Botstein on Unsung Composers in Today's Concert Hall

[edurban]

This essay accompanied the most recent American Symphony concert: music director Botstein addresses the issue of the continuing resistance to unfamiliar music.  The concert was devoted to the music of 20th century American composer Henry Cowell (anathema, I'm sure, to certain member of this board, and not music I flip to often myself,) but it applies equally well to Botstein's regular forays into the unfamilar Romantic repertoire.  A certain frustration is evident.  You can hardly blame him, especially since he's up against the New York Times and their condescending staff of High Priests of the Masterwork Repertoire.  Here's the link:

http://www.americansymphony.org/dialogue.php?id=480&season=2009-2010

I'm sure most (all?)of us will agree with his points.

David 

[chill319]

Botstein is certainly the right man for that post. His delight in "the unexpected vastness, quality, and depth of musical expression that is available to be heard..." resonates.

Re Cowell: his brand of neoclassicism chose as its models 18th-century American composers like William Billings. Those middle period works are quite accessible (if a bit dull to my ears).

[Marcus]

Botstein makes a good case for Cowell,but the fact remains, Cowell's compositonal style is hard to digest in large doses. I have heard his "Icelandic" Symphony & Persian Sets but it has left no lasting impression on me. Similarly with such composers as Cage & Boulez. They, and many like them , will only be footnotes in musical history, where there may be discussion of their musical experimentation, and the resultant effect on musical development  in their time. I think the current crop of young  composers realise that the creation of music is more than just a cerebral exercise, and serialism, twelve tone music etc has reached its limits, and is not friendly to the majority of music lovers. Even today's popular music songs are still tonal , melodious,& rhythmic, and I think the human brain has an inherent pleasurable reaction to melody , harmony, & rhythm, and in my opinion, an aversion to noise, and let's be honest, that is the correct description for some  creations of the past 40 years -  educated noise to be accurate. No doubt, today's music students probably enjoy the challenge of Boulez etc, but I doubt if the interest lasts. Mr Botstein would probably advise me to widen my horizons, but I have heard an enormous amount of 20th century music over the past 55 years, and the romantic & late romantic is the music I always return to.
That's my opinion at least - any Boulez lovers out there ? Am I being too harsh?
Marcus.

[Amphissa]

 
I am a great admirer of Botstein's efforts with the American Symphony Orchestra and elsewhere. He has, in fact, programmed some music with the ASO that would appeal to many who can tolerate the late romantic unsung composers, such as Gliere, Myaskovsky,  Chausson, Dohnanyi and Korngold.

I found his comments on Stokowski interesting. Personally, I rather like some of Stokowski's recordings, like Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade. There are other recordings by Stokowski that I really do not like, such as his chopped-up version of Gliere's 3rd Symphony. But the bit about Stokowski being a vulgar showman -- I have heard this criticism a lot, but am not sure what to make of it. Was he any more a showman than Strauss? Karajan? Paganini? Paderewski? Lang Lang? Gergiev? Dudamel? Bernstein?

I think back on the times and think of other artists of the era. Salvador Dali. Pablo Picasso. If Stokowski was flamboyant, did that make him less an artist? Or is he just disliked because he had lots of hair and conducted Fantasia?

My only familiarity with Stokowski has been through recordings, and I judge what I hear, without speculating about his hair or his tux. I'm curious what was "vulgar" about his music? Or was it just his flamboyance that was considered vulgar?

And if he helped popularize classical music for a broader audience, is that necessarily bad? Couldn't we do with a bit more of that these days, as classical music continues its sad decline?

[mbhaub]

In my never-ending cd collecting, one genre I avidly work on are conductors: I have large amounts of Reiner, Monteux, Barbirolli, Walter, Paray, Furtwangler, and others. One conductor I conciously avoid is Stokowski. He may have been a showman, and he no doubt brought good music to the masses. And musicians I know who played and recorded with him unanimously loved him, I can't stand the way he treats music. A few examples should suffice:

1. The last few bars of the Beethoven 9th on the London Phase-4 recording. Did anyone think that adding a run up the scale to the trumpet part was a good idea? It's horrible.
2. The RCA Scheherazade. The first movement is winding down to a close, but BEFORE it ends, Stokie has the solo violin begin the second movement. Really stupid, annoying, out of place. If RK wanted that he would have written it. Then Stokie retouches the third movement and even adds xylophone. I hate that recording.
3. Tchaikovsky 6th on RCA. I wanted so much to like this recording, but the cuts, rewrites and mutilations to the march are awful.
4. Russian Easter Overture. Don't rewrite the closing pages. RK was a genius. Stokie should have deferred and let the music speak for itself.

With vulgar music, Stokie was in his element: the sensational Chicago recording of the Khachaturian 3rd comes to mind. And there are other times when he is surprisingly well-mannered and does a great job, like the Mahler 2nd. But overall, I just don't get the fascination with him.

[TerraEpon]

I find it a bit ironic that a person on this forum would avoid Stokowski so much, since he probably recorded more unsungs than any other 'major' conductor (or certainly before the digital era, anyway)

[chill319]

I certainly wouldn't defend Stokowski's gratuitous touch-ups, but it's worth noting that he came to maturity before the era of recordings, when most composers had (relative to us) few chances to hear how scores actually sound. Conductors had a lot of practical experience in this regard, and of course virtually all of them wanted to help Schumann out. Just for starters.

If they sometimes seem like guests who are barely in the door before they grab the remote and sit on the couch, Stokowski stands out as the one who would grab the remote and *lie down* on the couch. He just couldn't take off his arranger's cap.

Since Mahler was himself a conductor of great experience, it's not all that surprising that Stokey left his score alone. By the way, I purchased that Phase-4 recording of Beethoven's 9th precisely because reviews in American magazines of the day said it represented Stokowski on his best behavior. And perhaps it was ...

[eschiss1]

Not a Boulez lover, but definitely a Schoenberg, Babbitt and Sessions enjoyer, adorer and etc., does that count?  There are some composers I think will land in the dustbin of history (i expect to be proven wrong, but why else to make predictions if not to chance a guess?) but not those three (nor Webern or Berg either.)

Eric

[KLScott]

Boulez, in recent years, has become more tonal (by his own standards), but I don't think he'll be a footnote in musical history...as a composer nor as a conductor.

As for Stoki, I agree he did some crazy things with re-orchestrating the standard repertoire, but so did Toscanini, Szell, Mengelberg...the list is endless. The only difference was that Stokowski did it with flamboyant flair. And personally, I do like the way he ended Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet by cutting out the thunderous timpani rolls and fortissimo chords at the end, and just let the strings take to work to a quiet, restful pianissimo. I know it may not be everyone's taste, or for most conductors to do, but for his view of the score, it worked.

And last, Marcus - what of some of today's composers who have turned away from serialism and returned to tonality and what they deem as a "new romanticism"? What of the symphonies of George Lloyd? Just curious...

KL Scott

[Marcus]

Hello KLScott,
As I said in my post, I think that today's composers are returning to tonality. What is the point of writing cerebral music which may appeal to musicians & students, but which for the average music lover, is very hard work. (both on the ear & the brain).
But I realise also, that we will never reach consensus on this, as we all hear & perceive music differently. There are many out there who enjoy serialism & atonal music - just look at the catalogues -  but in the long term, I think tonal music will always win the race. But even Beethoven's music sounded too complex for many in his day, and the last string quartets are still a challenge for some. So who knows where music will be in 100 years hence.
As for George Lloyd, I have all of his symphonies, and play them often. his music is very similar to Howard Hanson, and has not strayed far from Romanticism. Some of the variations in his 12th symphony are beautiful, the last movement of his 9th, the exuberance of the 2nd, all wonderful music. I particularly enjoy the Arctic symphony (4th).
Do you know the symphonies of Kurt Graunke ? (I have the first nine of them - am not sure if there are any more)They are far more complex, abounding in polytonality, but an original sound, and romanticism is not far away. What
I find though, that after an evening of listening to Graunke, Fine or Valen, I need to soothe my brain with something a little lighter, such as a Brahms symphony.
Marcus.