Giulio Finessi wrote:

>I am frankly surprised at a significant amount of Mehta-bashing going on
>and would appreciate some more in-depth discussions instead of facetious
>value-judgements regarding this (and, I'm afraid, some other Big Names)
>highly talented and qualified musicians, who seem to stir some ill-will
>because of their having enormous musical talent, and of their being steeped
>in the western musical tradition, and of their earning fairly high fees
>(for which, if I may say so, they do seem to be working hard).  I also like
>to investigate newcomers and underdogs, but I do think that few people
>realise that it costs more staying at the top than getting there.

This ill-will comes from his rather unremarkable tenure with the NY
Phil, after a smashing success with Los Angeles.  I find him a very fine
opera conductor.  He's also made superior recordings of Schmidt, Bruckner,
Tchaikovsky, and Strauss, done early in his career.  Other than that, I
think he generally coasts and has for at least twenty years.  As to staying
at the top, it depends on what you mean.  Does he still get superior gigs?
Yes.  Would other conductors less well-known do just as well or better?
Yes, in my opinion.  What you seem to be putting on is the "am I not
Sophocles" defense.  Just because he conducts great orchestras doesn't mean
he deserves to.  The only valid basis of judgment seems to me individual
performances.  I've mentioned some I've liked.  I can't think of too many
more, at least recordings, which is mainly how I know Mehta's work.  I did
enjoy the Beijing Turandot a lot.

Steve Schwartz