Oh Kaplan, My Kaplan
There's a good chance that you've never heard of Gilbert Kaplan, even if you follow the music world pretty closely. On the other hand, if you're a devoted Mahler fan, the type who has more than one complete set of his symphonies and strong opinions on the issue of Claudio Abbado vs. George Szell in the matter of Mahler's 6th, you likely know exactly who Gilbert Kaplan is. (Yes, Spartacus, I see you waving.)
Kaplan is an extremely rare bird in the orchestra world - an amateur musician and Mahler devotee who, some years ago, decided to devote himself to learning how to conduct Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, and to do so more accurately and convincingly than anyone else. Never mind that Kaplan isn't and never has been a professional conductor - he has passion, and intellect, and drive, and isn't that supposed to be all it takes to achieve our dreams in America?
So, for some time now, Kaplan has been traveling the world, conducting Mahler's 2nd (and only Mahler's 2nd) with orchestras large and small. By and large, he's been received with great enthusiasm by critics, who have latched onto his fascinating narrative and penned profile after profile of the eccentric and obsessive Mahlerian.
There's just one problem: Kaplan is apparently a terrible conductor, at least according to the New York Philharmonic, which just performed the Resurrection under his baton. According to a story running on the front page of the New York Times' arts section today, the Phil was so horrified by Kaplan's lack of stick-waving ability that the musicians called an emergency meeting with their CEO the day of the concert to vent their frustrations. The next week, one of the orchestra's trombonists took to his personal blog to lay out a devastatingly specific takedown of Kaplan, and by extension, of anyone who actually thinks the job of a conductor is so unimportant that a complete novice should be allowed to stand in front of one of the world's great orchestras.
So, before I wade any deeper into this obviously prickly story, 3 statements:
1) I have never worked under Kaplan, nor have I ever heard a performance he has led, so I won't be making any attempt to assess his abilities here.
2) I'm actually stunned that the NY Phil, which (like so many orchestras) is normally fastidious about controlling all information in and out of its organization, has been as forthcoming about the whole thing as they have, with a spokesman actually acknowledging to the Times that Kaplan won't be asked back, and (so far as I can tell,) no internal attempt to muzzle David Finlayson's blog writings. Good on the Phil!
3) Not that Finlayson (who I've never met) needs my help in defending his writing, but I noticed that one angry commenter on his blog accused the Phil musicians of whining after they'd already agreed to be conducted by Kaplan. This needs clarification, because it's probably a common belief that musicians pick their guest conductors. We don't - while we can always provide individual feedback on specific conductors who appear in front of us, and that feedback may hold some sway on occasion, decisions on who leads our concerts are made well above our pay grade.
Now, since I've already said I'm not going to talk about Kaplan specifically, let's talk about the larger issue here, which is the all-too-frequent gulf between what critics and audiences think of a conductor, and what musicians think of the same conductor. Without getting specific, I can confidently say that there are conductors of some considerable reputation, who have appeared to critical acclaim in front of the Minnesota Orchestra, who we in the orchestra consider to be utter frauds. I can't count the number of times that I've sweated my way through a concert that is just barely staying on the rails because of the incompetence emanating from the podium, only to open the paper the next morning and see the conductor lavished with praise for his "elegant turns of phrase" or some such nonsense.
Now, part of the problem is simply that, for a critic writing about a single concert, for which s/he has not been allowed or had the time to attend any of the rehearsals, it's almost impossible to truly judge what elements of a performance are happening because the conductor ordered them, and what elements the orchestra is simply playing on it's own initiative. So most critics stick to the time-honored tradition of holding the conductor responsible for more or less everything, good or bad. It's not a great tradition, but it's better than guessing at who was responsible for what.
The larger problem, I think, is that audiences, critics, and musicians all have different expectations of what a conductor should be. Most audience members, beyond simply wanting to hear an engaging concert, want a conductor who gives them some visual sense of what they're hearing, a sort of physical guide to the music. Critics often seem to want a conductor who reminds them of their favorite conductors from yesteryear, and they also prize those who manage to look interesting without showboating. (Critics also love conductors who physically reach out to the orchestra, and get the players to react physically as well. Exhibit A at the moment would be all the cooing over Gustavo Dudamel getting his Venezuelan youth orchestra to dance in their chairs, which admittedly is pretty cool.)
Musicians basically want two things from a conductor: a) a clear, precise beat, and b) clear, precise rehearsal instructions backed up by an obvious knowledge of the score. Beyond that, we don't really care how physical our leader is, or whether s/he scowls or grins on the podium, or whether s/he has a nifty life story.
So who's right? Well, I'm obviously biased, and I'll preface this by saying that I don't think any of the above viewpoints are wrong, exactly. But it seems to me that unless you have the two elements that the musicians are looking for, you will not have a truly great concert. You could have a good concert, or an exciting but obviously flawed concert, but it won't be one of those mind-blowing experiences that you tell your friends about. And at the prices we charge, I feel like we ought to be striving to provide those experiences as often as humanly possible.
The problem with the critical viewpoint is that critics, like all journalists, are tasked with setting the world around them to an engaging storyline, and conductors and the concerts they lead don't always come with a neat or salacious narrative. So critics naturally gravitate to the ones that do, the same way that sportswriters gravitate to Sean Avery every time he opens his stupid mouth, while ignoring quiet production machines like Mikko Koivu. I don't think music critics deliberately snub quietly efficient conductors in favor of demonstrative ego factories, but I also know that the latter do tend to attract a lot more press than the former. And that's how you end up with the NY Phil's dirty laundry splashed all over the pages of America's leading daily...
Late addendum: I only just noticed that this post is our 300th entry here at the ItC blog. During the relatively brief period that we've been blogging, Sarah and I have filled this little wad of bandwidth with just over 157,000 words, which works out to something close to 300 pages in your typical Word doc. I don't actually know whether that has any significance at all in the greater blog world, but considering that we've been open for business for a mere 14 months, I'm calling it a milestone. Happy tricentennial (or whatever) to us, and let's hope there's a lot more silliness and pot-stirring to come!
Kaplan is an extremely rare bird in the orchestra world - an amateur musician and Mahler devotee who, some years ago, decided to devote himself to learning how to conduct Mahler's Resurrection Symphony, and to do so more accurately and convincingly than anyone else. Never mind that Kaplan isn't and never has been a professional conductor - he has passion, and intellect, and drive, and isn't that supposed to be all it takes to achieve our dreams in America?
So, for some time now, Kaplan has been traveling the world, conducting Mahler's 2nd (and only Mahler's 2nd) with orchestras large and small. By and large, he's been received with great enthusiasm by critics, who have latched onto his fascinating narrative and penned profile after profile of the eccentric and obsessive Mahlerian.
There's just one problem: Kaplan is apparently a terrible conductor, at least according to the New York Philharmonic, which just performed the Resurrection under his baton. According to a story running on the front page of the New York Times' arts section today, the Phil was so horrified by Kaplan's lack of stick-waving ability that the musicians called an emergency meeting with their CEO the day of the concert to vent their frustrations. The next week, one of the orchestra's trombonists took to his personal blog to lay out a devastatingly specific takedown of Kaplan, and by extension, of anyone who actually thinks the job of a conductor is so unimportant that a complete novice should be allowed to stand in front of one of the world's great orchestras.
So, before I wade any deeper into this obviously prickly story, 3 statements:
1) I have never worked under Kaplan, nor have I ever heard a performance he has led, so I won't be making any attempt to assess his abilities here.
2) I'm actually stunned that the NY Phil, which (like so many orchestras) is normally fastidious about controlling all information in and out of its organization, has been as forthcoming about the whole thing as they have, with a spokesman actually acknowledging to the Times that Kaplan won't be asked back, and (so far as I can tell,) no internal attempt to muzzle David Finlayson's blog writings. Good on the Phil!
3) Not that Finlayson (who I've never met) needs my help in defending his writing, but I noticed that one angry commenter on his blog accused the Phil musicians of whining after they'd already agreed to be conducted by Kaplan. This needs clarification, because it's probably a common belief that musicians pick their guest conductors. We don't - while we can always provide individual feedback on specific conductors who appear in front of us, and that feedback may hold some sway on occasion, decisions on who leads our concerts are made well above our pay grade.
Now, since I've already said I'm not going to talk about Kaplan specifically, let's talk about the larger issue here, which is the all-too-frequent gulf between what critics and audiences think of a conductor, and what musicians think of the same conductor. Without getting specific, I can confidently say that there are conductors of some considerable reputation, who have appeared to critical acclaim in front of the Minnesota Orchestra, who we in the orchestra consider to be utter frauds. I can't count the number of times that I've sweated my way through a concert that is just barely staying on the rails because of the incompetence emanating from the podium, only to open the paper the next morning and see the conductor lavished with praise for his "elegant turns of phrase" or some such nonsense.
Now, part of the problem is simply that, for a critic writing about a single concert, for which s/he has not been allowed or had the time to attend any of the rehearsals, it's almost impossible to truly judge what elements of a performance are happening because the conductor ordered them, and what elements the orchestra is simply playing on it's own initiative. So most critics stick to the time-honored tradition of holding the conductor responsible for more or less everything, good or bad. It's not a great tradition, but it's better than guessing at who was responsible for what.
The larger problem, I think, is that audiences, critics, and musicians all have different expectations of what a conductor should be. Most audience members, beyond simply wanting to hear an engaging concert, want a conductor who gives them some visual sense of what they're hearing, a sort of physical guide to the music. Critics often seem to want a conductor who reminds them of their favorite conductors from yesteryear, and they also prize those who manage to look interesting without showboating. (Critics also love conductors who physically reach out to the orchestra, and get the players to react physically as well. Exhibit A at the moment would be all the cooing over Gustavo Dudamel getting his Venezuelan youth orchestra to dance in their chairs, which admittedly is pretty cool.)
Musicians basically want two things from a conductor: a) a clear, precise beat, and b) clear, precise rehearsal instructions backed up by an obvious knowledge of the score. Beyond that, we don't really care how physical our leader is, or whether s/he scowls or grins on the podium, or whether s/he has a nifty life story.
So who's right? Well, I'm obviously biased, and I'll preface this by saying that I don't think any of the above viewpoints are wrong, exactly. But it seems to me that unless you have the two elements that the musicians are looking for, you will not have a truly great concert. You could have a good concert, or an exciting but obviously flawed concert, but it won't be one of those mind-blowing experiences that you tell your friends about. And at the prices we charge, I feel like we ought to be striving to provide those experiences as often as humanly possible.
The problem with the critical viewpoint is that critics, like all journalists, are tasked with setting the world around them to an engaging storyline, and conductors and the concerts they lead don't always come with a neat or salacious narrative. So critics naturally gravitate to the ones that do, the same way that sportswriters gravitate to Sean Avery every time he opens his stupid mouth, while ignoring quiet production machines like Mikko Koivu. I don't think music critics deliberately snub quietly efficient conductors in favor of demonstrative ego factories, but I also know that the latter do tend to attract a lot more press than the former. And that's how you end up with the NY Phil's dirty laundry splashed all over the pages of America's leading daily...
Late addendum: I only just noticed that this post is our 300th entry here at the ItC blog. During the relatively brief period that we've been blogging, Sarah and I have filled this little wad of bandwidth with just over 157,000 words, which works out to something close to 300 pages in your typical Word doc. I don't actually know whether that has any significance at all in the greater blog world, but considering that we've been open for business for a mere 14 months, I'm calling it a milestone. Happy tricentennial (or whatever) to us, and let's hope there's a lot more silliness and pot-stirring to come!
Labels: conductors and conducting, stirring the pot, the media
posted by Sam at
12:05 PM
3 Comments:
When I saw this article this morning I just knew you would post a comment about it, and rightly so...it's pretty juicy stuff. I have a few comments:
1. I couldn't give a rats behind what the media, audience, record companies, or anybody else says about a performer or Conductor. I am not going to jump on board just because someone else may be raving about him/her. I need to see and hear it for myself over the course of more than one event. I think what happens very often in concerts is that people (critics included) get caught up in the excitement of the event and tend to commit to overly glowing praise.
I like this blog and the content providers of this blog, and would not want to get them in trouble, so I won't name names, but my honest opinion is that there are more than several A-list conductors who are treated like gods in the press and by the audience, who I find merely average. Of course, I can only judge by the results that I hear and not what goes on in rehearsal and in interaction with musicians or any of the other intangibles. I'm of firm opinion that the best conductors are the ones that are best in rehearsal, and that rehearsal is really where it happens...and I really couldn't care less about what they look like on the podium..extravagant jumping and showy moves really aren't my thing.
People seem to have hopped on the Dudamel bandwagon a little too quickly, in my view. He's likeable and fun to watch...we get that. But so was Eiji Oue (and I'm not an Oue basher by any means...he brought some things to the table that I liked...and there were things he didn't bring to the table...but he was hired, and what was he supposed to do, say no?). So it sometimes makes me angry that some lesser-known, but equally talented (if not more so) conductors get passed-off to try to build their own careers, albeit the right way, through hard work and results over time.
2. The New York Philharmonic comments angered me. You can't tell me that the musicians hadn't heard of Gilbert Kaplan...so they must have known what they were getting up-front. He's not a professional conductor, and does not pretend to be, so to treat him as such is unfair. Again, it's not his fault, and he's not going to turn down a gig like that. So, if you didn't want an amateur conductor to lead your one-time performance (a benefit concert for the musicians pension fund, no less!), then he shouldn't have been hired. Okay, that's Administrations fault, but I still find it hard to believe that the musicians thought that they might be getting more.
The fact that the NY Phil is on record stating that he won't be hired back seems pretty unprofessional to me. Don't hire him back, fine...but you don't have to put that in writing in the nations most comprehensive arts section. So it's very hard for me to think any other way than the Philharmonic was intentionally trying to take a stab at Kaplan. Almost as if there's more underlying this story than we know about even in the article.
I don't want this to sound like musicians don't have a right to speak their mind publicly on their blogs. or elsewhere, about issues at hand. It's a free country, and anyone reading a blog should take things with a grain of salt. It was the "official" handling of the situation that bothered me, because without an official declaration I doubt that the NY Times article would have even existed. More ammunition for my conspiracy theory perhaps.
3. Maybe I'm taking this a little more personally than I should because I really respect what Kaplan has been able to do. Ever since I was in High School I too have wanted to be a conductor. That dream died a long, long time ago. Some people go down other paths in life, or their parents don't have the resources to allow kids to get started early enough to really make these things feasible. Even so, if I had the financial backing to hire an orchestra for a night (which is what Kaplan had to do to get his first shot at Mahler 2 decades ago), then I would probably do the same thing. Let me conduct Mahler 2, Mahler 3, or Dvorak 7 and I'd be one happy camper...so I really am happy for the guy for being able to do this.
At any rate, I think the moral of the story is: don't conduct in New York...it always has been, and always will be...a suicide mission for Conductors!
Sam, I'm always interested in what orchestra musicians have to say about conductors vs. how the rest of the world perceives them. There is such a huge disconnect. I really became aware of it myself years ago when I first began researching conductors for my novel. I travelled to another city (as I'd been doing as well as talking with people here) and observed a rehearsal, the last, and attended the concert of a conductor who'd been making a big splash. I'd observed rehearsals before, so I was very familiar with how a successful rehearsal goes. When I walked into the hall that day, I felt the hostility and frustration all the way to the back of the hall. Watching the conductor, I couldn't make any sense out of his stick technique, and he wasn't talking much to clarify because his English wasn't that great (he should have had an interpreter, I think). The musicians were asking questions, just not getting answers. I was horrified.
Later, I was interviewing some of the orchestra musicians. I asked one fellow about the rehearsal and expressed my nervousness about the concert that evening -- I expected a total disaster. He looked at me wryly and told me not to worry, the concert would be fine, but he was certain the conductor would not be invited back. The concert was fine, not great or inspiring. I couldn't make any sense of the conductor's stick technique again. It was one of the saddest concerts I've ever attended.
As for Gilbert Kaplan, I agree with Spartacus. It's unbelievable that the NY Philharmonic musicians would not have heard of him. He's been around for at least 20 years. I fault Kaplan, though, for not learning more about conducting, even if he's conducting just one work. A conductor has a responsibility to the musicians he's leading to be able to do his job, i.e. be able to beat time clearly and know the music.
I tend to think Marketing departments want more human interest stories, more spectacle, that they can sell to the public to generate ticket sales. I find it sad that the music is not enough, in their view. So, Kaplan probably sells tickets and that's the reason he continues to get gigs. I'm not surprised that the NY Phil was so public in their response -- the musicians going public made it necessary, I think. It's a bit scary to me that marketing departments, in setting expectations for concerts in advertising, can also set expectations for the performers, i.e. conductors. I agree with Spartacus that I want to see and hear for myself, but I do think we're rare in our approach to concerts.
Thanks for this post, Sam, and happy holidays! Safe travel....
I would add one group of people with expectations towards a conductor: lay performers. I was a member of amateur choirs for many years, and what we needed from conductors went beyond clear instructions and keeping the pace. Most of us had little knowledge of music, compared to professional musicians. The conductor needed not only to finetune the performance but to lay a groundwork that we could stand on. Physical guidance was also welcome, to give the timid self assurance. What that has to do with professional orchestras? I would guess that many in the audience have performed with an instrument or their voice at one time as an amateur, in school or in church or elsewhere. We have our feelings about what a good conductor does, even if most of know on an intellectual level that the orchestra musicians don't need much hand holding from their conductor.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home