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