John Dalmas wrote:

>Previn seems to have his admirers, although they sometimes seem more
>apologists than zealots.

Previn doesn't need me to apologize for him.  I wish I had his life.
Anyway, the point wasn't to apologize for him but to put his place in music
in perspective, which is neither "greatest, God-awful bestist champeen
music maker of our day" nor somewhere down near dillitante, but somewhere
in between (and closer to the former than the latter).

>I recall attending a chamber concert some years ago and reading on the
>program that one of the instrumentalists had been with the Pittsburgh under
>Previn.  During intermission I went up and asked him what he thought of
>Previn as a conductor of the classics.  He replied that Previn "was such
>a nice guy that we never thought about it much."

I noted that Previn had some problems as a music director in Pittsburgh
and maybe LA.  I think I heard some things toward the end of his reign in
London, too, but I'll yield to those who know more of this than I do.  That
doesn't make him a bad musician or conductor.  Not all fine conductors are
fine music directors.

A friend fairly well keyed into things at the Pittsburgh Symphony says
something along the lines of the quote above, i.e., that Previn was too
nice and not tough enough.  I hate to say this but musicians can be,
shall we say, undisciplined if given too much their head (okay, maybe I'm
speaking for myself), and Previn may not have struck the right balance.
On the other hand, Previn returns twice a year to conduct the orchestra,
my friend says, and they always play very well for him.

People have often commented that Previn has done well with British music.
He has.  At the risk of being called a labler, despite his origins, Previn
is to my mind a British conductor in style, with all that implies in terms
of a certain sheen and sense of balance and restraint.  This appeals to me
greatly.  (I love Boult's Brahms symphonies, for example).  It may not
appeal to someone looking for a more Germanic (or French or whatever)
style.

Tony Duggan wrote:

>On the subject of Rachmaninov Previn was the first to record the complete
>Second Symphony, when he was with the LSO, for EMI.

His EMI Rachmaninoff symphonies are considered classic by many including
me.

>As an interpreter, like Beecham, what he does he does well, sometimes
>brilliantly.  The fact that he chooses not to conduct vast tracts of
>repertoire (like Beecham again) is, for me, to be applauded.

I made this point and am repeating it here because I think it is so
important.  I simply will not take a conductor to task for not excelling
in the "standards" where he does so many other things well.  And I like
the example of Beecham very much.

Many list members are aware of the BBC broadcasts of concerts conducted
by Barbirolli and Horenstein.  We've also had tapes of concerts by
Celibadache.  These are important because they give us a chance to hear
performances that didn't take place under studio conditions where every
mistake is erased and many passages put together.  (And remember, not all
conductors are good in the recoding studio.) Most of us, myself included,
tend to judge musicians by recordings, but as I said before, our musical
life very much involves live concerts.  For this reason, I tend to be
careful assessing performers I know only by recordings.  One of the reasons
I feel free to come down on Ozawa as much as I do is I've heard him live so
many times and found him wanting.  I've heard Previn live a few times, and
recall only one mediocre concert and a couple of terrific ones.  That's not
a lot, but it's what I have to go on--and even that I try to keep in
perspective.

This is a bit of a ramble, I know, but I did want to make these points
before allowing the issue to rest--at least in my posts.

Roger Hecht