Steve Schwartz wrote:
>Austin does very well in attracting marvelous classical musicians).
>There's a Martinu discussion list?
It is a yahoo group.
>The NY Phil was sloppy under Barbirolli, Mitropoulos, Bernstein, and
>Mehta as well. Masur did a fabulous job rebuilding that orchestra. ...
But it wasn't dull under Barbirolli, Mitropoulos or Bernstein...
>Again, I agree. But I don't believe it's because great conductors aren't
>out there. ...
Based upon my own experiences on Boards of arts organizations and my
readings of the histories of arts organizations...the choices made are
usually done by Boards who have no music background. They graviate to
those musicians who spend the most of their own marketing...or so it
seems to me. When I read of the way in which conductors are chosen,
it seems that much of the time they are selected as one might imagine
a nouveau riche woman chooses a new dress. It must be by a well known
designer, expensive and sure to make a splash in the society pages of
the local newspaper. They aren't interested in real musicians. I think
of someone like Gergiev who is certainly a competent musician but one
of the least interesting of the lot. He is an exotic. Look at the
success of Kissen...he is an exotic, like a one of kind exotic gown...even
it as of late he sounds like his playing was designed by drunk Savador
I often like to make the comparison between Paderewski and Bloomfield
Zeisler. Had Zeisler recorded for Victor, and been a man she would have
been better known and better idealized than Paderewski, as for me, she
was the better pianist.
As for the success of Levine...that has me stumped. He isn't like any
designer gown, he ain't exotic, he is a very well trained highly talented
musician, but for me, in the final analysis, his interpretations bore
me to death.