Stravinsky's Prophecy : Listening and hearing are not the same thing

"To receive music you have to open your ears and wait for the music: you
must feel that it is something you need...To listen is effort, just to
hear is no merit. A duck hears also."  

This brief quote from Stravinsky divides opinion, but that in itself is revealing.  But what can be so threatening ?  In many cases, the response has been to attack the messenger, anything rather than to think about what Stravinsky might mean. What raw nerve has Stravinsky hit here that should upset some people so ? If anything that proves why what he said then is only too relevant today. Listening is not the same as hearing.  Music is infinitely more than just sound. A duck can hear sounds but few ducks could sit through a Beethoven symphony processing it on many emotional and intellectual levels. To "receive" music involves "opening your ears and waiting for the music". The key word is "waiting" : letting the music unfold, allowing communication.  In normal conversation, you don't interrupt someone when they're speaking and impose your own preconceptions on what they can or cannot say.  You listen to take on board different perspectives and ideas.  Maybe that's why the idea of listening is so disturbing.  Too many people think the world revolves only around themselves and that no-one else can possibly have anything to say.

Stravinsky refers to subscription audiences who attend for non-musical reasons, and more pertinently to the mindset that comes from only receiving music from recordings.  It's not recordings that are wrong - Stavinsky was keen to conduct his own works - but the illusion that music exists in some kind of existential limbo. Music is an art of human communication.  Breaking that connection between listener and the wider world of human interaction deprives the art of listening from its fundamental purpose. As Stravinsky says, composers write because the music compels them.  As long as what they do is worthwhile in itself,  there always will be some who appreciate more than others.

That's where "effort" comes in.  Another word that infuriates ! But effort means differentn things.  For those who love something dearly, effort comes easy.  Stravinsky refers to being familiar with the culture of music, which anyone can pick up naturally if they listen enough.  All human beings develop with time and experience. No-one stays exactly as they were, thinking they know all that is possible to know.  "No-one can tell me what I don't already know !"  But maybe I'm wrong. If the dissociation Stravinsky refers to about receiving music in isolation held back in the era of mass produced music, that isolation now is even more pronounced.  Now it seems people live in sealed bubbles of self-absorbtion, glued to technology, cut off from normal human interaction.  This isolation gets harder and harder to break out of. Not a good thing for society and civilization.   

Music has the power to connect us to the world outside ourselves, to enhance communication, to widen our understanding of universal ideas.  Morever as we really listen, we learn a lot more about ourselves in the process. Music cannot be owned. "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."   Rich men in this case being those who rely on status, externals and processes. Because they have no humility and sense of others, they can't understand the message. Maybe we're heading to the era of Dial-up Music (read more HERE) where composers, and musicians  and music itself can be dispensed of altogether by hearers. That will be the triumph of hearing over listening.

Dial Up Music - the future of classical

Once, music existed for its own sake, created by composers and performers to engage the mind and soul. Now it seems that the act of ownership takes precedence over all else. Does the future lie in Dail Up Music, created to suit buyer specifications ? Like ordering coffee to strict preconditions.  "I want X, Y, Z, X1, Y1, Z1 conditions to be met, OR ELSE !"  Blank out what the performer might have to say, and blank out the composer !  Blank out everything that doesn't concern the buyer.  Like culture, music history, other people, anything that gets in the way of Self. Ignore everything that makes music an act of communication and creativity.  And that includes the art of self examination. Soon we'll have an app that people can programme to produce what they want, regardless of the music.

Designs revealed - new concert hall for London

Design concepts revealed for the new concert hall for London.   Main auditirium will seat 2000 in a wood-lined performance space. not unliike the Philharmonie de Paris and the Elbphilharmonie. Striking designs ! See more here and here. The bad news is that the £288 million it may cost will have to be raised from private donations.   Since the arts are an important part of the economy, you'd think responsible governemts would chip in ? But no, they happily shell out £14 million for ferries that don't exist but can be ordered like takeout pizza. So why not get funds off venture capitalists who profit by selling the pound short thanks to Brexit ?

15 BILLION views in 6 weeks - The Story of Yanxi Palace

Fifteen BILLION view between 19th July and 1 September,  and half a billion on one day alone (August 12th). Phenomenal viewing figures by any standard for The Story of Yanxi Palace (延禧攻略).  Viewing figures like that should be major news, since they reflect a mass market untapped by current media marketing models.  Yet in the west, barely a mention. Which says plenty about the global market for the arts, and about current west-centric business and political assumptions.  It's compulsive viewing.  I've watched all 70 episodes (45 minutes each) and want to start all over again to catch more detail.  And I don't usually like these kind of sagas and rarely watch TV at all. 
The Story of Yanxi Palace is an extravagant historical saga set in the Forbidden City in Beijing during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor, a period that out-baroques the baroque and makes even Louis XIV look modest in comparison.  It tells the story of a girl who enters imperial service as a maid and works her way up to becoming de facto Empress. A rags to riches story without precedent,  particularly cogent since it's based more or less on a true story.   Moreover, the heroine, Wei Yinglou (Jinyan Wu), is a ferociously strong personality despite her demure appearance. So much for the idea that Asian women are meek.  There always were lots of strong women in Chinese history, despite patriarchal values.  Although the Emperor is kingpin in the Forbidden City where no other men can remain at night, the drama predicates around the women in the palace, most of them feisty characters in their own ways, competing to survive.  Like the women in the palace, you have to keep alert at all times : the plot moves so fast, with so many sub plots that you're mesmerized. Every episode ends on a cliff hanger.

You're also riveted by the sheer visual richness of the set - elaborate reconstructions of the imperial palace, every inch covered with antiques (or rather very good replicas). Even the slop buckets are cloisonné, and the porcelain in the cha wan (tea cups) is so fine that light shines through them. Best of all the embroidery, created in the workshops that supply the ongoing maintenance needs of the imperial palaces.  Please watch part of the making of documentary here   Since the plot predicates on embroiderers, this is no minor detail, but a metaphor for dedication, patience and attention to detail.   Politics, like embroidery, involves skill. The Qianlong Emperor's father had numerous sons, but  chose him to succeed in recognition of his mental discipline and courage.  A country the size of China isn't easy to rule.  The Emperor's younger brother fools around, "entitled" by privilege”: his weaknesses get him in the end. Yinglou falls in love with Fuca Fuheng,  kid brother of the Fuca Empress, the Emperor's first wife, and he with her, but they can't marry.  He's aristocratic, she's low level Bannerman family.  In any case,  duty comes before love.   He leads the Emperor's armies in the south and eventually dies in service of the country (while also sacrificing himself to save Yinglou, by then an Imperial Concubine and untouchable).  Yinglou's rise to power stems from much the same reason ; not deviousness so much as being more  altruistic than the other concubines. She thinks oif oithers than herself, saving the Fuca Empress's portrait from a fire, and sacricing her own health trying to save the Step Empress's son.  Always a moral, even in made for TV entertainment. Mental exercise for viewers, too.  TV need not be mindless.

The  dialogue is in Mandarin, though it's not impossible to follow if you understand Cantonese. Considering that 19% of the world's population lives in China,  and that many millions around the world can follow it too, the issue of translation is moot.  With an internal market that size, the series doesn't depend on English language audiences.  It has been dubbed in Cantonese, Malay, and Indian sub continent languages, but Mandarin speakers say that it's quite literary, so some translations might not convey the full effect.  In any case some knowledge of Chinese culture and history does make a difference.  Tiny details, for example, like the toddler running round the palace, whose carers can't keep up with him "Fifteenth son !" they call. Just any wilful kid?  The Emperor's fifteenth son was Yinglou's child, who would one day become the Jiajing Emperor though they don't tell you that in the story.  English subtitles do exist but they're not very helpful.  But The Story of Yangzi Palace is such an event in itself that it's sure to be rebroadcast and issued on DVD, presumably with translations and context explained.  Hopefully,  media marketers, economists and politicians will wake up and smell the coffee. Or rather, the scent of tea.

Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra Mahler 6 livestream

Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra with Chief Conductor Santtu-Matias Rouvali

The Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra livestreamed Mahler Symphony no 6 last night, conducted by Christoph Eschenbach.   What a surprise ! A very early version of the symphony, before the many amendments.  Three hammerblows !  A rare opportunity to hear the original version of the symphony, before Mahler's decision to drop the third after the first performance.  Sources close to Mahler suggested that the reason might have been superstition: the nickname "tragic" alluding to death.  I'm not so sure. To me the symphony sounds more sinister because we don't hear the third hammer blow though we know it ought to be there.  Instead, it haunts the symphony like an unseen threat : much more disturbing than a neat, conventional ending.  We'd possibly not notice if we didn't know, since the symphony works so well structurally, but it is good to remember and hear Mahler's first thoughts from time to time.  Since we didn't know that Gothenburg would spring this rarity,  no-one seems to have listened with an early version of the score. Not to worry. In any case, we hear Mahler 6 so often that it’s a good experience to hear something different.  The performance will hopefully be repeated on GSOplay, Gothenburg's own broadcast channel, available on their website HERE.   .

GSOplay is definitely worth following ! Although the livestreams  don't repeat, they are archived and appear on the website later, as is often the case.  Look at what they have to offer - a good Sibelius Kullervo with Gothenburg's new Chief,  Santtu-Matias Rouvali. They're doing the new, much tighter new edition premiered in Helsinki in 2015, a brilliant performance which the Helsinki Philharmonic broadcast, conducted by Sakari Oramo, a much more impassioned performance than when he did it with the BBCSO In London soon after, with the same soloists. (Read more here)    But I digress. Look also at what the Gotheburg Symphony is coming up  with soon : Shostakovich on Wednesday and a gala marking the centenary of Finnish Independence on Thursday 7th December - Sibelius 1, Rautavaara and Wennäkoski.  (click here)

Also interesting is that Gothenburg's livesteam was also picked up by Gramophone magazine, which ran a link.   Gramophone is of course closely linked to the gramophone industry, a term which sounds so outdated that it's almost exotic, and worth keeping as a historical record (deliberate pun !).  Once music was always live, and recording were souvenirs . With modern technology the balance can be restored again towards performance, with more emphasis on repertoire, as opposed to delivery.,   Through new technology, orchestras like Gothenburg Symphony can reach audiences far beyond their local area. Watching the livestream, I was heartened to read comments on the feed from all over the world - Latin America, Asia, the Middle East.  The world is not confined to "traditional" western markets.  Gothenburg travels, and has even played in Macau.  But touring is expensive.

Streaming gives orchestras greater artistic control. Supported by the Swedish government, Gothenburg can in turn support Swedish music, and thus the musical health of the country. A wise investment.    Performance  supports music education, and an educated public supports music. Note some of the repertoire Gothenburg can tackle which might not otherwise be done. 

Since orchestras play live anyway, it makes financial sense to stream live. There are costs, of course, but well-managed livestreams keep profits in house minimizing the middlemen.  Livestream isn't cheap, so the future may lie with unions of orchestras, sharing platforms and co-operating together, like Operavision.  Bergen and Gothenburg, together with Helsinki - all three pioneers in the new technology, would be a strong union.  More advance publicity wouldn't hurt, either.  Best of all, the balance would swing back towards live performance and variety of repertoire. There are audiences who don't actually like live music. Seriously, I've heard of people complaining about the shine of musicians’ shoes !  But music never has been something to be heard in sterile isolation, devoid of external influences. Part of the fun is human communication,  the way the players interact with the conductor, even subliminal details like the way individuals work with their instruments. Sure, it's a lot more to take in than audio only, but music was never meant not to be live.  New technology offers new possibilities : increasingly, the industry shifts towards orchestra-based distribution.

Alan Gilbert NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchester - the real potential

New horizons for Alan Gilbert, new Chief Conductor  of the NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchester.  This isn't an ordinary move in the game of Conductor Chess by any means.  It's a Bishop's Move, which could change the whole board. The new Elbphilharmonie and the support network behind it has the potential to change the whole game.  Read my piece Elbphilharmonie - Game Changer HERE.  Gilbert hasn't flip-flopped by any means - he's landed on his feet up and running with one of the most exciting developments in the whole industry.

Although Hamburg is Germany's second-largest city, and wealthy, the heart of German orchestral life centres on the Big Three - Berlin, Leipzig and Dresden, cities whose cultural pedigree reflects centuries of top-level patronage. The NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchester was founded in 1945, from the ruins of war, in which much of Hamburg was destroyed. It was a radio orchestra, no small thing  since German broadcasting itself has a grand tradition. With the new Elbphilharmonie building it now has one of the finest homes of any orchestra in the world, backed up by a package of other services. Even the backstage facilities are so good that other orchestras want to come visit, which also ups the game. The population of Germany is close to 82 million, and the population of Europe as a whole 743 million. Hamburg is smaller than New York,  but it's strategically placed.  If the Elbphilharmonie develops into a cultural hotspot, the orchestra is in a good position.  Gilbert's in a win-win situation.

With the new building, new frontiers. While the orchestra isn't in the league of the Big Three, or centres of exceptional excellence like Lucerne,  Hamburg could provide something unique. The gala Opening Concert honoured Johannes Brahms, native son, and  composers with North German connections, of whom there are quite a few, many of them modern.  Gilbert's interests thus dovetail neatly with European taste.  Lyons, for example, where his career took off, and where I first heard him, is progressive.  One of the high-profile international broadcasts from the Elbphilharmonie featured  Shostakovich and K A Hartmann, a Bavarian yes, but one of the most important composers of the 20th century (Please read my piece here). Germany is in a unique position in that it's culturally very diverse and vibrant, and open-minded.  That concert featured the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, not nearly as conservative as one might assume, conducted by Ingo Metzmacher, a Hartmann maven and one of the more interesting conductors on the circuit.  With all respect to Gilbert, he's not in Metzmacher's class, but he is audience friendly and can reach those who speak no language other than English.

When Gilbert unexpectedly announced he wouldn't renew his contract with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, there was much speculation, since he's a NY homeboy with family connections who might, in theory, have toed whatever line was needed.  No speculation from me. But read this well-informed piece from Michael Cooper  : Alan Gilbert wanted to save the New York Philharmonic : What happened ?   All too often, commentary goes along the lines of "I like/don't like" as opposed to analysis and a basic understanding of business logistics.  Recordings are just artefacts, they aren't what happens in the real world of performance, and these days, the recording industry doesn't have a stranglehold on what reaches the market.  e need to remember that music is a living force, that never stops changing. It doesn't exist in hermetically sealed limbo.

A conductor does a lot more than conduct: he's a conduit for ideas and reflection, primarily musical, of course, but ideas that impact on human experience.   Claudio Abbado, whose birthday is today, was a communicator of genius.  Very few even come close to Abbado in terms of insight and empathy.  But Gilbert is a pretty good thinker.  Some months back, he was being interviewed by NDR Kultur (not the orchestra, but they would have heard it).  They threw a tricky question : what did he think of Donald Trump ?

Being diplomatic, Gilbert hesitated, choosing each word as carefully as possible.  "I think it's a time in which art and beauty have more importance and relevance than ever,. I hope it's not too much to say that at the heart of what we do as musicians is the search for truth. These days there seems to be a full scale assault on the principles of The Age of Enlightenment. As musiciqns, we need to assert ourselves powerfully to show that there is still beauty and there is truth in the world. I've been working with musicians, colleagues and friends to use what we do, to use the platform we occupy to make this world a better place. The thing about music is that it is an international language, and it can speak to people from all different cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds. .... I hope that what we can offer to the world is a message of inclusion and shared humanity" (Full clip here).  

"Inclusion and shared humanity." Dangerous words, these days!  But not at all untypical of the way Gilbert's been thinking for ages, in terms of orchestras and their place in society.  Below, another, longer clip, in which Gilbert talks about the NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchester and himself (they go back together a long time).  It's upbeat, as it should be. Who knows what lies ahead ? But Gilbert and the NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchester together could be a force for good. Please also read my many pieces on arts policy, and on the new Concert Hall for London.  

Why the City of London backs World Class Music Centre

The City of London Corporation has announced that it will fund the completion of the study into a business case for a new, world class centre for music in London.  This is the feasibility study that was in progress until last November when it was abruptly cut short by the government. The Corporation has pledged £2.5 million  towards the £5.5 million cost of the study, of which £1.25 million has already been spent.  A shortfall, but still a tiny proportion of the £80 million the Corporation spends each year on the arts in London. Why does the Corporation value this project?  Because the arts are a major part of the economy.  In a global market,  Britain needs to stay competitive or fall backward.

Opposition to the world class centre for music reflects long-term British resentment against London.  That reductionist philosophy is embedded so deeply into the Arts Council England's DNA that the organization isn't structurally capable of adapting to change, or of reflecting the realities of the business. Fact is, Britain is a  centralized country and always has been.  For a brief time in the Industrial Revolution, northern regions competed with London but the modern economy is now international.  A report released last year (read more here)  showed that in 2014/15 London generated almost as much tax as the next 37 cities, and contributes 30% of the entire tax income in the nation.  The imbalance can be changed by a political agenda that wrecks London, while hoping that the slack can mysteriously be taken up elsewhere.  Alternatively, policy makers could recognize that London generates income for the entire country, and in an international. technological world this isn't going to disappear overnight.

It's nonsense to suggest that a world class centre for London will only benefit London and tourists. Everyone wins when there is a centre for excellence that generates talent, earns income and raises the nation's profile. The arts are "foreign policy", more effective, in the long term, than guns and bombs.  The Victorians were making political statements when they built the Royal Albert Hall and the museums around it.  At the British Museum, one marvels at the Empire that ripped artefacts from Greece, Egypt and Assyria, and gets the implicit message. London's heritage is everyone's heritage, whether or not they go there themselves. And they can, if they care.

Technology is also changing the way the arts reach potential audiences.  Through its Digital Concert Hall, the Berliner Philharmoniker reaches anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access. Increasingly, other orchestras and opera houses are wising up to the potential of digital marketing. Even the Met is streaming its archives online. The day when record companies controlled things is over.  Now orchestras and opera houses can themselves decide artistic content and feasibility. Smaller organizations can co-operate to spread costs. Profits stay closer to source. When listeners can access the world,  geographic boundaries count for less, while opening up the market for diversity.  Orchestras won't all have to sound the same, to fit the old-style mass market, and repertoire can be less narrow.

Yet it's also imperative to recognize that excellence in the arts is generated when there is a large enough critical mass of talent concentrated together so creative people can stimulate each other. Poets can live as hermits, if they wish, but orchestral musicians, almost by definition, operate communally. Even more so with opera houses, where the creative community is even greater, and costs are contained by keeping people together. It's all very well to prioritize micro-mini ventures in out-of-the-way places, but reality is critical mass. All the technology in the world does not compensate for bringing people together in direct, personal contact. The bigger the group, the wider the creative horizons.  Excellence "is" education. I'ts all very well to suggest Birmingham or Glasgow or whatever, but fact is, London is where it's at.  Shakespeare needed to leave Stratford for London to do what he did.

This week, the Elbphilharmonie opened in Hamburg (read my analysis, not just a review,  here).  The NDR Elphilharmonie Orchester is good, though it's not mega-league.  But with the new hall, it's challenged to excel itself, and every orchestra that can will want to perform there, which will again raise the stakes. The city-state of Hamburg, a state of the German federation in its own right, had vision enough to realize that the arts are an important part  of the economy and of the wider community: an investment for the future on many different levels.  London's orchestras are very good indeed, but they're trapped in inadequate facilities. The acoustics of the Royal Festival Hall and the Barbican are only the tip of the iceberg. Berlin, Paris, St Petersburg and now Hamburg: what about London?  Someone seriously suggested that the British economy would survive Brexit by selling more tea, scones and jam, though such things can be made well elsewhere. Not rocket science!   But unfortunately that small-mindedness reflects the reductionist, self-destructive lack of vision that could suffocate the arts and the economy as a whole. 

Read this too Can post Brexit London survive as Europe's cultural and financial capital ?

Gürzenich-Orchester Köln livestream Saint-Saëns

Adventurous livestream from the Gürzenich-Orchester Köln with conductor François-Xavier Roth, screened last night on the orchestra's own website. The orchestra's roots go back to the 15th century; it developed in its present form in the mid-19th century.  Mahler's Symphony no 5 premiered with the Gürzenich-Orchester, conducted by the composer himself.  (see my article here). Now it's reaching out to audiences that wouldn't otherwise be able to attend its concerts live. The livestream yesterday focused on Saint-Saëns  with the Dance macabre, the Concerto for piano and orchestra no 5  (The "Eygptian"),  and Symphony no 3 (The "Organ"). A very enjoyable concert, thoughtfully planned, and well executed. 

Technology has changed business economics. The age of youtube takes things still further. Of course there are many positives to youtube but it distorts the reality of performance,  narrowing horizons, creating self-selecting limitations and promoting the idea that musicians don't deserve to be paid for what they do.  Somehow, though, musicians have to adapt. The Berliner-Philharmoniker, among the first to embrace recording technology, pioneered digital streaming. Anyone, anywhere in the world can access Berlin.  While there are other platforms, orchestra-led broadcasting gives musicians control, and is far more representative of what orchestras actually do than depending on the rather artificial medium of of recording.  Many orchestras and opera houses livestream, some more successfully than others.   Perhaps the secret is to have something worth streaming on an international level.

The Gürzenich-Orchester Köln has something special to offer, if this initial livestream is evidence.    It's an extremely good orchestra, with distinctive character and an auditorium with a warm acoustic.  Another asset the Gürzenich also have is  François-Xavier Roth, who communiates his deep enthusiasm for repertoire with intelligence and panache.  He's done this programme before, elsewhere: finesse shows   Technically, the broadcast was understated, almost exactly like a normal performance, where the players file in unannounced and get on with what they do best - making music.  This is a tacit assumption that the audience is sharp enough to listen without having the blather that accompanies MET screenings and  the BBC Proms. Perhaps mass audiences need hype to get them wound up, but personally I like the intimate character of the Gürzenich and its emphasis on its musicians.  Broadcasts aren't cheap but they can be cheaper than cinema distribution, the curse of HD, and the caprices of big recording companies more into profit than art.  Gürzenich-Orchester marketing is good, and they know how to use social media to generate publicity  On the other hand,  strength lies in numbers, and most individual orchestras don't have the muscle to break into the world market - not everyone is the Berliner Phil !  Not every concert needs to be streamed, and publicity should be done more in advance.  But orchestra-led streaming might be the way ahead.

Both innovators - Harnoncourt and Boulez

Nikolaus Harnoncourt and Pierre Boulez  each in their own different ways, transformed  performance practice, and, indeed, the whole way music is approached in modern Europe.  It wasn't simply a question of repertoire. Both conducted Janáček and Bruckner, for example, but drawing comparison between their recordings is just plain stupid. Good conductors find something to say about the music they engage with. That's why we keep listening, again and again, learning from the different approaches of conductors who care enough about the music to keep uncovering what lies within.   Even within the worlds of "modern" and "historically informed", the range of difference between conductors (and composers) is so great as to make direct comparison irrelevant.

To appreciate the links between Boulez and Harnoncourt, we need to escape the straitjackets of terminology and focus instead on the deeper philosophy that motivated both conductors.

Both began their careers in an era when technology changed the market for serious music.  Within a very short time, the recording industry reshaped public perceptions.  Music became a standardized "consumer product", where what counted was how things were sold. Any product designed for the mass market has to appeal to the maximum possible audience. This changes the balance from creative development to "what the buyer expects".  Not the same thing.

Harnoncourt reacted against this by rethinking instruments and the physicality of sound.  Historically informed practice gets a bad reputation because many assume that it's fetish. But as someone said, "We don't eat baroque food". We can't be as baroque people were, so perfect authenticity just isn't possible.  But we can rethink and learn.  It's a myth that smaller ensembles are somehow "weaker". Consider the audacity and adventure of the Renaissance, of the Age of Discoveries, of the Reformation and Counter-Reformastion, and of Louis XIV, whose vision wasn't fettered by petty concerns.  The dominance of 19th century industrial-era values are not the only way to go. In fact, the Romantic Revolution and the changes that followed was far more radical than some realize.  History doesn't stay frozen. Neither Harnoncourt nor Boulez were rebelling per se, but processing the concepts of innovation that have always been behind genuine creativity. It's significant that both Harnoncourt and Boulez were hated by some in their profession precisely because they didn't play the game.Hence the nasty myths that circulate about them being "dangerous".

Ironically, the use of period instruments is a red herring.  It's not so much what you're playing with, as why.  What really counts is fidelity to the composer and what might have been behind his work. Modern music played on modern  instruments reflects this fundamental fidelity.

Coming of age during the war, when performances were limited, and recordings relatively rare, Boulez went back to source, learning directly from scores.  Like Harnoncourt, he was thinking afresh.  The silly myths about him as demon do not  tally with reality. He was exceptionally erudite, with a strong grounding in philosophy, literature and music history and knew the music of the past, even if he didn't conduct or record much. It was enough for him that others were doing that. Intellectually inquisitive, he liked exploring fairly uncharted territory, hence his fascination with Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky and the twentieth century.  Hans Rosbaud knew what he was doing when he persuaded Boulez to start a second career as conductor. Boulez saw himself primarily as a composer, and said that shaped the way he conducted.  Because he had such respect , he was not an "interventionist" nor imposing his ego.  All performance involves interpretation, but interpretation should be based on reasoned understanding.  Boulez's passions were white hot, all the more intense because he didn't do things for show. 

What Harnoncourt and Boulez had in common was a fundamental respect for music, and for the composers they conducted.  Both had uncompromising integrity. Neither courted the popular market. To them, the idea of music as "consumer product" was anathema.  Instead they cultivated excellence, pursuing the highest possible standards. It's not for nothing both created their own orchestras, amd frequently worked with smaller ensembles where every individual musician was part of the creative process. And they weren't alone. Think Claudio Abbado, with whom Boulez worked closely, and of William Christie, who shared Harnoncourt's values but with a very different style. Strong personalities with distinctive styles but not corporate market-driven egotists.  Perhaps that's why there's such variety in modern European music. Maybe not as much as could be, since ultimately the business has to deal with economic and social realities. But without people like Harnoncourt, Boulez and those with their lively, open minds, we'd be a whole lot worse off.

Pleaseuse the labels below to read my numerous posts on Harnoncourt, Boulez , baroque and modern music

Heil! scream the toddlers

On the recent incident when an actor turned on a heckler and yelled "You're ruining things for everyone else"

".....incessant loud booing in theatres, appears to be a sign of changing times. It’s not so much that everyone is a critic, rather that everyone is such a bad, incompetent critic, the kind of critic who is too impatient and lazy to fashion a proper critique so resorts to boorish disruption instead.
I would have thought that, if you don’t like a play, you’d quietly leave, maybe ask for your money back, and fair enough. However, now there seems to be a new breed of uber-consumers who “know their rights” and (here’s a crucial shift) won’t sit passively as mere audience members but rather demand “equal billing” just for their reactions. In short, it’s the era of the self-sanctified right to reply as an instant dominant force that cannot be silenced or pacified." 

Read more HERE.

Precisely. Booing isn't about art. It's about suppressing opinion, denying everyone else the right to think for themselves. It betrays the very fundamentals of creative art. And of society for that matter. Booing is bullying, an obsession with suppressing others to promote oneself.   It's the Triumph of the Will. It's born of fear. Groups like ISIS and the Westboro Baptist Church etc.need to impose their will because they're not really strong in themselves. Demagoguery is self-fulfilling bluff, toddler tantrum in disguise.

The Curse of the Lieder Recital

What is the curse of the Lieder Recital? Are the performers feeling unwell (singers "are" their instruments)? Or someone coughing? Or an unanswered phone? Such things can be accidents. The real curse of a Lieder recital is when audience members keep their noses in the programme. Of course poetry counts. Composers wouldn't be writing song if they didn't want to communicate the meaning of a poem. But composers write music. Words and music cannot be separate. Burying your nose in the programme means you're not really listening.

So what if you don't know the song? Get the gist of the text by reading up beforehand, then listening to how the composer interprets meaning by developing the musical setting.  In song, words and music cannot be separate. What really matters is what the composer thinks about the poem, not what the reader thinks.  Good poems inspire multiple interpretations,. In any case, how can anyone who doesn't know a song, or a poem, or a language, think they can automatically know everything simply by reading? It's the curse of Fast Food thinking. There's no need to digest a song in one gulp. Many Lieder fans savour favourite songs over the whole course of their lives. Quickfix is a sign of arrogance, as if the consumer can get everything first time round, like consuming a product. As in all things, learning takes time.

Lieder recitals are also interactive. Performers communicate. It's horrible to sing or play when the audience isn't paying attention . Performers need feedback to give their best: you can't blame them if they freeze because they know the audience is more interested in reading the programme than relating to the performance? Why sing or play when no-one's interested  Live recitals are not like recordings. Each performance is very different, even if the singer has done the same material 1000 times. Some folk should just stay at home with a CD. Eventually that will kill the art altogether, which thrives on human interaction.

Much better to read the text beforehand, to get the general spirit. Don['t worry about exactitude. Poetry isn't like that. Listen to the performers, absorb the music, react to their body language. But above all, listen. What does the composer bring out in a poem? How does that make you feel? That emotional engagement is the start of good listening. You can get it all wrong but at least you've learned to listen and feel.

One very good exercise I recommend is listening to new songs in a language which you don't understand. Then you are focusing on the song and the ideas it generates. The more you listen, the more you learn . Real understanding comes through that process, not just from print.

Above, an engraving of Franz Liszt. Notice how the audience are listening intently. It's a piano recital - no singer - but chances are they'd be paying attention anyway. Even the kid is alert.  That is how people were in the 19th century, much more formal than now. These days, it's fashionable for people like Alex Ross and his followers to say it's OK to clap, wander around and generally act up in performance. In some things maybe, and in some cultures. By all means spontaneous reactions like clapping something genuinely surprising, but serious listeners pay attention, because that's what good music deserves.  Listening is about caring about what other people think. A good lesson for life in general.

Why Opera Europa's Platform matters

Opera Europa, in conjunction with arte.tv, has launched an Opera Platform, streaming live opera from all over Europe. The Berlin Phiharmoniker's Digital Concert Hall has brought Berlin to the world. Is this where the future of classical music lies? Media and funding agency obsessions with crude measures like bums on seats and regional outreach are rendered pretty meaningless.

Opera Europa represents 155 opera houses and festivals in Europe, promoting co-operation and development, mainly between houses,. . Arte.tv, supported by French and German broadcasters, has been streaming opera and music for years, which is one of the reasons why some performances are blocked outside Europe. Arte.tv  operates like a normal online TV channel, with news, sports, pop, movies etc Medici.tv is already the world's biggest collection of classical music: I have no idea why Opera Europa didn't go through medici.tv which already showcases festivals like Lucerne and Aix., and is an indispensable resource.  

HERE is the link to this year's Opera Platform  streams, which will also be broadcast in 15 cinemas.  Quick link here.  For the launch yesterday, La Traviata (with the divine Ermonela Jaho)  from Madrid, but the real coup (on 16th May) might be the Royal Opera House's Szymanowski Król Roger which I've reviewed HERE.  This is a sensationally good production of an opera which holds a crucial place in music history - the equivalent of Debussy Pelléas et Mélisande, Béla Bartók Duke Bluebeard's Castle , Schoenberg Ewartung and Berg Lulu.   While the Nazis, Communists and Catholic Church in Poland didn't like Król Roger, there's absolutely no reason for English-speaking audiences (particularly London music critics) not to be aware of it. Thirty years ago, when Poland was still Communist, Simon Rattle recorded all of Szymanowski's orchestral work, including the opera. There have been numerous productions since. Two books in English on Szymanowski and many more in Polish. Opera Platform will stream in French, German and English  If it does nothing else at least it will break English-language insularity. 

On 24th May, Sibelius Kullervo from Helsinki.This is important, because it's choreographed by Tero Saarinen.  Kullervo isn't an opera so much as a tone poem with voices, so it's rarely dramatized.  In Finland, music, opera and ballet play a much bigger role in ordinary life than in most other places, like the UK.  Sibelius is of course a kind of god. Saarinen's dance company is brilliant: the production enhances the music beautifully. Highly recommended: Please read my review HERE.   Kullervo is being performed at the BBC Proms this year, and also at the Edinburgh International Festival, but I think we can be pretty safe saying that this innovative, creative Kullervo will be the best of the lot. Saraste conducts, also a plus.

To come : Valentina by Arrturs Maskats from Opera Riga, Götterdämmerung from the Vienna State Opera (Simon Rattle),  Die Entführung aus dem Serail from Aix-en-Provence, features on Pesaro and Aldeburgh, on Den Norske Opera and on Teatro Regio Torino.

Although the Opera Platform isn't big enough to compete with Medici.tv, it's a good, new platform (literally) for promoting European opera, particularly from smaller houses which might not have the resources to do so on their own.  By offering quality and variety of choice, the market is developed in a much more organic way.   The BBC has attempted to emulate arte.tv and medici.tv, but its fundamental approach is too limited, too simplistic and too non-musical to be of much use. In a digital era, people can choose and think for themselves. The BBC just doesn't get it.

Boulez Top 10 Hits of the 20th century

Fifteen years ago, a US journalist,  John Schaefer, had a good idea. Rather than interview Pierre Boulez, ask him to pick his Top Ten Hits of 20th century music. (more here)  And to his surprise, Boulez agreed. What a fun idea! As Schaefer says  Boulez is "funny and charming and very, very smart.". Not such a surprise to those familiar with the music, the man and his many other achievements. But, in the US, Schaefer notes, he's best known as  "the inventive music director of the New York Philharmonic ......in the early 70s, or the man who recorded two of the definitive versions of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring with the Cleveland Orchestra". The divide between the US and Europe goes very deep indeed. and probably not just in music.

For his Top Ten, Boulez picks fairly safe and uncontroversial. No Henry Pousseur, no Luigi Nono, not even Messiaen, with whom Boulez is so closely connected.  Perfectly reasonable: he's addressing a generalist radio audience, giving them things they can relate to.  He's not holding a gun to anyone's head.  There is just no way that any lists of 10, or even 100, could possibly hope to be comprehensive. Almost by definition, creative arts can't be locked into artificial formats. In 20th century music, there's just so much variety that even labels like "modern" don't mean very much. Every sentient person is going to have his or her own personal list, always subject to change. And there's almost no way anyone.who makes a list can second guess someone else, or please everyone else  all of the time.

So what if Boulez leaves out something  It's his choice. "I might conduct Sibelius", Boulez once said, with a huge grin "When I'm 100". So what if Boulez doesn't conduct Sibelius? Sibelius hasn't been suppressed.  Why shouldn't people have different opinions ?  That, I think, is the essence of creativity. Until recently Schoenberg was the bogeyman  who destroyed tonality. Now, it's Boulez, though most people don't really know what he's actually done.  Just because  a lot of people think something's true, doesn't it make it true. The Bible may say God created the world in 7 days but that doesn't make science sin. So often those most obsessed with notions of suppression do a lot of suppressing themselves.

Free, online, Glyndebourne 2015

Free, and online, on demand internationally - Glyndebourne 2015 productions will be available via the Telegraph from May 24th.  Carmen, L'heure espagnole and l'enfant et les sortilèges, (June 21st for a week), Die Entführung aus dem Serail (from 9th July), The Rape of Lucretia (from 9th August)  The Ravel double bill is brilliant ! I was at the premiere - read more HERE. and an interview with Laurent Pelly.  I was a lot less impressed by The Rape of Lucretia, though., Full details of this year's Glyndebourne Festival HERE. New productions like Poliuto and Saul aren't included but that's fair enough.

On-line streaming like this is, I think, the way forward. In-house seat sales aren't enough. HD broadcasts were brilliant when they first came out, but they aren't the best way to do things. Cinema is old technology, gradually giving way to new forms of delivery, like Netflix.  Cinema chains don't make money out of the arts, so they're not inclined to market well.  In any case, why go to a one-off broadcast in some smelly cinema when you can watch where you want, when you want, in comfort, alone or with friends  Broadcasts are horribly expensive, so if cinema sales don't sell, they are a seriously dangerous gamble. John Berry of the ENO was right not to be keen, but in this present political climate, the ENO is damned if it doesn't reach out even if that reaching out loses money.

Analyzed in context : Rattle's concert hall for London.

Simon Rattle has called for a new concert hall for London. He's right, in principle, because a city as prominent on the international circuit as London deserves  a concert hall commensurate with its status.  There's a good business case for it. If London is to remain competitive with Berlin and Paris, it needs a long-term strategy, with vision.  We're talking of a project like the Philharmonie, possibly £500 million. I suspect that Rattle wasn't simply talking off the top of his head, but might have an idea of what's best for Britain.

There's far too much "Little Britain" thinking around. There is just no way such a concert hall, any concert hall, would be a sweetener to lure Rattle to London. (See my earlier piece here.)  He'll come if he wants, for reasons of his own. (CBSO might need a new chief soon.) The Simon Rattle Concert Hall, as it deserves to be named, must be done properly, and in the much wider context of a vision for London.  Government planning doesn't happen on a whim (except for foul-ups and white elephants).  Instead, go to the source: The Chancellor George Osborne's Long Term Economic Plan for London.

The strategy identifies six key areas for development - economic growth, jobs, investment in transport infrastructure and housing, new powers for the Mayor, and for the arts, to "make London a centre of the world’s creative and commercial life, with new investment in science, finance, technology and culture. This will include a new feasibility study to develop a world class concert hall for London which will be led by the Barbican Centre. " 

Notice that the project will be led by the Barbican. Nicholas Kenyon helped to turn the Barbican around from being a soulless hulk to a pretty good venue.  In theory, the South Bank should be Britain's spectacular arts flagship on the Thames, but it's been run into the ground under present management and the arts policies of several governments.  Since the Arts Council England has slashed the Barbican's funding almost as severely as the ENO's, one hopes the new centre won't harm existing organizations, such as the unique Wigmore Hall (which has welcomed the proposals).


The most important thing about the Long Term Economic Plan is that it's for London.  There is just no way around the fact that Britain is a highly centralized country. Millions live within the M25, and millions more commute and visit, not only from the UK but from abroad. Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool are important but London is the Jewel in the Crown, like it or not. politicians are at last addressing reality. Get London right, and from thence good things flow, including to the regions.

Current arts policy derives from the Arts Council's "Great Art and Culture for Everyone" (2010-2020), though its roots go back much further. This updates previous plans like "Achieving Great Art for Everyone"  and "Culture Knowledge and Understanding", three grandiose statements within three years, striking in their use of corporate-speak platitudes. In substance, what they propose is placing "education" above the realities of performance and changing the very nature of the arts  in favour of some theoretical one size fits all.  But the arts aren't like that.  It's an arts policy based on the assumption that ordinary people are too stupid to value the arts without being patronized. But the arts can't ever replace good basic educational policy. Nor  can they simply be "taught": people come to the arts in their own time, and in their own way. Please see my article End the Missionary Position in the Arts.  Indeed, many "educational" measures are counter-productive and end up reinforcing the idea in many that the arts are "not for them". Education is a good thing but it should start from a much wider context, instead of diverting arts organizations from their primary purpose, which is the creation of artistic excellence.

This is also an arts policy that penalizes London, and plays on the negative resentment espoused in some quarters by those who'd like to whip up class and regional resentment. But the fact is that Britain is a highly centralized country, and that London is economically pre-eminent, and has been for hundreds of years.  Downgrading London is madness. The arts are an international business,. If London arts prosper, benefits flow to the rest of the country. It's a complete fallacy to equate audience size in live performance with true audience reach. Furthermore, even those who don't participate in classical music enjoy the wider benefits. The arts are a major industry, with numerous spin-offs. Few other countries have the riches that London has, thanks to visionary Victorians. Why sacrifice a unique heritage on which Britain's prestige is built?  Being a leftist, I'm passionately committed to the idea of readdressing inequality, but the arts are not the weapon by which it will be achieved.

So back to Osborne's Long Term Plan for London. Although it doesn't specify anything else about the arts, at least it acknowledges that London is the key to Britain;'s economic credibility and that the arts are an integral part of the economy, not a luxury to be resented.  In an election year, one must never forget the Tooth Fairy, and politicians of all types love Gravy Trains. However, it's at least an advance over the inept naivety behind current arts policy. There is a huge business case for the arts in Britain, and London should be at the helm.

Opera Houses and Houses for Opera

Imagine an opera house lilke this on the banks of the Thames. It's the home of the Valencia Opera,  designed by Dr Santiago Calatrava, completed in 2007. It's so beautiful that perhaps it should be part of the international opera circuit. But what really makes a house is what happens inside. In the current non-debate about the ENO there have been calls to turn it into a trendy café or to scrap the building altogether. Are things that easy ?

Firstly, the deal with which the ENO occupies the Coliseum means that it doesn't have to pay commercial West End rents. It might move somewhere less convenient, thereby driving away part of the audience, changing its demographic, which has a knock-on effect on what it does, artistically.  Even if an alternative place could be found, there's no guarantee that the Coliseum could be sold profitably enough at short notice to make the transition worthwhile. Though, quite possibly, there are those who would welcome the chance to profit from a bargain, if such a sale were forced.  Not good for ENO, though.

Second what you see upfront in an opera house is only the surface: backstage is a warren of workshops, rehearsal rooms, technical support, dressing areas etc. Which is why most houses outsource so much to other premises.  Part of the ENO business plan is to consolidate this support in one area, but that might be asking too much.  Thirdly, the Coliseum is the largest theatre in London, and never easy to fill.  Most West End theatres are significantly smaller, and most shows don't run into profit unless they've been going on a long time. Do we really want a single opera to run for months, exactly the same every night  How would that affect singers and players?  At the other end of the scale, what about the Raymond Gubbay route, filling the Royal Albert Hall with water to do Madame Butterfly for people who don't actually like music but want a good night out.  Which is fair enough, but art it ain't.  The ENO can't really move back to Sadler's Wells, which is way too small. Shows may sell out in small spaces but so what if the overall take is reduced? Quality cannot be judged by capacity figures alone.

Perhaps the elephant in the room is, after all, changing audiences. The last ten years have seen a disintegration of the values of tolerance and openness. Where once some could preach "the End of History", now we're plagued by ignorance, bigotry and fundamentalism of all kinds.  Once, mature thinking came gradually, through a process of listening and learning. Now anyone can be an instant expert  thanks to Google and mass media.  So maybe the battle for the arts is already lost.

HERE is a link to an informative article in the Economist about opera as a business. Opera houses operate in co-operation with each other.  Scrapping one house impacts on the whole industry, worldwide.  Much of the current non-debate focuses on micro issues, like not liking a composer, or details of particular productions, when what we really need is an appreciation of how the business works. A few weeks ago, I addressed some of the issues here, in my article "Radical Rethink".

Michael Kennedy 1926-2014

Michael Kennedy has died, and with him one hopes not, the end of an era when writing about music meant a level of knowledge,  but even more importantly , integrity, humanity and the idea that there's always more to learn. Like Neville Cardus before him, he wasn't formally trained, but had a good ear, and a good mind, things which can't really be taught.  He cared about music and how people listened. As he famously said, there's no need to dumb down, since good people will rise to the stimulation that is good music.

Kennedy's great forte was British music. His work on Elgar raised the bar for British music studies, firmly placing Elgar in the mainstream of European tradition.  He also wrote, and taught about other British composers, like Vaughan Williams. Donald Mitchell, born only 13 days before Kennedy, cornered the market for Britten, but both men promoted Mahler. Mitchell's work on Mahler is scholarly : Kennedy's book on Mahler reached non specialist readers and brought many into the realm of Mahler studies. Kennedy's liner notes and reviews weren't  ephemeral filler but genuinely informative. He wanted to share his enthusiasm and listen more sensitively.He wasn't a celebrity, but eager to keep learning.  Until recent years, he was often at British music events, in the audience, giving talks, and approachable. The last time I saw him, a few years ago, he looked extremely frail. But he will live on forever, in his books and in memory, as long as there are people who believe enough in good music to appreciate that it can inspire without being turned into pabulum. 

Most detailed obit HERE in the Telegraph.

What's happened to Christmas TV and Radio ?

What's happened to Christmas radio and TV? In years past there would be at least something vaguely musical, but this year zilch but for re-runs of the least musical Proms ever.  What does that tell us about the BBC? Admittedly BBC Radio 3 is doing re-runs of Schwarzenberg's summer festival, but the same artists and programmes feature at the Wigmore Hall in London anyway. Not all that long ago there'd always be something interesting, like the year there were TWO complete Wagner Rings. It's as if the BBC has finally given up any pretence of culture.

But the real scandal isn't the dearth of Christmas broadcasting but the total lack of vision in arts policy. Replacing real music with drivel like "Ten Pieces" doesn't spread awareness. Quite the contrary. Even non-classical music audiences aren't so stupid as to think that centuries of culture can be a few pieces chosen by backroom bureaucrats. Even pop music playlists show more verve. By driving away the existing body of listeners, and trivializing the genre so it looks dumb even to non-classical audiences, the new BBC will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Don't feed your dog alcohol or mince pies!

At a time when technology is changing the whole way culture (in the widest sense) is being delivered, it is frightening how little vision lies behind the new BBC. Things are changing so fast that even ideas like HD in cinemas has had its day. I've written a lot about the future of classical music and its possible new outlets, so it breaks my heart to read the level of sycophantic non debate in the press.  London is dominant in the arts for many good reasons. It just doesn't make business sense to wreck one of the few great industries this country can still be proud of. And it's an international industry, too, that does as much for the nation as foreign policy or diplomacy. But British bureaucrats don't do vision. Alas, with a new head of BBC Radio 3 with no experience in the industry and management that thinks in terms of Classic FM, we don't have much hope. Fortunately the future may well lie beyond big corporations and similar dinosaurs if they mess things up..

How to make a story out of relatively little

Two days ago, veteran director Franco Zeffirelli said he'd sue La Scala for letting his production of Aida go to Astana Opera Theatre in Kazakhstan. "Ho visto una sorta di vendetta da parte dei “cervelloni” della Scala che stanno pensando a me come un artista da dimenticare - (It's a vendetta by the brains at La Scala who think I'm an artist to forget). Read the articles in La Stampa here and in Corriere here.  Teatro alla Scala has countered with a fairly convincing refutation. Although  we don't know the exact terms of the deal, it's unlikely that Milan will have given up all rights. IIt might be able to do the production at a later date, and it hasn't sold off the rest of its Zefferelli catalogue. Inflammatory words make great headlines but reality is often more mundane.  For all we know, maybe Zeffirelli doesn't like Mrs Gelb conducting?  All over the world, the business is changing all round. The Royal Opera House relies on endless  La Bohèmes and La Traviatas because they sell well. Audiences new to opera adore them, but regulars get turned off. There isn't any such thing as a single audience. While some people want to see the exact same thing all the time, other's don't. And in any case, folks who like the same thing all the time can watch a DVD. How to strike a balance? That's the real question.

Why shouldn't footballers like opera ?

A famous Premier League Footballer tweets a photo of the Royal Opera House curtain before a performance. The Daily Mail gets wind of it and writes a story about the footballer attending Philip Glass's The Trial "...based on a novel by Franz Kafka - which is unlikely to be on your average player's list of favourite books."

Why not? Footballers aren't stupid. Besides, most young people take to Kafka because he expresses the kind oif frustration young people feel, before they get sucked into the mindlessness of this world. 

Major praise for West Ham Winger Matt  Jarvis, 28, who is man enough to think for himself and do what he wants whatever smartass journalists expect.  I hope he and his wife enjoyed themselves and that they'll come back.

Major kicks to the Daily Mail for hiring reporters who write off Google instead of from things like actual knowledge.  Jarvis's photo shows the main auditorium at the Royal Opera House, where Manon the ballet was on, not the Linbury Studio Theatre, where Glass's The Trial was being performed by Music Theatre Wales! A great show it was, too. Jarvis might have enjoyed himself at that, too!  Read my review here.

Why shouldn't footballers enjoy opera or ballet or modern art or anything else? Harriet Harman raged when she couldn't see her constituents at the Royal Opera House. Maybe she  doesn't have much respect for them (and probably doesn't know them all by sight).  But opera is only "elitist" in the minds of those who want it to be. The rest of us just get along enjoying ourselves. The real snobbery lies with those who want to use the arts as a weapon to act out their own grievances.  But, as the Daily Mail shows, (read more here) maybe they should start by knowing what they're talking about.