tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post7313350401039556680..comments2024-01-22T05:10:11.938+11:00Comments on I am a liminal being: SSO 2008 take 1wandererhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08196036534397389760noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-5050186962363419402009-03-09T01:19:00.000+11:002009-03-09T01:19:00.000+11:00To clarify: wasn't saying that the evening overall...To clarify: wasn't saying that the evening overall should be characterised as subtle, not at all; merely that there is subtlety (or maybe finesse is a better word?) in the way the two works combine in M's treatment. In no way "blaming the listener" in making the observation that one type of listener might recognise that ahead of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-18831529856682305692009-03-08T19:36:00.000+11:002009-03-08T19:36:00.000+11:00T there is no underestimation about the complexiti...T there is no underestimation about the complexities of programming, none.<BR/><BR/>At the time, the Bronfman didn't particularly look to me like a backdown, disappointing though it was, and not without <A HREF="http://iamaliminalbeing.blogspot.com/2008/08/k-and-i-were-back-at-opera-house-on.html" REL="nofollow">criticism</A>. However, with some Libby Christie smoke around, fire or not, and the opening 'gala' and whatever else having all the signs of appealing to popularism, which it did, nothing wrong with that per se, it is natural to wonder about such shifts or patterns. That's what subscribers do.<BR/><BR/>re the MSND, my issue is not the intent, but the result, and for me it was not fun. I actually found it really annoying, and I'd call it a lot of things before settling on subtle (note I did make special mention of how others "absolutely loved it"). Beware blaming the listener. The risk with audacious is exactly that, the risk.<BR/><BR/>Agreed about The New Yorker, a consistently excellent magazine whose format never changes.wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08196036534397389760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-60378803389494718962009-03-08T16:41:00.000+11:002009-03-08T16:41:00.000+11:00I would disagree with "tail-end" or even "populari...I would disagree with "tail-end" or even "popularisation" as a characterisation of the MSND concert. On the contrary, in many respects a staged MSND could be considered an audacious thing to attempt (not least because of the risk of it being misunderstood in its intent or flawed in its "mechanical" execution). I don't see how it could be regarded as dumbing down, for all that it was attractive and entertaining. In many ways it did require a "masters" listener – a connoisseur – to grasp the subtlety of the two works in combination. <BR/><BR/>In any case it doesn't make sense to seriously think that a new principal conductor would want to begin his tenure with "tail-end" thinking. Quite the opposite. Every incoming music director – certainly for the recent few – has put a stamp on things, communicating in different ways a distinct spirit, personality, philosophy. The opening two weeks for this year (especially when taken together) have been no different. I for one take heart from it. If there's anything that orchestral concerts the world over need it's more genuine excitement, more joy, and less rigidity/compartmentalisation. Achieving that in all sorts of ways may entail some risks but they're risks worth taking. Will there be another show quite like MSND? Maybe not, but I think the tone has been set.<BR/><BR/>@marcellous: You're staying away because of <I>Peter and the Wolf</I>? What a pity. That's one laconic little (master)piece that deserves to be heard with grown-up ears. No fancy staging either, just narration as Prokofiev wrote it. (And when next will you get to hear the Fifth Piano Concerto?)<BR/><BR/>@wanderer: My ideal Master Series looks like <I>The New Yorker</I>. Lots of meaty articles on a myriad of topics (including themes that have never occurred to me before), leavened with some wonderful cartoons and pithy humour. Even as a connoisseur I want to have some fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-52554222352763110322009-03-08T16:02:00.000+11:002009-03-08T16:02:00.000+11:00Marcellous is correct re the matter of Bronfman. I...Marcellous is correct re the matter of Bronfman. I would also point out that the SSO made haste to include the replaced work as early as possible in a future season. As a result Cédric Tiberghien will perform it with Simone Young on 5, 6 and 7 August this year. Yes, it's perhaps a pity not to hear it from Bronfman, given the reputation of his recordings, but the original program change was in <I>no way</I> an instance of faint heart on the part of the orchestra as I think has been demonstrated by the concerto being reprogrammed. <BR/><BR/>Believe it or not, orchestras don't change their programs on a whim (really, we don't!). Changes are nearly always artist-generated, usually a very serious and not lightly made request or as the result of a cancellation. And they are agreed to with great reluctance. Programs aren't random collections of music after all.<BR/><BR/>On the surface the choice of Tchaik PC1 might have looked like a popularistic backing down from Bartók PC2. (Ok, it <I>did</I> look like that, as your and others' reactions have demonstrated.) But in fact it was, of the replacement works offered, the concerto that would best complement the remaining program (Firebird) and which hadn't been performed too recently in the same series, these being the two main considerations in these circumstances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-21846360445319772132009-03-06T18:36:00.000+11:002009-03-06T18:36:00.000+11:00That's interesting. My thoughts were supposition o...That's interesting. My thoughts were supposition only, fueled by the fame of his Bartok recordings, and perhaps the 'perhaps' was not given enough emphasis.wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08196036534397389760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-58476693093448737212009-03-06T18:13:00.000+11:002009-03-06T18:13:00.000+11:00I got the impression Bronfman requested the substi...I got the impression Bronfman requested the substitution for the Bartok, though the SSO must have acceded to his request.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-51837388524138783822009-03-06T09:22:00.000+11:002009-03-06T09:22:00.000+11:00Perhaps "such things" are the tail-end of the 'pop...Perhaps "such things" are the tail-end of the 'popularisation', for want of a better expression, of programming under the Libby Christie chair, the replacement of the Bronfman Bartok No 2 last year being another. We are, after all, subscribing to the Master Series.<BR/><BR/>Next year will be telling with Ashkenazy in firmer control.wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08196036534397389760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672155175393980448.post-87220987122602327062009-03-05T17:30:00.000+11:002009-03-05T17:30:00.000+11:00I agree with you 100% about the amplification, tho...I agree with you 100% about the amplification, though I found myself able to surmount it in the end so far as it was an obstacle to enjoyment of the occasion as a whole. As I've said already on a <A HREF="http://frindley.typepad.com/colophon/2009/02/dreaming.html?cid=6a00d835163b1e53ef011168a1659b970c#comment-6a00d835163b1e53ef011168a1659b970c" REL="nofollow">blog we both read</A>, this was a fairly profligate use of an orchestra, and I don't really see such things as the way of the future for orchestral concerts. For that matter, the Prokofiev concert at the end of this year which includes <EM>Peter and the Wolf</EM> is the one which I don't propose attending, despite the attractions of the other works programmed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com