Denis Fodor:
>Really great orchestras should stick to their specialities (as the
>otherwise very liberal Joachim Kaiser opined in the Rattle/BPO matter).
So that, in effect, they become one-trick ponies? I'm sorry, but that's not
my definition of a great orchestra. I don't care how well an orchestra
plays Beethoven's Eighth, if that's basically the only music they play.
>Breadth should be sought by attending the performances
>of smaller, or less loftily reputed groups specializing in areas not
>covered by the greats--or via listening to recordings, a marvellous way of
>doing it. Playing it this way endows great orchestras with the role, and
>a secure role it ought to prove to be,the role that the great museums play
>to the fine arts; at the same time it would assure a very large role for
>other orchestras, or musical groups, including in the field of recording.
The problem is that great museums have more breadth than most major
orchestras. The Cleveland Museum of Art, for example, has to keep
shifting the artifacts so that pieces don't get buried in storage. I'm
sure it's the same with the Louvre and the Rijksmuseum. And I can't think
of anything but a "niche" museum - ie, a smaller, more specialized one -
not trying to increase its breadth.
I really do believe it's a terrible mistake to give one's approval to what
is, at bottom, aesthetic and intellectual laziness. The BPO and the VPO,
for that matter, can undoubtedly play anything, given the right conductor.
The players are that good. If one counters with, in effect, they're not
that good, why call them great orchestras at all? "Severely limited" seems
to me closer to the mark.
Steve Schwartz
|