Messages

Maybe just squeezing into the remit of this forum, about 15 years ago I was involved in a project to record a new edition of all the symphonies of Antonín Reicha for BMG (RCA). We had got as far as identifying periods for recording sessions and there was a big management shake-up at BMG, the would-have-been executive producer disappeared in a puff of smoke (later to resurface with his own independent CD label, minus the BMG-type funding) and the project collapsed, never to be resurrected.

I have to confess to playing devil's advocate to a certain extent; I was being deliberately provocative (I know, how childish of me!  ).

I do, though, stand by my statement about Verdi being derivative. Yes, there's plenty of lovely music in there, but there's not really anything NEW or startling to my ears (happy for Verdi aficionados to shoot me down). But then, you could say that about JS Bach, couldn't you? 

I have always held that Verdi was a completely derivative composer. When compared to Wagner and other mid-19th-century composers, Verdi did nothing new at all (apart from, perhaps, Falstaff). I think that, had there been another Italian opera composer active in the period between Rossini/Donizetti and Puccini with a modicum of Wagner's revolutionary vision, we might know a lot less of Verdi. Popular by default?

And I'd just *DIE* without Mahler. He can never be overdone for me (except than by conductors who don't 'get' the music).

If we're looking at 'overblown' music that still stands up to scrutiny, surely Schoenberg's Gurrelieder fits the bill perfectly. The zenith of overblown, over-indulgent late Romanticism epitomised in one glorious work.

I'm not sure I fit any stereotypes. I enjoy a vast range of music that falls way beyond the remit of this forum. Yes, I enjoy music from the Romantic period, but I also enjoy exploring everything from the Medieval 'Ars Nova' to new music still wet on the page. I also enjoy music of other genres such as rock (especially progressive rock), jazz, pop and film music.
While I realise everyone is different (and halleluia to that!), I am still surprised when I encounter people who steadfastly only listen to one type of music (or period) and refuse to listen to anything new. I love the fact that, even if I live to be 200, there will always be music to explore I have never heard before. What a joy!

I'm cheating - listening to Draeseke's 3rd on Spotify (the cpo recording) now. So far, so good.

I actually find it hard to believe this is Leonid Kogan playing. The tone is thin, the intonation occasionally suspect and there are uncharacteristic portamenti of the sort one doesn't usually hear in Kogan's superb playing. I suspect an impostor.

Kabalevsky was Russian through and through.

My dad was born in 1916, but he didn't make any contribution to music other than getting his collection of 78rpm discs down from the loft/attic for me to explore when I was a boy.
Other anniversaries in 2016 that fit within the remit of this forum:

Furrucio Busoni (150th anniversary of birth)
George Butterworth (centenary of death in the trenches during WWI)
Vasily Kalinnikov (150th anniversary of birth)
Enrique Granados (died at sea after being torpedoed by a German U-Boat in 1916)
Max Reger (centenary of death)
Erik Satie (150th anniversary of birth)
William Sterndale Bennett (bicentenary of birth)

Let's not forget Masur's vital role during the uprising in the old East Germany in 1989. When pro-democracy demostrations in Masur's home town of Leipzig were being threatened with being put down with Tiananmen Square-type state violence, Masur used his influence to contact the head of the Communist party and the demonstrators in the street to call for calm. Violence was avoided and Masur was the hero of the hour.

Just to respond to your points:

I believe the poster you respond to had in mind the inequality (to use the term presently en vogue) inside the profession:  If you have  job at the San Francisco Symphony (which depends as much on luck as on skill) you are fine.  You have even a union that will organize a strike and get you a raise.  The rest of musicians have meager pay indeed.

As to your comparison to physicians etc. you might be a tad off.  It takes more effort and a larger chunk of your life time to get a medical degree or a Ph.D. in science than to acquire the skills of a competent orchestra musician.  Trust me on this.  Also physicians in particular work many more hours than musicians in a symphony, personal practice included (that we would be better off with more, lower paid and less overworked doctors is a different topic...).  Orchestra musicians can easily have half a dozen students at the same time (and it is highly desirable that they do indeed teach).

Orchestral musicians in the USA have far more comfortable existences than those in the UK (where I am), both in terms of working conditions and pay. Freelancers (of which the UK probably has more per capita than anywhere in the world) can indeed earn very little or very much, depending on lots of factors.
Have a look at the schedule of one of the 'freelance' London orchestras (LSO, LPO, RPO, Philharmonia) and tell me they work less than some of those you mention.

Trust me on this.

You trust ME on this; I've been working in this environment for 35 years (and studied in it for 5 years before that).

On another note:  I believe you see the situation in the non-Anglosaxon part of Europe a bit too rosy--unfortunately:  The subsidies are under fire politically, mostly, but not only from the left (because "elitist").  Private sponsors are becoming more and more prominent with all the negative side effects like focus on big stars and standard repertoire--the stuff that the Grand Bourgeois thinks is "culture".

I'm fully aware of the cuts in countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. They're still a lot better off than most comparable organisations in the UK.

As someone who has been a professional manager of orchestras and artists in the UK for more than 30 years, I have observed the trends here with some despair. Firstly, though, one needs to remember that the orchestral scene in the USA is, to my knowledge, unique in the world inasmuch as orchestras rely on private sponsorship and donations to boost their concert income for more than anywhere else in the world. As society has become dumbed down and first-class music become available to just about everyone through recorded media and the internet, the effort of hauling oneself out of the house, travelling to a venue and then getting oneself back home again afterwards can seem too much for many. I have seen the age-old accusation here of tickets being too expensive for concerts, but people are very happy to pay far more to watch football (and 'soccer'), baseball, rugby and cricket matches, just as they will pay massive prices for rock and pop concerts. Going to a classical concert does NOT need to be expensive - even the opera (where here one can get very cheap 'standby' tickets for nearly every performance).

High culture has always needed subsidy; in times gone by it was royal courts and monied aristocrats who 'owned' artists and their music. Current-day USA is still very close to this. In Europe, state subsidy is prevalent (to a greater [eg Germany] or lesser [eg the UK] extent). Culture is what defines us as a society and civilisation; we have to invest in it if we want these traditions to continue. Without it, what would we become?

I saw a post that suggested that musicians' fees are "out of whack". Out of whack with what, exactly? Musicians spend years and years studying, investing in expensive sheet music, VERY expensive instruments, lessons and, even when a professional, HOURS of practice. Their study and skills compare to other professionals like doctors, dentists and (dare I say) plumbers, all of whom earn far more than their musician counterparts. I have yet to fathom the mindset that thinks that musicians shouldn't be paid a fare wage commensurate with the skills they have honed and the pleasure they give (which is somewhat more than that derived from the average visit to the physician's surgery or the dentist's chair). Maybe someone can explain that to me.

The malaise described in this thread is largely a disease of the English-speaking world. Go to France, Germany, Italy and the 'arts' in general receive far more subsidy, sell more tickets to a greater cross-section of society (you see FAMILIES going to concerts together) and engender a pride among the general population almost unheard of in English-speaking countries (even if they don't attend the events themselves).

Until we as a society wake up and truly value and invest in our cultures, we could very well lose them forever.

"Let's not mention THAT!"

... out of context, that could be referring to about... 95%+ of all music out there...

95%? That's a little harsh...

I agree - although the VC is better than a certain other piece I could mention...

Yes, let's not mention THAT!