Yesterday the San Francisco Symphony held a press conference at Davies and released its schedule for next season unto the world, the blogosphere included. Though I was pleased to be invited to the event, the sad fact that this blog doesn't pay my bills and thus I have a "day job," precluded me from attending. Really, I've been doing this for a year now and no one has recognized my genius and offered me a job which truly suits my talents. What the hell is wrong with you people, anyway?
Reactions to the 2010-11 SFS season, and the way it was pitched, were mixed, and I took particular umbrage to the way it was disparaged on Lisa Hirsch's blog The Iron Tongue of Midnight. Lisa knows what she's talking about- I don't dispute that, but I believe there are two things going on no one is really paying attention to that are worth calling out or illuminating. Granted, by almost every measure for a seasoned attender of orchestral performances the next season is easily safe as far as the programming goes. Michael Tilson Thomas (MTT), in his fifteenth year as conductor and Music Director, having just been handed a nice award by President Obama, certainly doesn't have job security issues. MTT will be welcome at SFS as long as he wants to stay.
The key words uttered by MTT at the press conference, and in my opinion the philosophy behind next year's season are:
"The single biggest thing that the world should understand is the level at which the orchestra is playing," Thomas said. "Even just in the past couple of years, the orchestra has risen so much in the sheen and subtlety of its playing, with these new young principals and the veterans. It knocks my socks off."
My take on this is MTT wants to show off what he's built with the SFS before he departs. I believe his aim is to eventually depart his post with the orchestra considered the best in the Americas and equal to any in Europe. The possible merits and potential of this is beside the point. But by my understanding, MTT believes it's worth making a case for, regardless of whether it's Sisyphean from the outset, and maybe it's not. Time will tell.
With that goal in mind, how does an orchestra accomplish this task? By playing music that few if any have heard live? By including works that only 10% of the audience at best may know and want to hear? How do you define "greatness" in these endeavors, which for all but a few in the audience are novel or educational experiences? You don't- and that is the genius behind SFS's next season.
My take on the programming for next season, when it's said and done, performed as MTT envisions it, is that no one will be able to dispute that this is one of the world's elite orchestras. How does one do that? By playing a lot of the standard repertory and showcasing the talent. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but this is the first time I've seen SFS create programs around the talents of individual players within the orchestra. If you've been paying attention these past few years, it's indisputable that Carey Bell, Stephen Paulson, Mark Inouye and the SFS chorus are performing at levels that are truly extraordinary. The next season explicitly has programs to showcase these individual talents. What other orchestra is doing this? What other orchestra can?
It is by extraordinary performances of the familiar by which we make these judgements, not the thrill of the new and exciting. For example, I wasn't hugely impressed with Bychkov's conducting of Rachmaninoff, but I do remember Bell's standout solo. In a new work by Gubaidulina I wouldn't have noticed it to the same effect because I would be more focused on the music itself and not how well it was being performed. I recently attended a fascinating performance by the Kronos Quartet, which I found totally engaging, only to learn afterward the composer of the piece wished they'd practiced it more. My unfamiliarity with the piece clouded my judgement and left me easily impressed. The composer wasn't. Who knew better what it was capable of being?
However, because I know it, I can easily tell a lame performance of the "Eroica" from a great one, and this only comes with familiarity and experience. There are many things on SFS's upcoming season I've never heard. Some will be great, some will probably suck, and the truth is this can vary from night to night. That's the nature of a live performance. If you want a predetermined outcome, you may as well sit home and listen to the stereo. I for one, expect to be surprised at a concert, for better or worse, hopefully for the better, which is why I've wagered the money for the ticket it will be worth it.
Yes, from a programming perspective, the next season is indeed "a safe bet." It's going to be up to MTT and the individual players of the orchestra to keep it from being boring. Where do you want to put your money?
More to come.
Reactions to the 2010-11 SFS season, and the way it was pitched, were mixed, and I took particular umbrage to the way it was disparaged on Lisa Hirsch's blog The Iron Tongue of Midnight. Lisa knows what she's talking about- I don't dispute that, but I believe there are two things going on no one is really paying attention to that are worth calling out or illuminating. Granted, by almost every measure for a seasoned attender of orchestral performances the next season is easily safe as far as the programming goes. Michael Tilson Thomas (MTT), in his fifteenth year as conductor and Music Director, having just been handed a nice award by President Obama, certainly doesn't have job security issues. MTT will be welcome at SFS as long as he wants to stay.
The key words uttered by MTT at the press conference, and in my opinion the philosophy behind next year's season are:
"The single biggest thing that the world should understand is the level at which the orchestra is playing," Thomas said. "Even just in the past couple of years, the orchestra has risen so much in the sheen and subtlety of its playing, with these new young principals and the veterans. It knocks my socks off."
My take on this is MTT wants to show off what he's built with the SFS before he departs. I believe his aim is to eventually depart his post with the orchestra considered the best in the Americas and equal to any in Europe. The possible merits and potential of this is beside the point. But by my understanding, MTT believes it's worth making a case for, regardless of whether it's Sisyphean from the outset, and maybe it's not. Time will tell.
With that goal in mind, how does an orchestra accomplish this task? By playing music that few if any have heard live? By including works that only 10% of the audience at best may know and want to hear? How do you define "greatness" in these endeavors, which for all but a few in the audience are novel or educational experiences? You don't- and that is the genius behind SFS's next season.
My take on the programming for next season, when it's said and done, performed as MTT envisions it, is that no one will be able to dispute that this is one of the world's elite orchestras. How does one do that? By playing a lot of the standard repertory and showcasing the talent. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but this is the first time I've seen SFS create programs around the talents of individual players within the orchestra. If you've been paying attention these past few years, it's indisputable that Carey Bell, Stephen Paulson, Mark Inouye and the SFS chorus are performing at levels that are truly extraordinary. The next season explicitly has programs to showcase these individual talents. What other orchestra is doing this? What other orchestra can?
It is by extraordinary performances of the familiar by which we make these judgements, not the thrill of the new and exciting. For example, I wasn't hugely impressed with Bychkov's conducting of Rachmaninoff, but I do remember Bell's standout solo. In a new work by Gubaidulina I wouldn't have noticed it to the same effect because I would be more focused on the music itself and not how well it was being performed. I recently attended a fascinating performance by the Kronos Quartet, which I found totally engaging, only to learn afterward the composer of the piece wished they'd practiced it more. My unfamiliarity with the piece clouded my judgement and left me easily impressed. The composer wasn't. Who knew better what it was capable of being?
However, because I know it, I can easily tell a lame performance of the "Eroica" from a great one, and this only comes with familiarity and experience. There are many things on SFS's upcoming season I've never heard. Some will be great, some will probably suck, and the truth is this can vary from night to night. That's the nature of a live performance. If you want a predetermined outcome, you may as well sit home and listen to the stereo. I for one, expect to be surprised at a concert, for better or worse, hopefully for the better, which is why I've wagered the money for the ticket it will be worth it.
Yes, from a programming perspective, the next season is indeed "a safe bet." It's going to be up to MTT and the individual players of the orchestra to keep it from being boring. Where do you want to put your money?
More to come.
You're building an argument entirely around your speculation that MTT will leave in a few years and that he has a very specific goal in mind, and you're then going on to assert a single path to that goal.
ReplyDeleteNo one doubts that the SFS is a great orchestra. "Greatest orchestra in the world" is a subjective judgment, and when The Gramophone attempted to rank the world's orchestras, there was plenty of eye-rolling and discussion. After all, just what are the criteria? How do you compare orchestras?
And if his goal is to build the greatest orchestra in the world by playing the standard rep, why is the official line that it's an innovative season? Why isn't he just stating the goal you guess at, if that's his goal?
Any good music director strives to improve the quality of his or her band. It's a major failure of Gerard Schwarz's long tenure in Seattle that he hasn't done much to improve the quality and reputation of his orchestra; on the other hand, look at what Osmo Vanska is explicitly trying to do in Minnesota. I disagree strongly that the way to get the debateable cred of "greatest orchestra in the world" is to play the standard repertory to death.
I disagree strongly that the way to get the debateable cred of "greatest orchestra in the world" is by playing the standard repertory. Take a look, for example, at what James Levine is doing with the BSO, an orchestra that had gone stale and gotten restless after 30-odd years under Seiji Ozawa. Levine has a significant program of commissions and is playing many other newish works with the orchestra. Over the last few seasons, they've become familiar with and brilliant in the language of Elliott Carter. That technical stretching will be reflected in their playing of the standard repertory; I've heard plenty of musicians talk about how playing new music makes them re-examine and re-conceive the standard repertory.
You mention that the principal players are being given prominent solos during the season. You have probably noticed that, for example, Alexander Barantschik plays at least one concerto annually. It's in their contracts, and SFS is not the only orchestra that spotlights their piincipal winds and strings. Just take a look at other orchestras' schedules. Getting back to the BSO, their principal flutist played the Carter flute concerto a couple of weeks ago; they've had concerts featuring the principal harp, etc.
As far as music only 10% of the audience has heard or wants to hear - how can anyone know if they want to hear a repertory until they've heard it? That's one reason it's important to program unfamiliar music.
I agree with your point about judging the orchestra when you know the piece they're playing, but that doesn't really account for the wall-to-wall standard rep -- they could easily do a few major pieces to make that point. It's a long season. And as Lisa pointed out, they could also do something interesting and challenging with the standard rep like the Beethoven/Schoenberg series that Levine did at the BSO. And defining greatness just as "playing better", whatever that means, in the standard repertory . . . you could define greatness as cultivating an adventurous audience, or pioneering new sounds, or many other ways. My main problem with the idea that the motivation for this very standard season is so that Symphony can showcase its brilliance in basic rep to the world is that the Symphony has not only not said that that is its goal (and why wouldn't they say it? it's not shameful -- not too interesting, but not shameful), they've said the opposite: that they are continuing their allegedly innovative and adventuresome programming.
ReplyDeleteOh, regarding the Kronos? Their explicit intention is to play a lot of new music; they do not do a lot of repeats, and, yes, individual works don't get as much rehearsal time as they would in other groups. Groups that have a set repertory that they perform in a given time period certainly do give more polished performances. (See, for example, the brilliant Carter quartet performances of the Pacifica.)
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you are not saying there isn't value in what the Kronos does, which is different from what most other groups (and new music groups) do. They have a huge commissioning program and are responsible for dozens, scores, of new works for string quartet.
I also must mention that in general orchestras and other groups putting on new music performances do a fine job of it. Technical standards have gone up enormously even in the last 20 or 30 years, for many reasons, including competition among music students and pressures to play new and more demanding music.
It's worth bearing in mind that the first attempt at performing Tristan und Isolde was canceled after something like 65 orchestra rehearsals. The players just couldn't handle it. One composer wishing his work had been practiced more is a single data point. Another way to look at it is: you found the work engaging, and he got his piece performed by an extremely visible and important new music group.
Good grief, where to start? First of all re Kronos, I think the number of commissions they've played is over 600, which is an incredible achievement and of tremendous value. I think my comments on the show were favorable and I enjoyed it- though I found great amusement in Rose's comment after the performance and will admit his is an opinion that's worth paying attention.
ReplyDeleteBut back to SFS and the next season. If you really look at the materials, they aren't making any claims about this being an innovative season. They're referring to the orchestra's brand, and I think it's safe to say the Symphony has a solid trrack record of putting itself out there in front of certain curves relative to other major institutions, whether we go all the way back to American Mavericks (oh so long ago it seems like another era altogether), Keeping Score, launching their own label for the Mahler project, Project San Francisco, Davies after dark, etc. Do any of these things make the orchestra better? Decidedly no- but it makes them interesting and generates attention. If they want to use that as the basis to call themselves innovative who really cares? It's not as much of a stretch as it would be if it were coming from across the street.
As for adventurous, well, that really is subjective- for some it's drinking a cocktail, for other's it's jumping out of a plane. I completely agree the upcoming season doesn't have the jolt one could find on other schedules. But it's certainly not the NYP under Masur: 20 works never perfomed by the orchestra including two world-premiere commissions- that averages to a new work appearing at least once on a program for more than half the season. Gargantuan pieces for the chorus and the return of huge Adams pieces. Has the SFS done such a good job of showcasing and commissioning Adams that his appearance on the schedule is equivalent to seeing the Jupiter Symphony?
Granted, I'd be the first to say the LA Phil is currently the most interesting orchestra in the country right now thanks to Salonen's tenure and Levine and Vanska are certainly upping the ante, but really folks, this isn't boring and staid.
Just to be clear, I wasn't stating they're out to become "the world's greatest" orchestra, but I do read into MTT's comments and the programming that he's reaching for equal status and a legacy. Do I think playing the standard rep is the only way (or even the best way) to do that- no, I don't. But they can't get there without that accomplishing that. That is what orchestras do. It's been mentioned by others before me that MTT wants to be the heir to Bernstein and from my perspective he's essentially following that path to the extent he can. Too bad it's highly unlikely we'll ever get a West Side Story from him (and yes, I know Patrick dislikes Bernstein).
As for why they're not putting that out front and center? Why should they? Does a season need a theme? I hope not, otherwise we may get those cringers like the opera keeps coming up with like "A Season of Glamour."
Well, actually the SFS does have a theme this year: Part music. Part magic. Can magic be made from Beethoven? I say yes, most emphatically!
Even so, I thought last season's Ligeti Req one of the most superb performances I've ever attended. Coupled with Argerich performing Ravel's piano concerto, neither work was new, but it was thrilling beyond measure.
And finally (phew), yes I know the solo turns by the orchestra members are nothing new, but they haven't been given this kind of prominence before and done as a three week series.