of Alice Cooper and Michael Jackson.
>I know that in my musical world, Previn has zero significance.

That may be the common wisdom, excepting the references to Alice Cooper
and Michael Jackson, neither of whom did I know well enough to be able to
forget him.  And really, is it fair to associate them with a musician as
fine as Andre Previn?

Anyway, as I said, this may be the common wisdom, but I think Previn
is one of our most underrated musicians.  That doesn't mean I think he's
the greatest.  It means what I said, literally: he's one of our most
underrated.  I say this because Previn is not all that well respected by
many people.  If anything, he's looked down upon in many circles, and to
me, that means he's underrated.  The question is why?

Well, there is the Hollywood association.  He's never lived that down, and
that may say more about us than about him.  Perhaps we don't like the idea
that Previn wanted to be more than a Hollywood composer--that he took his
Hollywood and jazz background into the hallowed halls of classical music.
The riffraff is among us!  Didn't Erich Korngold try something like that?
At least John Williams knows his place.  (Or so we think.  I heard part of
his Cello Concerto on the radio: I'd very much like to hear all of it.)

There is also a matter of repertoire.  Has Previn paid his recording dues?
Where is the Beethoven symphony cycle? The Brahms? Has he recorded any
Mahler other than the Fourth? (I don't know.) Where's the Bruckner cycle?
The Schumann? The Schubert? Not even a Sibelius.  Put simply, Previn has
not paid his dues in the standard German symphony repertoire, in terms
of complete symphony cycles.  He has recorded works by these composers,
but he is not really known for any of them.  And where is the opera?
Theoretically, he could have built a reputation as an opera conductor,
but he hasn't done that, either.

What has he done? Well, there are the Vaughan Williams, Elgar, and
Walton symphonies (complete, by the way), but now we have the problem of
his being an American stomping around in British repertoire.  Who does he
think he is, Adrian Boult? Never mind that his work with these composers,
particularly VW and Walton, is up there with anybody's, and his Elgar is
very good.  And that he has done some very fine Holst (the Planets is a
classic) and Britten.  What else, in terms of recordings? There has been
some fine Shostakovich and Prokofiev symphonies--no complete sets as far
as I know, but some very fine recordings of the ones he did do--and a
nice Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet.  Nice Tchaikovsky ballets, too.  His
Rachmaninoff symphonies are masterful (and complete).  The Copland is not
bad; the Britten is quite good.  His Strauss I don't know as well, but
there is a lot of it.  What I've heard is very romantic--quite impressive
if you're in the mood for it.  I've also liked his Mendelssohn, and he's
recorded some fine Mozart chamber music.  This is all off the top of my
head, but it's a pretty good body of work, and there's plenty more than
this.  I might add that Previn will always be a factor in the life of LP
collectors.  He made some very excellent EMI LPs in the seventies, though
here I have to cite the great work by the EMI crews (Christopher Bishop,
Christopher Parker, Savi Ruj Grubb [sp], etc.), as well.  They produced
some of the best recorded sound we have.

So what is it with Previn? Is he a third-rater? Or is he just the
victim of lingering prejudice against anyone who had anything to do with
Hollywood and/or unfortunate to have Vaughan- Williams, Shostakovich, and
Rachmaninoff among his repertoire staples rather than Beethoven, Brahms,
and Mahler? Well, I happen to like many of the composers Previn is good
with, so he is an important figure to me.  I might add that his apparent
reluctance to record everything that a "major conductor" is expected to
record if he doesn't feel he's up to doing it is a major plus for him.
Would that more conductors had this kind of honesty to do what they do
well and leave the rest for someone else.

In terms of orchestras, Previn has headed the London Symphony, the Los
Angeles Philharmonic, and the Pittsburgh Symphony.  Having said that,
my guess is that his work as a music director is not what he's going
to be known for--he seemed to have some problems in all these places.
Nevertheless, it's important to note that has conducted a *lot* of live
concerts.  Obviously, I don't know how well he's done in all of them, but
I have heard a memorable Shostakovich Tenth and Brahms Fourth with the
Royal Philharmonic and a terrific Shostakovich Eighth with Boston from
him, so I'm willing to get into his corner.  And well that I might.  Live
concerts are music's life blood, and it's my guess that Previn has given
a lot of good ones.

His opera? It's not great, but I have to say, I enjoyed watching it.
It doesn't work as pure music for me, but along with the drama, it is
something of a piece, and I found it worthwhile.

So will Previn be nothing but a footnote in music history in a hundred
years? Obviously, no one here is going to find out unless science makes
some great discoveries.  But what if that's what he turns out to be? Does
that mean he deserves the contempt I've sensed in a couple of postings?
Hardly.  Besides, who cares how he's viewed 100 years hence? It's now that
matters for 99% of our musicians, and now suits Previn fine.  He has been
a good conductor for a long time, better than a lot of people with bigger
names and more (outwardly) arrogant attitudes and loftier resumes.  He has
left a substantial and accomplished body of work, out of which I'll always
remember the interpretations of English composers and the Russians (and
maybe the French, too), among others.  His live concerts have undoubtedly
given a lot of enjoyment to many.  That he is not the greatest musician,
whatever that is, should not play against him.  He does what he does well,
and to me that means a lot.

Regarding National Review's selecting him the greatest living musician or
whatever they called him. . . I recall the time William Buckley, joking
about the time he saw John Kenneth Galbraith after the later had a skiing
accident.  "Well," said the NR editor (or whatever he is there), "I see
you know about as much about skiing as you do economics." In this case, I'd
say that the National Review knows as much about music as they do about
politics--not so much for their answer as for asking the question.

As for my candidate for greatest musician or whatever.  I have none.
I can't think very easily in such terms.  If I had one, it wouldn't be
Previn, but then again, it probably wouldn't be a lot of other musicians
for whom I have great respect, either.  In any case, just because Previn
has been hauled atop a ridiculous pedestal by the National Review is hardly
reason enough to derogate him.  He's been too good a musician for too long
for that.

Roger Hecht