I watch lots of live concerts on streaming from various orchestras and notice that many new young conductors follow a similar pattern: attractive, extroverted men and women, all smiles during the performance, very expressive gestures, seemingly dancing and having a blast when conducting... and not getting much in the way of the orchestra.
Bingo. Compare that to live concerts with Kleiber, Tennstedt, Celibidache, and so on. Regardless of what one thinks of their interpretation choices, you can visibly see them conducting as if in the trenches with the musicians, sweating profusely, struggling, full of tension, a great deal of seriousness. The results speak for themselves.
Completely agree. My experience attending concerts of young conductors in Europe has been just what you are saying. It came to the point where I stopped wasting my money on the ticket and just sit in the comfort of my apartment and listen to true great recordings. Live concerts have their own attractiveness, but nothing can make up for the frustration I have to put up with when suffering through a banal and uninteresting performance.
Try watching Cannelakis or Altinoglu, just to see a couple of people who are leading and not following. But you can't tell everything from watching just the performance. Toscanini did little in concert except beat time, but just listen to his rehearsals! Blomstedt does the work in rehearsal, even at his advanced age, but onstage he just beatifically beats time.
When George Szell used to come to conduct the Concertgebouw Orkest, some members of the orcherstra, who had worked with him before, called it: Celstraf (like Szell-punishment) meaning prison sentence ... :-)
This is an interesting counterpart to the previously discussed phenomenon of orchestral musicians sometimes being more familiar with the music than the conductor.
Maybe sports teams should pick who they want as a coach. Maybe school kids should choose who can teach in their schools. You are absolutely right (in my concurring opinion) that orchestra members will not make the tough decisions and I would add assume the financial risks involved.
Off topic: May I trouble you for a more detailed talk about the different types of conductors? Sometimes I thought I got the difference between a „line-guy“ and „cord-guy“ and who may have been what, but I am not used to think about conductors in that way.
Could you please make a video about your stereo system? I'd love to see your listening room and all your gear, and learn how it was chosen and how it evolved over time.
Very interesting subject and good points being made. Thank you! Some related questions would be: - who should decide with conductor would be a good match for a specific orchestra? - how some of today orchestras decide their conductors? - how different orchestras from the 60s, 70s and 80s choose conductors?
Great talk! What I am wondering is when, as you said, it is hard for the orchestra musicians to gauge how good they sound in performance, then how does the Orpheus chamber orchestra manage to achieve such good results without a conductor? Are the musicians just particularly good at making interpretive decisions and good at settling disagreements, or is there some other reason?
Groups like Orpheus may not have a conductor, but they assign the leadership role to different musicians in each cases, so they are not in any sense without direction or guidance. The rest comes simply from careful rehearsal and attention to the directions on the page.
Cleveland Orchestra and George Szell comes to mind. He was known to be a bit of a tyrant, but his results speak for themselves. Many of their recordings are still reference recordings. I am sure many of the orchestra members wasn't too fond of him though.
On the other hand, there have been times that we hear an orchestra hates who their board of directors chose as their new conductor, and they play terribly for him or her and resent management for poor decisions.
It can happen, but that doesn't invalidate the process. Orchestral musicians are supposed to behave professionally and they should be dismissed if they don't.
There are a lot of things about this video that fall apart under scrutiny. His off the cuff style of videos work well for just reviewing music given his wide ranging experience in the field but this was very truly more of an opinion piece than his typical offerings. How does a back row tympanist not having a global sense of the orchestra have anything to do with picking a conductor? Is comparing assembly line workers to pro musicians (Im assuming in this talk he is referencing larger pro orchestras and not volunteer community ones) apt? No discussion of the make up of an orchestra’s board of directors? Maybe I missed something during this video that explains it all but I found myself often times perplexed while watching this.
Never under estimate the power of the Industrial Orchestral Machine - those managers who wheel and deal to get what they want. The Ronald Wilfords are still with us.
I was a part of a conductor audition once. Part of the interview process was to rehearse the orchestra. The orchestra members were asked for our opinions, but we didn't do the hiring. I wrote about this particular situation on another occasion, but suffice it to say that one candidate stood out above the rest. The orchestra played markedly better under this candidate - and the members of the orchestra knew it. The vast majority of players in the orchestra expressed our support for this candidate precisely **because he held us accountable** not, as you suggested, because he was the best schmoozer. Most musicians aren't the total nincompoops you seem to be implying we are. We understand that an orchestra doesn't sound the same in the trombone section (in back, where I sat) as it does from the audience. Again, we really aren't quite as stupid as you suggest. But I also agree that the orchestra members shouldn't be the main determining factor about who gets hired to conduct.
I never suggested that orchestra members were stupid. That is a complete mischaracterization. I said they have their own agenda and that they seldom know when a great performance has happened, and this is undeniably true. Your own words confirmed this. It's nice that you liked to be challenged, and that you all felt that you "played better." But did you from the listener's perspective? And was the candidate's interpretation superior? That was not something you can judge with any sort of objectivity.
@@DavesClassicalGuide With all due respect, you obviously didn't read my entire comment. And, In spite of your reply, what I heard you suggest, in spite of some feeble hemming and hawing during the video, is that musicians are basically stupid. Sorry.
@@DavesClassicalGuide With all due respect, I really don't think my comment was a complete mischaracterization (but it may be a partial one). And it's obvious that you didn't read my entire comment (specifically the part about sitting in the back of the ensemble). I enjoy your channel very much, but I must disagree with your suggestion that musicians are basically a bunch of incompetent nincompoops (which is a bit of an exaggeration, but not much of one). However, I do agree that they usually have agendas. To my particular situation, I can hear when the tone and intonation in an orchestra are markedly better. That's where the vast improvement was. Sitting in the back of a community orchestra, one hears much of the mediocre playing from the back chair string players. The candidate in question siimply got them to pay attention to what they were doing. The people who did the hiring sat in the auditorium seats, not in the orchestra. One other quick point: a conductor doesn't hear the orchestra the same way the audience does either. Again, I really enjoy your channel. It's a real treasure, even if I don't always agree with you. Thank you for doing what you do.
Interesting to consider whether an orchestra, particularly at a high level, goes for a particular conductor because they think s/he will challenge them and the musical result will be better or because s/he'll be easier to ignore.
I’m not sure I understand your post. In any event the Leinsdorf years were good…not great. He performed lots of interesting repertoire and, in the hall at least, the balances and playing were, for the most part, superb. I do not know whether the orchestra had a voice in his appointment, but by the end he grew quite nasty with certain members. Likewise I do not know if the orchestra had any voice in the appointment of Steinberg. I do know that his first concert, beginning with the Beethoven, Consecration was terribly dull. He was not well. I do know that the BSO musicians were very excited with Levine and became increasingly unhappy with him when his illness interfered with his conducting. What concerts! I count myself fortunate to have heard him so many times. It is unfortunate that he made so few commercial recording with the BSO.
I responded to this video because of Dave's comment that musicians don't really have a clue as to what's going on while they're playing - which I think is total BS! Someone mentioned the case with Kertesz Cleveland, so I thought that mentioning Leinsdorf Boston would support my case. You could also mention Rosbaud Chicago - they were big on hiring him after Reiner - but instead got Martinon, whose time in Chicago was considered not that successful.
This is a very interesting point as some orchestra do just that and others have input but not control. The reasons you outline are worth reflecting on and in fact something I suspect most of us have not considered. Often the lack of listening objectivityi is not considered. Music making by collaborati9n but not by committee and feeling good with a conductor doesn't mean there is good music making . Great chat Dave. By the way BPO loved working with Rattle over Barenboim and made the callfor who would them into the 21st century. We know how that worked out.
I would dispute that the BPO picking Rattle over Barenboim was a bad call. Barenboim is certainly a very capable conductor but much of the music world finds him a little dull and not much of an innovator. I would argue the BPO chose Rattle more for his vision as an institutional leader - "Make us an orchestra of the 21st century" - than for his pre-eminence as an interpreter of any particular part of the repertoire. And he did. All to the good, IMHO.
Berlin remained one of the great orchestras in the world with Rattle. Their recording output trailed off a bit, which had a lot to do with the general state of the classical recording world. If you want to evaluate them, do it on the basis of their live work, coupled with Digital Concert Hall, which was the trailblazer for streaming by an orchestra. Their live concerts when they were on tour in NYC were mostly incredibly good.
Yes, great point. We don't need tyrants & I do wonder whether the great tyrants of the past may have got better results if they'd been less tyrannical...but as you say, an elected conductor is as absurd as an elected senior manager in, say, a stock broking firm. Tyrannical leadership across the board is now less common than it was in the days of Szell, Reiner & Bohm (to name 3 tyrants) but artistic leadership remains just as vital. I do fear the triumph of the marketing department more than that of the rank & file musicians, however. My perception is that the non-artistic people exercise more & more power (not surprising when the orchestras are loss making), programs are dumbed down & conductors chosen for their personal charisma more than their artistic merits. I'm staggered that one of my local orchestras in its annual survey of subscribers chooses persistently to ask a range of questions about sponsor recognition & not a thing about quality or leadership...
I wonder if is has more difficult for orchestra members to respect music directors when they have multiple appointments versus those who have a single appointment and, in some cases, live in the city where the orchestra is based?
I think in some ways the hiring decision, for good or ill, comes down to a business decision as to which conductor will draw more patrons to fill the concert halls. However, these decisions hopefully can be made with the assistance of musically qualified staff members. I completely agree with you that these appointments should not be based on the conductor's popularity with musicians or audiences. I often wonder if audiences react more to the visual gyrations of the conductor rather than the aural evidence of the music. Wonderful video. Thank you.
Thank you for this somewhat provocative piece. I imagine you're going to get some strong reactions and opinions, which will be interesting to see. I totally get your point, but I'm still scratching my head a bit. Didn't you also express the opinion that in many, if not most cases, the conductor isn't really that critical to a performance or recording's success? That it was the orchestra's players that really knew the depths and details of most standard repertoire? I've been lucky enough to attend a few rehearsals of the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and they are (were?) a truly democratically run organization. Depending on the piece at hand, different members are put 'in charge' of final decisions of tempo, balance, phrasing etc. but the process is very democratic and there are many discussions (and even a few arguments) that go in to it. I think you would agree that the results have been almost always first rate. But the Orpheus is an ensemble of only 30 - 40 members, and perhaps it is unrealistic to think that an orchestra of 90 could function without a single leader. A complex issue for sure- we'll just have to see how things develop.
Another way of looking at this is regards the Orchestra as a business and wonder if the Chief or Principal Conductor makes the choices re concerts and recordings, including things like tv or film scores to maximise the orchestra's revenue relative to its costs. I don't know if orchestral musicians can survive on concerts and recordings and assume they teach when they are not playing, but I also don't know how royalties work for recordings, including broadcasts on radio and now on internet channels. Thus I assume a 'big name' can get the full package of work when a lesser person might not -but then I wonder if an orchestra is commercially viable compared to other businesses.
Just a few points: Conductors almost never 'run the company'. Nearly all North American orchestras have a board of directors and a CEO and/or President. In fact, in the larger (i.e. well-known) institutions, Music Directors don't even have full control over programming. The vast majority of interpretive decisions that go into a performance are (surprise!) made by the instrumentalists! This is not only true for the European orchestras, where many of the 'greatest' ensembles have famous stories of completely ignoring the person on the podium, but it is true for even the most servile of ensembles in America. The most important role of a conductor is to be a leader; Not to be the best or most knowledgeable musician on stage. To be a good leader in this case is to motivate the players to play their best in the concert. The consistent number one most-loved trait in a conductor (to orchestral musicians worldwide throughout time) is one who 'lets them play'. Consistently most-hated: a conductor who talks too much. Why? Because playing in rehearsal is how an orchestra practices. More practice by and large equals better performance. And lastly, someone or some group of people is choosing the Music Director, if not the orchestral musicians themselves. Responsible for the choice could be the CEO, Vice President, Board, Artistic Administrator, Executive Advisor, or some other title. The expertise of discerning who to choose as MD to produce the best music is actually not a prerequesite to holding any of those jobs. We could argue it SHOULD BE, but it currently is not. All of those jobs share the same primary goal which is to keep the institution relatively solvent.
Dave, can you please give us a list of orchestras who choose their own Music Directors? Certainly, the Berlin Philharmonic has done well at this and I know they take their job very seriously. I don't think many orchestras put this decision in the hands of the musicians.
@@DavesClassicalGuide You have stated that you don't go to live concerts, and you also appear to ignore their Digital Concert Hall, as well as their recordings issued on their own website. I treasure some of the performances that I heard live, which were some of the best things I have ever heard, and I find many of the performances on Digital Concert Hall to be superlative, and a number of the performances that they have issued on their own label are wonderful. If you are only going to make that judgement on the basis of their dwindling amount of commercial recordings, then it is a narrow one.
Behind every great organization, musical or otherwise, is a tough son of gun who makes people WORK HARD and do the job RIGHT. This has been true through all time, and it always will be. If you don't have one of those you don't have a great organization. In my experience that person cares more about his craft and the purposes of the organization than he/she cares what the pay is or the working conditions. He will stay however late is necessary to get the job done. That person doesn't have to necessarily be mean or cruel but that person must not care one whit about how other people feel about him going about his job. Eventually that person changes the culture of the workplace because his earnestness and devotion to his craft and to achieving excellence is seen to be sincere, and moreover, effective. But that boss is invariably not liked or appreciated when he starts the job.
Fair points about how much employees of a money-losing enterprise should say. But you're characterizing them as common laborers and that's the wrong comparison. If you're going to treat musicians as artists and professionals, and want the orchestra and conductor to work together well, you have to credit them with being the best placed to know which conductor knows what they're doing and which don't. Your analogy musicians being like assembly-line workers who shouldn't get to choose their boss may be more appropriate for who should choose the Executive Director, etc., and I'll grant a principal oboe probably doesn't know which executive will come up with the best best strategy or fundraising plan. So they shouldn't have a lot of say there unless they're also going to take on management responsibilities.
It's not the wrong comparison. They are skilled laborers (you were the one who added "common"). Playing a musical instrument is a form of manual labor. Artists may flatter themselves and believe they are "above" that, but that's mere snobbery. I don't say that to demean them. They are highly skilled and I respect that tremendously, but not more than anyone else who has a similar skill, whether they play the oboe or make widgets.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Mr. Hurwitz, I didn't know you were capable of making a statement this ignorant. Top orchestral musicians are not interchangeable parts that can be swapped in and out with no discernable difference to the listener. Playing an instrument is no more "a form of manual labor" than performing brain surgery or sinking the game-winning free throw in the NBA Championship. For you to dismiss this fact as "snobbery" is an insult to the people who have spent thousands of hours each year privately honing their craft, and that's in addition to the time they've spent in rehearsals, in classrooms, receiving private lessons, and listening to recordings and live performances. You've clearly never once had a conversation with world-class musician and yet have the gall to claim that you know more about what they do than the people who actually to it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm not a professional musician but in amateur groups I've been part of several conductor searches. In almost every case the group preferred the conductor who made us work the hardest. The one who showed they understood how to make us sound better - balances, intonation, etc.. Basically the one who gave us the most compelling experience in a 2.5-hour rehearsal. Though the Board/management didn't always agree with that choice, usually with disastrous results a year or so down the road. No argument that the musicians' agenda can sometimes be self-defeating. The AFM's longstanding obstinance about how they get paid for making recordings nobody buys is a great example (a few years ago I recall the CSO, lacking an agreement covering recording for radio, refused even to allow the concerts to be recorded and held for release pending an agreement). But the musicians are also the guardians of the group's traditions - Cleveland and Chicago are the way they are because of the culture that musicians - not the management, not the MD - pass on over the decades (New York, too, usually for the worse). Whatever their agenda, it usually involves wanting to maintain the group's stature. But putting it another way: Is the MD the boss, or a fellow musician and colleague/collaborator? I would argue (and it may vary by organization) the latter. And they as musicians are generally better placed to determine who is the best suited to work with them than the CEO who heads the Board or the dowager who likes the cut of his (and it's usually his) jib. Maybe this is reductio ad absurdum, but if a string quartet needs a new cellist, should the other three members be able to select the person? I assume you would say yes, and I imagine the line is drawn at the stage where you have not just a group, but an institution that will outlast its current members. Which then means whether the musicians should choose the MD is more a matter of business than of music. Love the videos, in any case.
I believe in the rights of working people to have a say in the conditions of their labor, as with any group in unequal, hierarchical relationships. I will say, as a musician who has been under the baton of conductors in the "old style" (mercurial, intimidating, abusive) and more laid-back ones, I can see how it might be easier to vote for the guy who's not going to make your life hell, even when that might be at the expense of the musical product. Of course, in conductors, solid musical standards and principles and amicability need not be mutually exclusive, but I digress.
As I said before, they should certainly have "a say," but not "the ultimate say" when choosing a music director. They should have more say in other issues--pay scale, sanitary facilities, rehearsal conditions, sick leave and other stuff like that. But those are union contract issues. Choosing a conductor is quite another matter.
@DavesClassicalGuide I'm inclined to agree on that. Some decisions, like the direction of the organization or of programming, or of course, the hiring of any personnel, naturally fall outside the purview of the performers.
@dave, I agree completely with you. From a labor point of view, orchestra members should have all those rights you list, but management ultimately sets policy and the choice of the music director is theirs in the end. I also agree that if they are smart, they will include the orchestra. I worry as someone said above that media appeal and not musical ability have the last word in this process. Thanks again for another carefully reasoned video.
@@AlexMadorsky (I'm your friend Dan's dad--changed my @handle). I think FWM has proven to be a good decision--he's become a much more emotionally involving conductor over the years.
Why didn't they choose one of the assistant conductors, like Louis Lane, to succeed szell? He seemed well liked by board members, the orchestra and szell himself.
@@guitar5856 I'm guessing that some of the reasons were that Lane had no name recognition outside of Cleveland and no record contract. And offhand, I can't think of any US assistant conductors of a major orchestra who then became music director at the same place. For example, MTT was assistant conductor in Boston, continuing as principal guest conductor. But his first music director position of an orchestra was in Buffalo, and then the next music director job he had was SFSO 16 years after Buffalo.
Ultimately process matters, but so does motivation. Whether it's a board, investors or musicians, it is tempting to see dollar signs by hiring the glitzy flavor of the month. Charisma is not substance except by happenstance. Somehow, true stewards of music and reputation have to be ascendant. One of the enjoyable aspects of this site are discussions of excellence. That survives and colors the orchestra's standing. Sadly, that is secondary too often to money honey.
Followed this discussion. Yes the Makela appointments seem premature and inexplicable. Yes all organisations now have some employee input. But unless we know what the pool of alternatives are, it’s very difficult to comment. It is indeed strange the concertgebouw has hired him, but I suspect they are under financial strain since 2008. Maybe the same is true of Chicago. But I don’t think we can discuss pros and cons of any of this unless we know who the other candidates might have been…
The way I understand it no member of a collective group who has to perform a part in a greater 'play' - be it an actor in a film, a footballer in a soccer team or a member of a symphonic orchestra - should have a say in who his/her/its director/coach/conductor should be. (He/She/It definitely has every right to choose whether he/she/it wants to be under a specific way of playing the game, a specific "vision" of it, but that's all.) Someone has to decide the vision, the tactics, someone whose record is decided by a different hierarchy, the 'corporate' ambition/plan, the critics, the educated opinion of an audience, anything that constitutes objective artistic merit/success. It is perhaps a neverending discussion, but I find it sufficient as an explanation that a member of an orchestra does not share the same duties and aspirations of a conductor, therefore a kind of conflict of interest ensues. (And to be more specific, I tend to believe that in a world where criticism has fallen from grace - and critics are to be held responsible, too - a certain mediation gap is widened as to what constitutes "great art" replacing ideal performances with popular relativism.) Great talk, Mr. H.
Hello, Dave. I remember you talking about how orchestras "loved" Hans Knappertsbusch, mainly because he usually didn’t make them work hard at all: and often, the recorded results showed that. (i.e., especially his results with Paris Conservatory) Do you feel that there is a certain lackadaisical attitude among orchestral musicians these days? Especially without a martinet at the helm, and with unbelievably strong unions protecting their jobs. Obviously, they're incredibly competent musically, or they wouldn't have gotten into the orchestra in the first place. But once in, one wonders how many simply "play" rather than "perform." I know there are those who take great pride in their position. Others seem to mark time. My thoughts on this come from conversations with friends in our local orchestra and many studio musicians. I guess I'm agreeing with you, in the sense that people trained to do one thing very professionally, who then just skate by, have no business deciding who runs the show. And doubly so if said music director values being liked more than creating exceptional performances for the paying audience. Sorry if I'm tangential in my writing; I am a bit OCD and lose focus. Hopefully, you get what I was asking. Thank you for all you do.
I think we're all human and, as you say, there are wonderfully dedicated musicians and others just hacking away for a living, but it's human nature to want things to be easy.
@@DavesClassicalGuide it is also human nature among musicians that care about music (and many of them in the really great orchestras certainly do), and want a director that will lead them to great performances. And yes, it is possible to hear and feel when a performance is great from inside the ensemble. There are also, of course, some other members of major orchestras that are somewhat burned out, and will look for someone to make their work easier. Making blanket statements about all of this doesn't serve a good purpose, especially when there are quite a few situations where management and boards have very little knowledge of music themselves.
Can't disagree with that, but I must add that much of it also applies to other music enterprises, such as music colleges and conservatories. There's something going awfully wrong with the "music making process". The musical results are mediocre for the most part or technically good but empty musically. That's why I keep coming back to the hear the same artists of the past over and over again and rejoice when I find a true artist amongst the current generation of posers and wannabes.
Out of curiosity, how does the Vienna Philharmonic handle this matter? My understanding is that it is self-governing and does not have a music director. At the same time it has maintained its high standards and corporate sound for decades. Is Vienna a model for other orchestras or is its history and traditions so unique as to render it sui generis when it comes to self government?
The Vienna Philharmonic is simply an extension of the Vienna State Opera Orchestra. Their main job is to play at the Opera, and they offer a much smaller number of concerts on their own, far less than the other major orchestras of the world. They haven't had a music director for the last 90 years. The Opera has, though, and that director is not directly selected by the musicians.
Phew. For a moment I thought you were going to skip the financial aspect. Should have known better. The only thing I'd like to add is that I fully agree that the orchestra itself sould nt make the choice, but I do think that they should be allowed to have the option of a final "no". An irritating nuance to make a that the orchestra is not one being. "It" does not say anything. Its member may. There may be more vocal ones pushing through their opinion over meeker colleagues. Before you know it, "the orchestra" saying what "it" wants is back to a largish number of people playing at democracy. Which is itself a form of madness... Difficult!
The question is if the orchestral musicians do not have a say in the matter of who should conduct them then who does? I being a musician myself am of the belief that we musicians should have a say in the matter. After all it is us musicians that are doing the hard work in preparation for concerts and want to know if our conductor is competent or not. I believe that the musicians in any orchestra should a say in the appointment of their future conductor. Just my opinion of course
@@DavesClassicalGuide If the musicians of an orchestra do not have the ultimate say in who their conductor should then who does? The board of directors of said orchestra I assume?
@@DavesClassicalGuideI don't understand. Who else would have the ultimate say? The board? Patrons? Members of the public? Your points here apply to every other group other than the players. You're just pointing out what could go wrong if they do this and that, when the same thing happens to be true if any other group would choose them too. What makes you a better judge than them? What makes the public at large? Most of the public, whose tax dollars you talk about, have no idea about classical music. Let's not pretend that their contribution would be of any musical significance. Like, these are the people who are actually going to work with the one who is chosen. Not you. You care about the music they are going to make over what the working relationship will be, which is indeed the ideal, but is really naive.
Obviously. That is their job. Ordinarily, the board will appoint a search committee made up of members of the orchestra and qualified, third-party experts (the outgoing former conductors, maybe an academic or critic or two, etc) and they will make a final recommendation. It's not really that complicated if everyone does their job--sometimes a big "if," granted, but there's no better way.
Dear Dave, You have a fair point in questioning the motivation and the skill of orchestra members to judge the final output and the quality of conductors. But a very interesting question follows: Who should decide, if you want to get the objective best possible quality? You are often complaining about commentators making their judgement probably not based on actual listening experience, includingother critics. And the motivation of politicians is a science for itself. In every position you have not only pure musical motivations, but some people who really care about the quality.
It's a simple question. Orchestras or their boards form search committees tasked with identifying candidates, as I've already explained here. They should do more than just invite guests to give a concert or two. They should hear them work in different places, with different ensembles, listen to recordings, and in general familiarize themselves with the candidate's work to the extent possible. It's just a job, like any other, and if they do it right they stand a better chance of getting good results. Major artists today also have managers flogging them at every opportunity. One person here already mentioned the legendary Ron Wilford at CAMI, who wielded exceptional influence. None of us really know what goes on behind the scenes, but there's no mystery in how to make a creditable due diligence.
Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead said the same thing about how performers have NO idea whether a performance is good or bad or whatever. That how they "felt" during the performance had almost no connection to how well, or badly, they had played. Garcia said that the GD would usually listen to the recordings of their live concerts soon after performances. Whenever they thought they had been especially good a certain night, the recording proved them wrong and whenever they thought they were bad a certain night, it often turned out that they were terrific. How they "felt" about a performance, if anything, had an inverse ratio to the quality of the performance. Audiences are the final, and best, arbiter of performance quality. That's why audiences are crucial to the arts. And we've seen how "socialist" societies work. If the workers were put in charge of the widget factory they worked in, the quality and quantity of the widgets would both go downhill. That's just human nature. If decisions are made by EVERYONE, then no one is responsible for them.
This was the tragedy of the Berlin philharmonic after von Karajan died; over the next decades, a truly great orchestra became just another very good one; This. Is what happens when orchestral players have too much input. Berlin simply never was the same
And which conductor would have been a better choice than Abbado? The shortlist of top conductors in 1989 was basically him, Barenboim, Levine, Maazel, and Haitink. And Barenboim by that time had already committed to both the CSO and the Paris Opera; one reason why Abbado was available. The dream candidate might have been Carlos Kleiber, who turned it down, and he was probably never one for a marriage, just a little dalliance.
That may be your opinion, but they still stand in probably the majority of professional musicians in the world as one of the top orchestra in the world, if not the top. They just lost the Karajan cult. If you think they aren't still truly great at least a fair proportion of the time, you are in the minority of concergoers.
What if the board that chose the MD did it for the wrong reasons? PC or who sells tickets? Ask the good ppl in Atlanta how they feel these days. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but you seem to assume that non-musicians in power to make the choice are more competent, which is not always the case. Far from it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I could say the same thing about orchestra players; some of them are short-sighted, but not all. That's the risk you take. How are the board members inherently a better judge of musical values than than orchestra members?
