Mark Seeley wrote:
>Searching for new leadership and a new home, the ASO is seemingly very
>vulnerable right now. The article mentioned that the ASO has over $1.6
>million in debt! The rank and file is seemingly divided.
>
>I find all this quite curious. What gives?
In 1997, the ASO simultaneously announced that Levi had signed a three year
contract but was resigning at its end. Subsequently, it was revealed that
the latter was a condition for the former. Early in 1998, the so-called
grass-roots support group organized, and had a brief campaign designed to
show public support for retaining Levi. At around that time, a rumor also
made the rounds that Levi was going to rescind his resignation. Ultimately
he announced that he still intended to leave at the end of his contract.
I attended the first concert where the pro-Levi folk tried to show their
muscle. They handed out buttons to anyone that would accept them and
solicited people to sign their list of supporters. From what I saw, this
campaign wasn't much of a success...most people in attendence were not
wearing the buttons, with one exception being a group of a dozen people or
so who never seemed to move from the area around the concert hall's main
doors, and a staged standing ovation as the conductor made his entrance
was joined by only a small minority of the crowd.
I don't know about the supposed 25,000 names that they've gathered, but
in general don't see widespread support for the conductor at ASO concerts.
The folk that prefer that he leave are mostly being silent, which means
that the occasional articles that appear in the newspapers have been
somewhat one sided. For example, after their attendance-as-support
campaign didn't go over that well, in Sunday's paper the pro-Levis cited
declining season ticket sales as a resi;t of the decision to dump Levi.
Their opposition could just as easily cite declining attendance and
mounting debt as arguments in their favor.
The most conspicuously silent group in the debate is the musicians.
I interpret that to mean that he has little support among them. It is
logical that they would not be publicly critical given that Levi will
remain their boss through next year's season.
There's no doubt that Yoel Levi has done a lot for the Atlanta Symphony.
In one sense, when he came on the scene he was the right man at the right
time...an orchestral technician succeeding a choral-oriented music director
(Robert Shaw). His detractors generally cite his lack of musical depth, as
if he has created an orchestra that is capable of providing interpretations
beyond what he can deliver (a victim of his own success, as it were). He
*does* have a large repertoire - it seems that he's almost Telarc's version
of Neeme Jarvi.:-)
My own views on Levi pretty much fall down the middle: I enjoy attending
his concerts (especially since he regularly programs Mahler:-) but would
not withdraw my support of the orchestra based on whether he stays or goes.
However I must admit that the more musically satisfying concerts that I've
been to since I started getting a seasons package several years ago were
mostly conducted by Robert Shaw. Given the orchestra's seeming
dissatisfaction with him, a change seems to be in order after ten years.
The only public word on candidates for Levi's successor has been to keep
an eye on the guest conductor list. Next season, I count three names of
guests who are alumni from either of the past two seasons: Zdenek Macal
(my favorite), Roger Norrington, and James Depriest. (I've omitted
Nicholas McGegan, though perhaps I should not, who is returning to conduct
the annual baroque show.) Its interesting that when he was in town this
year Depriest said that he was not a candidate for Music Director, yet he
is scheduled twice during 1999-2000 season (Norrington is also slated for
two concerts).
Tim Dickinson
[log in to unmask]
http://www.tdware.com
|