Nationalism in performance

[Amphissa]

I didn't want to hijack the Boston Six thread, so this is a spin-off. Forgive my long rampling approach to this topic. It's not really a new one to any of us. But I'm curious as to your thoughts.

This derives from my disappointment about the lack of recordings of music by American composers being made by American orchestras. Maybe the music of these composers is so generic that any orchestra can play it. But I'm less convinced that this would be the case with some American composers.

About 10 years ago, I was involved in the search for a new music director for our regional orchestra. We brought in 8 young conductors, each performing one concert, over the course of the season. One of the conductors was East European -- Hungarian. In his pre-concert talk with the audience, he said American orchestras should program more American music, and he rattled off a list of American composers. He didn't get too esoteric for his program, though. He just included Berstein's dances.

After the concert, I heard people say that they liked the Bernstein but commenting skeptically about the idea of playing American composers -- and who were all those people he named anyway? The orchestra's board was equally skeptical of this Hungarian who wanted to play obscure American music. Needless to say, he didn't get the job.

As a side note, talking with him, I mentioned the Bernstein and he said he had recorded it with his orchestra in Hungary. A couple of months later, he sent me a CDR. At first I was perplexed, and then I couldn't help but find it humorous. They just couldn't swing. They couldn't find the rhythms. They sounded lead-footed. They were playing all the notes, but the soul of the music wasn't there. It was particularly noticeable when they played the mambo piece.

I've never been much of a believer in the notion of nationalism in orchestral performance. I've never been really convinced that German orchestras play Brahms any better than British or American orchestras, that Russian orchestras have a hammerlock on Russian composers, etc. But, any American orchestra drops into these rhythms naturally. The musicians know the "feel" of the music intuitively.

I was reminded of this when I listened again to the Berlin PO conducted by Dudamel playing this same piece (posted in downloads). They were a lot better than the Hungarians, of course, but it still sounded four-square, even with The Dude at the helm. Whereas I've heard a half dozen American orchestras play the piece over the years and it never failed to swing.

I've also noticed this when I hear Gershwin. The American regional orchestras are certainly no match for the great orchestras around the world, but when American orchestras play Gershwin, it invariably swings. I've heard quite a few recordings of Gershwin that does not.

I'm not convinced that there is anything left to the notion of nationalism in the performance of the major composers and the core repertoire. Not anymore. Years ago, I think it was more true. I could often pick out a Russian orchestra playing Russian composers -- that pedal to the metal brass and the tweaking woodwinds. The Concertgebouw and the Czech orchestras, the Philadelphia O -- they all had their own sound. But now, its all pretty much homogenized.

But I do wonder if there is some music that still comes more naturally to musicians in some countries than in other. This Bernstein and Gershwin music is an example that is familiar to me, but I'm not expert enough on the folk music of Russia or Hungary or Norway to know if the home orchestras have a much more natural feel for the music of their composers. Or, is the level of musicianship so high globally now, and the global homogenization of sound so complete, that this is no longer an issue?

I can only say that, a few years ago, I heard the Moscow Symphony play Rachmaninoff's First. There was that Russian sound I thought had long been eradicated -- the amazing brass and the irrepressible energy that I just don't hear in most recordings by the big name orchestras.

So, here in the land of unsungs, we encounter music that is off the well-traveled path of most orchestras. We often have very few options when looking for recordings. I'm happy enough to hear Polish composers played by the Polish Radio Symphony. But I'm often skeptical when I encounter an American composer performed by a completely unfamiliar orchestra in Asia somewhere, conducted by a guy from Eastern Europe. I always wonder, did they capture the essence of this music? If I were to hear it played by an American orchestra, would it "feel" any different?

I can say quite honestly that I would not look forward to hearing "Porgy and Bess" performed by a French or Italian opera.

[Dundonnell]

Absolutely fascinating and extremely thought-provoking post

The neglect of American music by American orchestras these days-as I understand it of course from across the 'great pond' -is an absolute disgrace, albeit I understand the commercial justifications.

There was a golden age during which the New York Philharmonic under conductors like the late-lamented Dimitri Mitropoulos or the great Leonard Bernstein performed the symphonies of composers like William Schuman, David Diamond, Peter Mennin etc. George Szell in Cleveland was a great advocate for American composers. In more recent years Gerard Schwarz in Seattle has done sterling work for people like Hanson, Piston, Creston and Schuman. JoaAnn Falletta in Buffalo deserves a mention too. But, obviously, the days when extremely rich patrons(or, often, patronesses) would give substantial financial support to their local orchestras(like the Philadelphia) seem to have gone.

Do American orchestras play American music with more understanding, more feeling, more panache? I don't know...but I suspect so. I certainly know that I do prefer music played by an orchestra and/or conductor from the same country as the composer. That is true of Russian music-as you say-, of French music, of Scandinavian music, of British music.

Is it done better? I really can't be sure in terms that a genuine musicologist/critic might judge but I just feel instinctively that these musicians have the music to a greater degree under their skin. When a Finnish orchestra plays the music of a Finnish composer full of the dark, brooding intensity of the forests of Finland I just feel/sense that they understand in a much more real sense what this music means or is trying to say.

Now...this may be utter nonsense Someone will tell me that a modern orchestra is made up of players from all over the world-which is often true. But an orchestra does develop a tradition of playing which, I think, is rooted more deeply than one might otherwise imagine.

And even if I am talking nonsense in purely musicalogical terms, ie the interpretation, playing, performance are just as polished, persuasive of, say, the Nielsen symphonies recorded by the San Francisco Orchestra the fact that Herbert Blomstedt is conducting makes me sense that there is an authenticity which genuinely affects my own appreciation.

Sorry...this is all pretty rambling, stream of consciousness stuff but I did think your quite excellent post deserved an immediate response

[jerfilm]

Yes, but the Golden Age you refer to was mostly the Golden Age of contemporary composers.  Note the names do not include anything prior to what, 1920?   Most of us could name at least 20 or 30 American composers of the 19th and early 20th century.  Most concert goers here wouldn't even recognize their names.  Oh, if they took piano lessons as a child they might know Edward MacDowell's To a Wild Rose. 

I lobbied the music directors of the Minnesota Orchestra for years to program American romantic composers.  To no avail.  I finally gave up trying.  They do what they want to do and what they think will sell tickets.  But slipping half a dozen works into a 24 concert suscription series is not going to result in fewer season tickets sold.   And think of how thrilled many would be to discover a Hadley Symphony or Mrs. Beach's lovely Piano Concerto......

Jerry

[semloh]

I think it's important to distinguish between the nationalisty of composers, nationalistic compositions and ... nationalism in performance, which is the topic of this thread.

I have no technical musical skills but it seems likely to me that the way an orchestra plays a particular piece is a function of the score, the performers, and the conductor. Although there is inevitably a rather persistent culture of performance associated with particular orchestras, despite changes of personnel, which means they become renowned for 'smooth strings', 'strong wind sections', etc., I believe that national differences in performance styles arise largely out of the relationship between the performers and the music itself, which will include an element of nationalistic affinity. In my view, the principal purpose of that affinity should be to further the main aim of great music-making, namely to transcend specific times and places and appeal to the universal.

[Alan Howe]

Interesting - and I absolutely take the point about American orchestras playing (20th century) American music. More examples of this sort of nationalism: the Viennese pre-eminently know how Johann Strauss goes - it's just in their blood (actually their Wiener Blut!) - and I've never hear Tchaikovsky done as Mravinsky did him with his great Leningrad orchestra - those screaming strings, penetrating brass, etc.

And yet, and yet....Colin Davis does Berlioz better than the French, Bernstein headed up the modern Mahler revival in New York and Mackerras did Janacek as well as the Czechs whichever orchestra he was conducting...

On the whole, though, I am always intrigued by two quite contrasting things: the performance practices of orchestras and conductors when performing their own country's music - that apparently  indefinable something which gives them a head-start. And yet there's also what happens when the same conductor goes abroad and conducts his own country's music. Colin Davis, for example, has probably given his best performance of Elgar 1 with the the Dresden Staatskapelle: somehow he seems to have taken his sound with him. So, while Dudamel can't get the Berliners to swing, Davis seems to be able to get the Dresdners to sound quintessentially English! Hmmmmm...

I lament the homogenisation of orchestras' sounds, but I can still hear differences between, say, the VPO, BPO and CzechPO. And great conductors can mould almost any orchestra's sound in the manner they desire. Stokowski had the ability to do that; so did Karajan. And I dare say that some orchestras have a sound which remains unaffected whoever conducts them...

[Amphissa]

Maybe the differences only become evident when orchestras play music that incorporates folk tunes or rhythmic styles prevalent in that country. AND the music does not already have a global performance tradition.

I don't think we encounter this when orchestras play music that is part of the core repertoire, because there is long performance tradition. Everyone knows what it is supposed to sound like. But music that doesn't get played is unfamiliar to everyone.

There is only so much that can be written into a score. You can read the score, but the score only takes you so far. Musicians from the originating country might think to themselves, "Oh, I know this music. It's from a nursery song that I heard in childhood." And they would naturally fall into the rhythm and phrasing of that song. Musicians from other countries never heard that nursery song. All they have to go on are the notes in the score and whatever the composer decided to insert (if any).

So, that's why I wonder about the unsung music of one country being played by orchestras and conductors who have zero familiarity with the cultural context in which it was written.

My only real knowledge is the cultural context of American music. In the 18th and 19th centuries, and especially the late 1800s and early 1900s, the rhythms and tunes of African influence and Latin and South American influence were melding into American culture, mixing in with Country and Western (meaning American west), the bluegrass and hillbilly tunes of the Appalacians, all getting mashed up with the hymns and traditional music of European immigrants. So you get Gershwin, heavily influenced by black and jazz and swing and Broadway show music. This sounds *nothing* like the music of Europe and Russia.

Imagine someone trying to play Piazzolla who had never heard a tango. Sure, you can play the notes from the score, but would it sound anything like it would played by Argentinian musicians? And American too, since Piazzolla was years in NY city and the subcultural influences are common there.

I can imagine that this sort of thing is also true of the music of other countries. The composers easily draw upon the familiar rhythms and tunes of the culture, but musicians outside that culture might not know the nuances that bring the music to life.

I have a video of Stefano Bollani (piano) and Concerto Sinfonico dell'Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia conducted by James Conlon playing Rhapsody in Blue. All the notes are there, but the spark that brings Gershwin's music to life is not.

This is why I would love to hear American musicians play American composers like Arthur Foote, who definitely incorporated American tunes into his music.

[Latvian]

Insightful observations, Amphissa, and right on the money, I believe.

I had the good fortune to direct a Latvian choir for many years. In the course of our partnership, we had an implicit understanding of performance practice in singing Latvian music, especially choral arrangements of Latvian folksongs. Much was simply intuitively understood -- rhythms, inflections, tempo, etc. The singers were amateurs, I might add -- none had received any formal musical training to speak of, most could not even read music. And yet, a lifetime of cultural immersion and experience provided a foundation for interpretation. Of course, there were non-cultural musical aspects that I imparted to the group, such as vocal technique, attention to intonation, vocal blend, etc., but when they sang Latvian music, it was with an intuitive understanding of how it should sound.

In the meantime, and after the choir disbanded a number of years ago, I've worked with many non-Latvian choirs, and have performed Latvian music with them, in translation. It's just not the same. One would think that music is music, and being able to read the notes and follow the conductor would produce satisfactory results, but this is just not the case in all instances. It soon became clear to me that some music just doesn't easily translate easily from culture to culture. Not that it can't, especially if you have an exceptionally skilled group and a sensitive conductor. And not that it isn't worth the effort -- I'll continue proselytizing for Latvian music as long as I'm able. But there's always something lacking in the end result, for someone like me who feels how it should go properly.

By the way, I also worked with a German choir at one time, and once performed a German translation of some folk-based choral excerpts from Alfrēds Kalniņš' opera Baņuta. They didn't feel it, either.

[JimL]

I think this is something that Liszt intuitively knew, and that Raff just didn't get.

[Alan Howe]

I think this is something that Liszt intuitively knew, and that Raff just didn't get.

Could you expand a little on this, Jim?

[JimL]

Yes.  But not at 4:35 AM.

[Mark Thomas]

Perhaps when it's a little later than 4:35 AM, Jim, you could expand on your cryptic remark?

[eschiss1]

if it refers to Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies or anything related as contrasted to Raff's efforts in that direction, the history of the former is complicated (and has been debate-ridden, I gather, ever since the works and even the first version of the book/essay - leave alone later Carolyne's version - on the Gypsies and their music - were released.)

[JimL]

It refers also to Liszt's support for composers in all nations who attempted to produce a "national" music, and Raff's stated belief (per MacDowell) that there could be no such thing; that music (read "German music") was universal.

[Mark Thomas]

Thanks Jim. Yes, you're right, Raff did say something like that but I don't think that you can "read 'German music'" into his remark. Despite An das Vaterland and Deutschlands Auferstehung he wasn't a German nationalist, either politically or musically, but he did believe in the principal of universality of musical language and certainly opposed all "-isms", including Wagner-ism and nationalism, in music as narrow and divisive. What he failed to comprehend was that it jelled with changes in political awareness and that it would be attractive to audiences.

[Ilja]

And yet, and yet....Colin Davis does Berlioz better than the French, Bernstein headed up the modern Mahler revival in New York and Mackerras did Janacek as well as the Czechs whichever orchestra he was conducting...

Good point, but I know quite a few French people that might want to dispute the first point. Maybe Davis' Berlioz renditions sound more convincing to Britons...

The point here is that the iron repertory has pretty much become international; Brahms has arguably been performed more in the Anglo-Saxon world than in Germany, so there is a very much internationalized performance tradition.

Where the situation differs somewhat is with music that is very close to local musical traditions. Gershwin is done best by Americans, Balakirev by Russians and Chapi by Spaniards, also because they've been reared on the technicalities involved: rhythms, harmonies, and so on. They may have it 'in their blood' but more objective factors, such as the amount of experience, also come into play.