Three reasons often given or implied, to not like Svejda:
1. He is popular (always a no-no to elitists)
2. He is expensive for what you get (conveys inflated sense of self-worth)
3. He is both opinionated and shallow. (the kiss of death to
postmodernists)
Although I don't listen to him regularly, I've always found Svejda to be
at least entertaining and at times insightful. For me his opinionatedness
is both obvious and easy to understand. He's capable of hearing things in
the music and describing them in such a way that the listener can hear them
too. The opinionatedness comes in in two ways: (1) when it's noticed that
he either fails to hear or chooses to ignore those things that others hear,
or (2) the same things that he dislikes are qualities that endear that
particular performer, performance or work to others.
I suppose too that there are those who are irritated by ANYONE who cares
to voice an opinion that might in the smallest way be a bit controversial or
(shudder) politically incorrect. But they should rejoice, because it gives
them an opportunity to express their OWN opinion. I hasten to add that I
am not obliquely referring to anybody on this august list!
But back to Svejda--personally I think his assessment of Karajan has
been pretty much on the money. I'm less sure of his pronouncements on
Harnoncourt. For one thing, I haven't listened to him in a while nor do
I own the latest edition of his "guide to the classics." (Someone on a list
once complained that the size of the book was padded by having extra-wide
margins on the pages!) So I don't know if he's changed his mind. But he
has at times regarded H. as a sort of early-music buffoon (or baboon) who
took an offensively ham-fisted approach to that repertoire. However, I
am eternally indebted to H. for what he revealed to me about that old
chestnut the Schubert "Unfinished" symphony. And that is, that the
exposition repeat in the first movement MUST be observed. Why? Because the
opening idea in the basses, when heard the second time, is revealed to be
both the dying away of the exposition and a curtain-raiser for the (return
of the) tremolo string/woodwinds in octaves main theme. Harnoncourt makes
you hear it that way, by adding just a trace of diminuendo-ritard to the
tail end of the bass theme on the repeat, thus setting up for the entry of
the violins. Without the repeat, you lose that perspective entirely, and
depending on how you phrase it, you could lose it even with the repeat.
That was one of my bona fide 'aha' experiences when I heard that, and even
if he never did anything else right, I owe Harnoncourt for that.
But back to Svejda... he once gave a program devoted to what he called
"trash." This is classical music that is (apparently) all effect and no
substance. The only piece I can remember him playing was the end of
"Pines of Rome." Trash? I guess his point was that there are standards
of excellence even when the intent is not to write heaven-storming music.
Come to think of it he might have had some Berlioz on that show, but I'm
not sure about that. Anyway, I went away from the show with new
perspectives, stuff I hadn't thought of before. You don't need to agree
with the guy or even like him (or his radio persona) to learn something.
He also is or was an oboist who I believe studied with Mitch Miller.
He once dedicated a show to him. From what I have heard about Miller's
personality, Svejda may have learned more from him than just oboe.
As always, opinions to the contrary are invited in the interest of
stimulating dialog.
Chris Bonds
|