|
Monday, March 26, 2001; 1 p.m. EST
Philip Kennicott, the classical music critic for The Washington Post, has served as music critic for the Detroit News and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He is a pianist and graduate of Yale.
Classical music is both one of the most established and most imperiled art forms in America: a mainstay of the cultural world, yet fraught with economic and aesthetic problems.
After a century of radical musical change, and two decades of increasing commercial exploitation, the art form has ceased to have the coherence, and cultural centrality, that it did in the time of Mozart and Beethoven. What sustains our appetite for a musical form which lives in the shadows of popular culture?
This discussion is devoted to the subject of music, both here in Washington, which enjoys a vibrant musical life, and in the larger cultural world beyond the District.
Below is a transcript.
Philip Kennicott: Let's begin. Welcome to the classical music page and please send on the questions, or comments.
Somewhere, USA:
I heard "October" at Baltimore the Saturday after you reviewed it and that evening's program included a floor discussion with composer Tsontakis. He said that one of the differences between modern and classical symphonic music is that the classical composer had to figure his audience would only hear the piece once whereas the modern audience could listen many times via recording. Certainly October had more different things going on at once than the two classical pieces on that night's program -- Prokofiev #2 and Beethoven #4 -- which were much easier and in my opinion more enjoyable to listen to than October.
Is writing over-complex pieces a common element of modern symphonic music, and if so, does this limit audience appeal by making listening too difficult?
Philip Kennicott: Tsontakis raises an interesting point about complexity and recording. I didn’t hear his remarks, but it sounds like he is suggesting that, given the opportunities to really dig into a new piece and get to know it through repeat listening to recordings, today’s composers may have the option to write more complex music with less immediate sensuous appeal. But of course immediate sensuous appeal is still the extreme and most capricious arbiter of what happens to music after its first performance; if it doesn't sound like a soundtrack, to the rubbish bin with it. Few new pieces receive studio recordings and when they do, they don’t sell very well. So I’d say today’s composers are in the same boat as Prokofiev.
It’s curious that Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No. 2 seems less complex and more appealing to you. It strikes me as ferociously complex work, but because of its surface energy, its rhythmic spirit and feistiness, it seems more accessible. Tsontakis’ piece isn’t so much a work of complexity in the manner of, say, Webern, but a work that resists surface charisma. Which is to say, I think you might find it as transparent as the Prokofiev seems to be, if not quite so pulse-raising, if you had a chance to hear it again.
Alexandria, VA:
I've so far seen two of the three spring Washington Opera productions: Turandot and Don Carlos. I wrote you a previous time about your review of Turandot, and your comment about some might nit-pick certain vocal mannerisms of Alessandra Marc, but that didn't matter because her voice and singing were so wonderul, and you asked if I'd heard her. Having now heard her, I agree with your comment, almost 100%. The almost is because I didn't even hear whatever people might criticize. If it's there, it's so minimal that I didn't notice it, and I have had classical vocal training.
On Don Carlo, I enjoyed your article this Sunday which compared the interest in "real" history between the play Don Carlos and the opera. Your article ended with a mild diatribe against the prevalence of historically appropriate (or "traditional") productions in operea, and compared it unfavorably to stage versions. My question of you is, did you see the Shakespeare Theatre's production of Don Carlos? That particular production was as traditional looking as the Washington Opera production. Where they differed was in the difference between the opera production's feeling of darkness and gloominess (which as an opera patron I dislike because it's very annoying not to be able to see clearly the faces of the performers and details of the setting) and the play production's feeling of claustrophia. A lot was due to the difference between the two works - but I though the play's approach dramatically better, plus I could see everything clearly.
Did you see the play? If not, why not?
Philip Kennicott: I'm really glad to have converted at least one person the subject of Alessandra Marc. It was depressing how many comments I got of truly spiteful nature about her personal appearance. In the end it's the voice that matters and it pleases me to think that someone else had an experience as exciting as I did at her Turandot.
I did indeed go to see the play, and then took in the opera about a week later. I found the play a far more compelling theatrical experience (though the opera is hands down my favorite opera in the canon). But I wouldn't necessarily call the Shakespeare Theatre's version "traditional." I think you hit the nail on the head with the word claustrophobic, and that the play was designed and directed to limit specific historical references. It was all in very dark colors, in costumes that seemed both puritannical and blank in their references. The goal, I assume, is to free the play from seeming too much of the time when it was written, or too much about the time that it depicts. My comments about opera are directed at the kind of neutered house historical style that takes everything so literally. It's theatrically dull. Bring back Peter Sellars.
Arlington, Va:
I am going to be in Chicago from April 14 through 20. Is the Chicago Symphony worth $65 per ticket without Barenboim? With him?
Philip Kennicott: That's the sort of question that might start a bar brawl if flung at a stranger in Chicago. I'd say that, without claiming much love for Barenboim, that the Chicago Symphony is definitely worth $65 with him. But under a guest conductor is a different matter. Do you know who will be there that night?
Washington DC:
I saw The Marriage of Figaro Friday night. It was the first time I've been to the Washington Opera, and I wondered what influence Placido Domingo has on productions when he isn't singing or conducting in them. Does he select the principal singers and the conductor?
Overall I really enjoyed it. There were a few times where the singers and the orchestra were out of sync (by just a few seconds). Also, I was surprised to see that nearly every scene began without any music, just the actors moving around on stage. Is this a common practice for Marriage of Figaro?
Philip Kennicott: From what I hear, Domingo is a strong presence at the opera, even when he isn't singing or conducting. He has brought in productions from around the world (the Washington Opera is basically a boutique company at this point, with relatively little new work emerging locally) and this productions reflect his taste. He also has a vast network of vocal contacts, through his singing, his work with the Operalia contest, and so on, so he's the source for much of the casting. Specific details of how he goes about hiring conductors, I can't give you.
As for the silent movement on stage before the music, that's not particuarly traditional. Usually the curtain comes and the music starts (in Mozart, at least). Did you think the effect worked?
Detroit, MI:
Hello-
I was interested to see you apparently have some reservations about Leonard Slatkin's performance in DC. I'd be interested in your response to this: recently I heard a CD of Slatkin doing Ives. It would seem to be a natural combo. But I found the performances
unpersuasive. The transcendental mystery at the heart of the music just wasn't there. On the other hand I recall a TV performance of
of Beethoven's 9th by Slatkin that was wonderfully powerful. Is it possible that Slatkin and everyone else has it backwards?
That his heart and talents are really with the old master
Philip Kennicott: You're right about the usual wisdom, that his strengths lie with American fare, particularly Copland and perhaps Ives as well. A lot of times conductors will champion a particular repertoire they love without necessarily becoming the last word on that music. Charles Mackerras has done wonderful service for Janacek; yet as time goes on, other conductors have come forth with plenty of new things to say on the subject. This is inevitable.
Slatkin has a capacious musical mind and absorbs new scores with great speed. That's by no means a universal talent among conductors. As for his Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, I'm sorry I missed it. There are times in standard repertoire when it feels like we're getting a phoned in performance; and then he'll surprise you with something wonderful. I heard a Pines of Rome in St. Louis during his last concerts that was simply extraordinary.
Washington, DC:
Mr. Kennicott -
It looks as if with the Kirov and Washington Operas both planning to perform at the Kennedy Center Opera House over the next ten years (ignoring for the moment the issue of the Kennedy Center Opera House remodeling), Washington audiences will be treated to one or more Russian operas each year, and one American opera each year. We all know that Russia produced a couple dozen great operas from Glinka through Prokovief. Are there any
relatively unknown American operas that you would personally like to see and review?
(For example, American conductor Dennis Russell Davies has been suggesting Hall Overton's Huckleberry Finn, from the 1950s, I
believe.)
Also, is the Los Angeles Opera really planning to produce one operatic world premiere every year for the next ten years,
as London's English National Opera and many
German houses do, or do you expect that many
of these works will be smaller works mounted at alternative settings? Do you know of any plans for Placido Domingo to share the world premieres with the Washington Opera, since he heads both the Los Angeles and Washington companies?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Philip Kennicott: There are too many little known American operas to list, but I'd certainly love to hear John Eaton's work more often, or some of the classic Philip Glass, or even Ned Rorem's Miss Julie. How about Machover's Valis?
As for LA's plans, I don't have them right in front of me, but they are ambitious and do include premieres. I'd like to see the Washington Opera get in the commissioning game, but it's more likely that, if we get anything new at all, it will second hand stuff commissioned in LA or through consortiums.
Arlington, VA:
For the Chicago Symphony, William Eddins will be conducting Appalachian Spring, Rissolty Rossolty, and the musical score of Chaplin's City Lights along with a viewing of some of that film.
Philip Kennicott: I'd be happy to see Chaplin's City Lights, but it sounds musically rather like a B minus night to me. I don't know Mr. Eddin's work, so can't direct you.
RE: Marriage of Figaro:
I saw Marriage at the Met a couple years ago (with the blockbuster casting of Bartoli, Fleming, Terfel, and Mentzer) and I thought I remembered that the action and the music began at the same time. I'm not sure what effect the director was trying to get, but I thought it was a bit awkward. Plus with all the coughing and shifting in the audience, it wasn't very powerful.
Since it seems the discussion is a bit slow today, can I ask another question? I read an article in the NY Times on operas translated into English. What's your take on this? As distracting as I find surtitles at the opera, I can't imagine, say, an Italian-language opera sung in English (or any other Germanic language). Besides, the English-language operas I have heard I can't understand the words most of the time.
Philip Kennicott: The stage director probably had a concept: Life goes on in the Almaviva household, and Mozart's opera is just showing us snatches of the day to day activity; so let's have everyone bustling about before the music begins to suggest the continuity of life there. Etc. Good concepts don't always translate on to the stage.
As with many issues, my feeling about opera in english is that it's fine for people who want it that, but I'd hate to see that become the only way you can hear opera. Kind of like the rules of grammar (we're sticklers on the ones we know, and dismiss the ones we don't as only so much pedantry) I would much rather hear any opera I know well in the original language in the original language. But opera has been translated back and forth all through its history, adn there is no particular moral scruple about it. Diverstiy of experience is the important thing; go to the ENO to hear Tosca sing "I lived for art" and go to the Met to hear Vissi d'arte.
Washington:
Do you really feel a double bill of
Elliott Carter's "What's Next?", and
Todd Macover's "Valis" would be the best way
to bring conservative Washington audiences
into the later 20th century? The latter
is pretty disturbing; more so I think than
Poul Ruder's new "The Handmaid's Tale".
I myself would rather hear Glass's
"The Making of the Representative of the
Planet 8", than the Macover.
Philip Kennicott: Machover's Valis has the advantage of leaving lots of room for theatrical and visual display; I've only heard it on recording, but I think it could be very exciting on stage.
No need to get into an either/or conflict here. Yes, I said I was interested in classic Glass, and "The Making of the Representative of Planet 8" qualifies, as does Juniper Tree and Fall of the House of Usher.
I would love to hear the Ruders.
I'm a critic, interested in seeing as broad a view of the musical terrain as possible; I'm not terribly interested in limiting my interests to conform to what you call the "conservative Washington audiences." Why should they dictate my curiosity?
Alexandria, VA:
I wrote you above. On Alessandra Marc's size and how people relate to it on stage. In Turandot, I had no problem, because the role does not require movement for the drama to work. Puccini wrote it into the music, and that's a role where "stand and sing", with the acting in the voice, is the best thing. I don't need over-emoting from a haughty princess (and I find the plot and motivation in the work to be absurd, anyway). But unless her mobility (not her size) improves, I could not see her in any of the dramatic-voice Mozart roles like Donna Anna. Because the visual is part of what opera needs.
I'm glad you like Peter Sellars, because he always rubs me the wrong way. I have no problem with non-traditional productions, but with Sellars, it always seems as if the production's purpose is to glorify him "see how incredibly talented and creative I am. I can do things with the opera that nobody has ever thought of before." For example, the idea of Don G. in the ghetto was intriguing, but as soon as the singers opened their mouths and sang in Italian, he lost me. He should have had the courage of his convictions and done it in English, because they sure don't talk in Italian in the American inner-city he was protraying. Also, a lot of what he does is plain contradicted by the text. For example, Michael Kahn at the Shakespeare Theatre doesn't change the texts (though he may edit them down). He lays the other-period or non-traditional visuals on top, but everything works with the tradition text. And that's what I wish Sellars would do--be true to the work he's re-creating, not rewrite it.
Philip Kennicott: Just as an aside, check out Shakespeare's Pericles Prince of Tyre. There's a scene rather like the basic riddle set up in Turandot; so though it's a ridiculous plot and motivation, it is by no means an entirely invented one.
Sellars clearly enjoyed his status as a provacateur and probably went beyond reasonable limits at times. But there was a joyful reengagement with the music and drama that I feel is almost always lacking in today's run of the mill directors.
As for fidelity to the text, there are two arguments. First, that you should make do with what the text says, be faithful, and take only those liberties that don't contradict the original work. And, you might also argue that there's nothing at all sacred about the text and, so long as you're honest about your intentions, you should feel free to rewrite and recast anything you like, and bill it as a new work. Just fess up.
Fairfax, VA:
I hope I get this in in time...
I went to Isaac Stern's performance a couple weeks ago and agreed with you that his performance on the Beethoven Sonata was sub-par. But I was wondering a couple things about your review concerning the rest of the performance. I found that the Emerson String Quartet's performance of the Mendelsohn was mesmerizing and yet you only mentioned it in passing. My wife and I thought it was worth the price of admission alone. Your review of the Bolcom left me confused as well. Did you like it? I thought that it was wonderful and the performance of it was very exhilirating.
Thanks.
Philip Kennicott: Ouch. A review shouldn't leave one confused, though sometimes I try with new pieces to put more emphasis on description than on judgment. Let the piece have some time to take root before having at it. But in fact I did like the Bolcom. Since it was a new piece I put much more emphasis on it than on the Mendelssohn. Old music has already had plenty of attention from the critics.
Philip Kennicott: Thanks to all of you who sent in questions. Till the next chat, cheerio.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Philip Kennicott, and to
everyone who joined us.
Stay tuned on Live Online:
Teen
Drug Abuse at Noon EST
Media
Backtalk at Noon EST
Oscars:
Desson Howe at 12:30 p.m. EST
Post
Magazine: Linda Hales at 1 p.m. EST
Buying
a New Home at 1 p.m. EST
Classical
Music Forum at 1 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Book
Club: "The Makioka Sisters" at 2 p.m. EST
Advice:
Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EST
Oscar
Fashion: Robin Givhan at 3 p.m. EST
Horoscopes:
Lichtenstein at 7 p.m. EST
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Philip Kennicott, and to
everyone who joined us.
Stay tuned on Live Online:
Teen
Drug Abuse at Noon EST
Media
Backtalk at Noon EST
Oscars:
Desson Howe at 12:30 p.m. EST
Post
Magazine: Linda Hales at 1 p.m. EST
Buying
a New Home at 1 p.m. EST
Classical
Music Forum at 1 p.m. EST
Travel
Talk at 2 p.m. EST
Book
Club: "The Makioka Sisters" at 2 p.m. EST
Advice:
Carolyn Hax at 3 p.m. EST
Oscar
Fashion: Robin Givhan at 3 p.m. EST
Horoscopes:
Lichtenstein at 7 p.m. EST
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
