Jon Johanning responds to me:

>>The term "Kronos-phobe" implies an irrational fear, and is simply
>>inappropriate in a context where rational, thoughtful reasons are being
>>given for disliking the work of these musicians.
>
>Sorry for the poor choice of word -- I didn't mean anything particular by
>it, just "people who get very hot under the collar when expressing their
>dislike of this particular group," ...

Here we go again.  Why are those who question the musicianship of the
Kronos Quartet characterized as "people who get very hot under the
collar..."? So far, I haven't seen emotionalism like that in this thread.
It's been a calm, rational discussion for the most part.

>... with a slight suggestion of puzzlement as to why four people whose
>bag is sawing on string instruments strike so many people as heralding
>the Decline of the West.

Well, this "Decline of the West" thing is new too.  Unless I missed it
(possible) no one has said any such thing.  Why the non sequiturs?

>But then again, CM is a topic which, as we often see, excites strong
>passions for and against.

Indeed it does.  So why the puzzlement when people hold and express strong
opinions about the music for which they have such passion?

>I'm ashamed to say that my ears are probably totally unfit for judging
>the quality of string playing.  I confess to being an ignorant boor in
>this area, and hereby abase my self in the dust.

Not being a string player myself, I must also say that I'm basing my
opinions only on what I know of the history of the string quartet, what
I've read about effective ensemble and quartet playing, and what I've heard
in live performance and recordings.  Though I do not consider myself any
kind of expert, string quartets are a special interest (I've heard more
than 600 major works by almost 200 composers played by over 130 different
quartets), and I think I've heard enough to discern, for my purposes, good
from bad on at least the most basic levels.

As far as I can tell, my ideas about good and bad aren't, in a general
sense, far off the norm for the last century or so.  If anything, the
range of what I find acceptable is rather wider than most critics I've
read (I tend to enjoy a variety of interpretations).  I'd have to say
that Kronos is near the bottom of the list of ensembles I've heard.  If
a new standard of quartet pkaying is to be introduced in which Kronos'
approach and technique is considered the best - given that it's all
somewhat arbitrary anyway, this is a perfectly plausible, if improbable -
then all bets are off and I don't have a clue what I'm writing about.

>... This kind of attack on their technical abilities seems to me greatly
>exaggerated, but I suppose that those who really understand string quartets
>will disagree.

An exaggerated attack would be to call them the worst quartet ever, or the
worst quartet on recordings.

>>And all of this is true independent of the fact that their choice of
>>repertoire is horrific.
>>
>>Now, I'm not saying this repertoire shouldn't be heard ...
>
>Why not, if it's horrific?

Because I don't decide what gets played, the musicians do.  The point
I was making, and apparently failed to make clearly, was that my opinions
on their technical abilities were (largely) independent of what they
played.  I write "largely" because I'm also aware that no one can be
totally unbiased in that regard.  I included the "horrific" comment as
something of a disclaimer.

>I continue to maintain that the main reason so many people dislke this
>group so strongly is that they have a visceral reaction against the kinds
>of stuff the Kronos likes to play.  So in that case, why not just say "it's
>not my cup of tea," shrug your shoulders, and leave them strictly alone?

In that regard, I have.  When was the last time I posted *anything* on
Kronos (hint: it was years ago).  I felt compelled to respond because of
the recent statements painting detractors of the Kronos with a broad brush,
a brush stroke again employ here.  Certainly, what they choose to play
obscures the quality of their playing for many (I would submit both Kronos
lovers and haters can be so characterized), but a I tried to point out that
I don't believe that applies to what I've written.

>>It's just that it appears to me that Kronos' main appeal is they will play
>>music few others would touch.
>
>Not really true, I think.  They are noted for pioneering "Black Angel," but
>it has been done by others as well.

Yes, but did their efforts, for all their hip appeal, really do anything
to popularize these works among classical music lovers?  Have other
quartets picked up this repertoire having been shown the way by Kronos?
have the crossover fans of Kronos begun to appreciate the rest of the
quartet repertoire?  I see very little evidence of this.  I think what they
have done is to popularize themselves as performers.  That's OK too as far
as I'm concerned, but as I've said before, I'm more interested in the music
than the personalities of the performers, and when I look at the music I
find it wanting.

>And the genre of CM transcriptions of rock is fairly well established.

And I wish they generally worked better.  In fact, I think some of the
Kronos' best work is in "Purple Haze" (didn't they also do "All Along the
Watchtower", or am I thinking of someone else?).  At least in these works
their loose and scrappy playing captured something of energy and bite of
the originals.

>All in all, I take them quite seriously as musicians, and don't really
>understand why nearly everyone else sees them as clowns.  ...

Kronos has a lot of fans, and I haven't seen anyone here characterize them
as "clowns".

>It's like a reverse Emperor's New Clothes; everyone else can see they are
>naked, and only I can see the threads.  Could someone explain what is wrong
>with me? I'm beginning to doubt my sanity!

Why does something have to be wrong for you to like the Kronos, or for
others to dislike their work?

>Dave used a term which strikes me more and more curioser as I think about
>it: "competitive repertoire."  ...

Just to clarify: I used the term to mean simply repertoire in which
they would have ready competition.  The Beethoven quartets are perhaps
an example of the most competitive repertoire.  Any quartet taking these
on has to deal with the fact that some of the best musicians ever have
preceded them, and there will be the inevitable comparisons.

>I guess this is another one of my personal quirks, certainly not shared by
>the majority of posters to the list, but I don't like to think of art, and
>especially music, as a competitive enterprise, like sports or business.
>To me, it is the realm of individual imagination, above all else.

I think most people, if they have given it much thought, would agree that
we don't like to think of art as a competitive enterprise.  This doesn't
change the fact that our appreciation of art involves competition on many
levels.  You hold a mini-competition every time you buy a CD or concert
ticket.  You choose between performances and works based on what you think
you will find the most interesting/challenging/fulfilling/etc.  To pretend
this sort of constant evaluation does not or should not take place is
naive.  Composers and their music, as well as musicians and their
performances, are in constant competition for our time and attention.

It occurs to me that much of our visceral reaction against competitiveness
is the tendency of humans to worship winners, and consider all losers
as completely unworthy of our attention.  Piano, violin, and other such
competitions provide examples of this.  We shower praise and attention
on the winner, even though we have observed in the past that winning a
competition is rarely the path to success or even an accurate overall
indication of the quality of a musician.  But, perhaps most destructively,
we ignore and even devalue anyone who doesn't win.  Is there really a huge
difference between the musicianship of first and second or third place?
Perhaps, in some circumstances, but I can't help believe that on any given
day, or in any given repertoire, most of the top ten finishers in a major
competition might actually be a "winner".

>And that goes not only for composition but also for performance.  Every
>performance, if it is not a robotic, "phoned-in" one, is an expression
>of the performer's vision, at that particular moment, of how that piece
>should sound.

I generally agree with this, and would even say that many of the
performances characterized by reviewers as "robotic", depending on the
circumstance, might in fact be quite appropriate.  A example of this
phenomenon can be found in the multitudes of premiere recordings that
are called "dull" by reviewers.  To my mind, the last thing I want when
being presented with brand new music is an idiosyncratic reading.  Highly
personal interpretations are wonderful when the field is crowded, but I
want to hear the music "straight up" before I start exploring more personal
visions.

>Seek out the musical experiences that inspire and delight you, and forget
>about the rest.

Wonderful aphorism, but then how is this seeking to proceed? Is one to buy
every CD, attend every concert, to decide what will inspire and delight,
and then keep opinions to ones self? What if you run across a musical
experience that strongly evokes these emotions (or their opposites)?
Is there not some value to communicating that?

>Life is just to short for all this mean-spirited chatter.

I do agree with you that classical music lovers - perhaps more than any
other music-genre-loving group I've encountered - seem to be inclined
to the mean-spirited (not to mention absolutist) when expressing their
preferences, and I find that disheartening.  It certainly is a sign to
me that as much as we like to see ourselves as quality music lovers and
keepers of the "real" artistic flame, we're really not as enlightened in
some ways as we would like to believe.  To outsiders it makes us look petty
and self-important, and is certainly a barrier to entry for new listeners.

>I get rather disheartened sometimes, looking through the many posts on
>this list in which people fiercely duel over whose performance of work X
>is "best." To me, this is all beside the point.  But I suppose I am just
>getting old and tired, and don't have the stamina to cut the mustard in
>this particular sport.

It is a sport, of a kind, and one which I've largely lost interest in
too.  If there are twenty recordings of a work, at least ten of them
are the absolute favorite of some authority.  Another five are very good,
and the rest are just good to poor.  Performances (and compositions for
that matter) are only rarely as excellent or as horrible as many would
have us believe.  But this is a game of exaggeration wherein the writer
who summons the most impressive variety of superlatives or pejoratives
comes across as the most involved, passionate, and authoritative.  A
zero-sum game, as far as I'm concerned.  That's why I tend to appreciate
reviews that communicate a reviewers reactions, rather than those that
lobby for some musical-political viewpoint.

But in the end I have a lot of faith in the judgement of music lovers.
I have to or I (for example) would have spent last week doing nothing but
replying to all the unbelievably ignorant postings bashing Vivaldi (to
bring this thread back closer to the original topic).  I believe that those
who respond to his music will continue to love it regardless what others
think, and I have to hope that the comments of those who dislike but don't
know Vivaldi's music (as is apparently the case with those who claim he
wrote the same piece again and again), or those unfamiliar with music
history (as is apparently the case with those who claim he was not a major
influence), will not deter others who would seek out what Vivaldi's music
has to offer.

In that same vein, I would hope that my harsh words concerning the Kronos
Quartet have no effect whatsoever on those who currently enjoy their music
making, or those who might enjoy it if they give it a chance.  My intention
by getting involved here is simply to make it clear that those who have
given Kronos a good listen can have perfectly valid and rational reasons
for disliking their work.  Do with that datapoint what you will.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/