Guest Conductors - a good thing?

I just got thinking about the different level of performances given by some orchestras with their own conductors and guests.

The most obvious discrepancy I've heard recently is Michael Tilson Thomas in front of the LSO (for whom he was Chief a decade ago)and his own SFSO. In the former case things were relatively flabby and pedestrian, whereas the SFSO performance was quite electric. Now I know it's not the LSO that's iffy - their performances under their own chief conductor (Colin Davis) are wonderfully taught and exciting - and similarly under Pappano. I've also not been entirely convinced by them under Janssons, whereas his concert with his own Pittsburg orchestra was excellent. I guess the surprise was why was MTT so much better with the SFSO? The other case was some really rather poor performances by the Concertgebouw under a few guest conductors. I've also seen quite a few disappointing concerts from the LPO under a variety of batons (their performance with Mutter last month was a complete joke - primarily her fault).

So is the current jet-setting mix'n'match of conductors and orchestras a good thing - compared to the old-style personal fiefdoms of e.g. Toscanini/NYPO, Karajan/BPO, Beecham/RPO. With such a relationship the orchestra and conductor get to know each other very well, get an agreed sound and really work as a team. Recent triumphs of this approach are Janssons/Oslo (and again at Pittsburg), Vanska at Lahti and BBCScottishSO (I'm looking forward to seeing how he's doing at Minnesota).

The classic counter-example though is Vienna, who only ever have guest conductors. Another (at lower level) is the BBCSO, who clearly don't hit it off with their own conductor (Slatkin), but play pretty well for e.g. John Adams and Donald Runnicles(Andrew Davis is not really a guest as he's their immediate past Chief).

I guess it's all a matter of how well the orchestra and conductor hit it off - and sometimes you're just unlucky?

 

" how do you rate the Concertgebouw ATM. I've seen them in a few concerts over the last year or two (although none with Chailly - he was ill last year) and they've generally disappointed too, sounding like a once great orchestra with a bit of an identity-crisis. OK, Inbal had only flown in that afternoon (as a replacement for Chailly to do Mahler 3), but they really didn't gel with Rostropovich (in Shosta 5) - I missed their Haitink concert here in May. The view from London ( ) is that with Rattle/BPO still finding their feet (and we'll see how well they're doing next month) the current world order is 1) VPO 2) LSO 3) BPO 4) the rest!!"

I'm parachuting your question from the Prom thread into this one if you don't mind.

Let me begin by saying I'm not really sure how one is to make these judgements. On the basis of two or three concerts? What if you happen to hit the off nights? (OK, perhaps the Vienna is the world's top orchestra because they never ever have an off night.) Personally I rate an orchestra too for their repertory, in concert and recorded. In addition one is influenced by what one sees of the interaction between orchestra members - are they having fun, or do they look like they want to make it home fast? You can't help noticing these things.

The orchestra world order as seen from London is IMHO both a little too Londini-centric and Euro-centric gor me. I'd at least expand it to five orchestras so as to include the marvelous Cleveland Symphony, for flawless ensemble, great repertory and long standing. Cleveland's only downside is their perfection: they never get down and dirty the way the VPO, Concertgebouw or any orchestra under Colin Davis does. That the Concertgebouw beats the LSO hands down goed without saying; the Amsterdam downside is they can be a little complacent at times. There's the occasional night they're taking it easy (and my guess is they don't perform nearly as many concerts as the London orchestras do).

About the Concertgebouw's visits to London. From what I've heard, when Rostropovich is conducting you're basically on your own. The last three or four times I was at the Concertgebouw were pretty fab. A Ravel night and a Stravinsky night with Chailly. Particularly in the Ravel the ensemble was to die for, honey dripping from the ceiling. Same thing with a afternoon concert with Masur conducting: Mozart Linz and Bruckner 4. One could also tell the orchestra was doing all it could to do Masur proud. And there was a Janssons Dvorak New World which was world class.

From what I've heard Chailly isn't too popular in the Anglo-American world; I have always liked what he did: the Hindemith Kammermusike, the modern series, the French-Italian stuff. However in standard repertory his sophistication and penchant for chiseled details gets the better of him. I've heard a Tchaikovsky 5 I simply didn't understand - and how hard should that be? This may be why the orchestra started gravitating toward guest conductors, and why they more or less voted Chailly out a while back. Orchestras, especially grand old orchestras, are very weird organisations, full of prima donnas pitting their favorite guest conductors against the main man. Even Toscanini once said, returning after a trip "Who's spoiled this orchestra?" These days a good orchestra needs a broader repertory than one conductor gan give them (at the best level); that's why the great orchestras cannot depend on one conductor, even if they wanted to. And a lot of great conductors really don't want the hassle that comes with being responsible for a home orchestra. Look at Masur. Look at Bernard Haitink who was pretty much booted out after many years at the Concertgebouw; he's clearly much happier now as a guest conductor here there and everywhere. So I'd say MTT is doing great work now in San Fran, but give him five more years and they'll want him out again, just like Salonen in Los Angeles.

Herman

 

I do actually mostly agree with you. The greatness of a truly great orchestra (i.e. the top half-dozen or so in the world) will come through whoever's in front of them - I guess I was mainly thinking of the next level down.

I think the biggest argument in favour of guest conductors is that of bringing insight into a bigger repertoire than one man can manage. However I think this only works if either a) the "guest" releationship is long and close enough for the orchestra and conductor to develop a rapport and understanding of each other or b) a far greater amount of rehersal time is allowed than is normal (as in the case of the late lamented G. Wand). Parachuting a big name in for a couple of rehersals (if you're lucky) and then the performance is probably going to leave everyone dissatisfied. Having said that though, I was at Svetlanov's last concert (BBCSO), and he said not a single word in the one rehersal they had, and their performance of Rach's "The Bells" was top notch (much better than with Brabbins later in the year). I think it's also important to have clear objectives/ground-rules for the collaboration: e.g. I recently saw the LPO under Berglund doing Tannhauser Ov., Brahms Pf 2 and Sibelius 5. The Sib was wonderful, but it was clear that Berglund really didn't want to be there for the first half (or even if he wanted to, he had nothing to say) - and swapping notes about him in a completely different concert the other day, someone else came up with exactly the same comment. Interestingly Masur is of course the LPO chief conductor - but it's difficult to tell as he does so few concerts with them.

It's interesting that there seems to be far less guest conducting for the period bands - they do seem to be the personal fiefdoms of their creators: Gardiner with the Monteverdis and ORR, Herreweghe with the Champs Elysees, Pinnock/ECO (although now passed on to Manze), Biondi/Europa Galante. OAE seems to be the main one that has a variety of (or no) conductor/director.

I've seen Cleveland a few times (in Cleveland) - a couple of times under Dohnanyi a long time ago, and recently under Zinman, and yes they're mostly accurate (although were clearly having trouble with Adams' "Naive and Sentimental Music"), but dreadfully anodyne and boring (I guess what WM would call hi-fi rather than musical!). I guess they really need another Szell or Maazel to wake them up.

I have to say I've never heard Chailly being dissed around here - there was a mass wailing when he had to pull out of last year's proms. I also have very ropey recordings of some marvellous proms he did with the National Youth Orchestra in the early '80s. I look forward very much to seeing what he does at Leipzig and Jansons does in Amsterdam.

Salonen's problem (if what I've heard of his is anything to go by) is that he's great at spare astringent stuff (20th cent and Scandinavian), but really doesn't cut it in the classics/romantic repertoire. His Beethoven 9 last year was very soulless, mechanical and disappointing - so maybe that's what LA (and Sony) are tired of. (And the same could be said of dear Sir Simon - although his Haydn is fairly highly regarded - so we await his Heldenleben with bated breath and trepidation)

I'll try and avoid the subject of Bernard for all our sakes - it's just that we see far too much of him in London for my tastes!

 

It is true. But I think the reason is twofold:

First there aren't strong traditions in baroque music. Harnoncourt has his style, so has Leohnardt, so does Pinnock, Gardiner, Biondi and Goebel.

So if, say, Musica Antiqua Köln was to be conducted by, say, Pinnock the results would be quite unpredictable. This is because,

Second, the period ensembles are quite small and therefore the connection between conductor and musicians is greater.

Of course, there are many different traditions in orchestral playing. Twenty years ago the Concertgebau had a very particular style. The sound of the Vienna Phil orchestra is also quite particular. But twenty years ago there were regional differences that went as far as to produce different kinds of *instruments*. For instance, the French and German oboes sounded rather different.

Today, everybody seems to be complaining that all orchestras sound alike (of course all is relative).

Now for what I think was a joke in my student years. Once a conductor was invited to the Vienna Phil. Someone asked the first violin what he - the conductor - was going to play. The first violin just said. I don't know about that. *We* are going to play Beethoven. si non è vero è ben trovato

 

There you go. I may have heard the Cleveland on the good nights, and you on the bad nights. I used to live in the Midwest in the nineties, and saw them in Severance Hall with either Dohnanyi or Ashkenazy conducting, and they were splendid. Plus I got to hear concerts almost weekly on the radio. Also, their discography is really exciting. They go where the action is.

And you are right, Salonen does not shine in 19 C material (bless him) - but then I'd rather go to a night with Stravinsky, or Nielsen or even Sibelius tone poems than oh dear, another Beethoven 9. I just don't share this Choral Symphony obsession. Makes me wonder how he'd do in Beethoven symphonies like the Eigth, of the Fourth - I mean the snappy ones. But perhaps in the current culture Salonen is more suited to be the ideal guest conductor, flown in for his stuff, than a chief conductor.

 

It's never been my privilige to work with a truly great conductor, but I've played with a few very good ones. The trouble with most guest conductors is that they get too little time to prepare. The trouble from the orchestras point is if they are not touring they have ridiculous schedules, that is why you get raggedy performances.
Haven't heard the LSO for a few years, but it you are compiling a list of top orchestras ignore the BBC Phil at your peril. Nobody I've heard is doing the truly big stuff like they are.

 

M'lud - I also have a high regard for the BBC Phil, primarily their brass and percussion sections, but as a whole I doubt they're quite in the league of the real big boys (as a body they generally put the BBCSO to shame, although individually I suspect the BBCSO players may be better). I understand that their Mahler 8 under Noseda was an experience I'm much the worse for missing. From what I've heard recently though (and at the risk of incurring Herman's displeasure again), the Halle are beating them quite easily for skill and subtlety(although whether they do so in non-cow-pat music I couldn't say). From performances I've heard over the last few years, however, my experience is that the best BBC orch by far is the SSO - their Elektra under Runnicles last Tuesday was superb (I've never heard him less than excellent - but I've only heard him in Strauss/Wagner/Schoenberg), and so I'm really looking forward to their concerts under Volkov next week.

Back to guest conductors (and the BBC Phil) - I think we had a good example of the problem you highlighted tonight with Paavo Jarvi. The Tuur violin concerto had clearly been rehearsed far more than the other pieces and was played brilliantly (I'd not heard it before, but it could well be on my buy list now). The Prok 6 was also pretty good (again percussion and brass well to the fore), but there were several points where different sections of the orchestra seemed to have different ideas about what Jarvi was trying to tell them - and I doubt the "Night on Bald Mountain" had had more than a full run-though (if that), as it was mostly competent, but had some very ragged entries and was dreadfully uninspired (whereas the BBC Phil Mussorgsky/Stokowski disc under Bamert is one of my favourite recordings - both musically and as a hi-fi demo).

 

like having an affair

I'll tell you what incurred my displeasure: I missed tonight's Prom. When I recalled the Tuur and the Prokofiev 6 were on tonight, it was already over. The Prok 6 is one of my top 5 favorite 20th C works (and it is very badly served on record).

Hopefully I'll catch it later next week. So how was Ms van Keulen? She used to be a looker. I read an interview with her last week (her eponymous Chamber Music Festival is on again next week, out here), in which she said she spends less time at her fiddle than she used to, because of her family. However she reckoned her playing had more depth (again because of having a family).

Oops, wrong thread, so let me add the best Prokofiev 6 I ever heard was with the Rotterdam Phil (which can do the loud, brassy thing Prokofiev needs quite well, especially after a decade of Valery Gergiev) under guest conductor Kurt Sanderling in 2000 or 2001, very old, very frail, but the kind of guest who inspires great visible affection in the band - the kind of guest conductor that coaxes the best out of an orchestra, because it's not a long-term commitment.

Herman

 

Graham, my experience is that the Halle tend to be rather shabby if they are not on major display. Have not heard a good concert from them in many years in Manchester, in fact I have stopped going. They seem overworked and full of deps. The Phil on the other hand play Shostokovitch, Janacek and Respighi like no-one else I've ever heard. The greatest performance I ever heard though was with the Dallas Symphony at the Proms, when they played Tchaik. 5.....awesome. It was a shame Joshua Bell played the Barber before it That was very tedious not a note out of place, and not a bit of personality on show.

 

Clearly I'm only going to hear them on their best behaviour, but the suggestion is that Elder's really turned them around (my sources confirm what you say for the previous decade or two). It may be worth giving them another shot.

Look forward to Rotterdam and Gergiev in 3 weeks time. His Kirov performances last year were superb. Scythian Suite and the Ravel is most obviously "him", but I'm interested to see what he makes of Berlioz (his/Rotterdam's Wagner two years ago was dreadful).

 

Which Wagner was that? I was at a concertante performance of Parsifal (maybe 1999). A lot of the singing (by Kirov steadies) was not absolutely great, but the Kirov's playing was aboslutely stunning - dark, glowing, roilingmasses of sound. I was mesmerized for days.

Generally I feel though he should stay away from non-Russian material, and in fact my experience isGergiev is best as a accompanying soloists, as a way to prevent him from getting too weird.

Herman

 

Checking up, he was actually in front of the Kirov - doing Meistersinger Act 3 Prelude, Wotan's Farewell, with Toradze playing Scriabin's Prometheus and Schoenberg's Pelleas. The only think that wasn't completely dead was the Scriabin. In particular Vaneev murdered the Farewell - he would have made more sense singing the 'phone book. And their encore was the Walkurenritt at its most banal. (The considered opinion on their Parsifal earlier in the year was equally damning).

I've seen Gergiev/Kirov now about four times in the last few years(that one, Boris God., Prok.Pf3/Shost.4, Islamey/Scheherezade/Pictures) - and that was the only miss. I did miss his appearance with Rotterdam the previous year - was still recovering from their Parsifal with Rattle the day before. The recent Kirov appearances at the ROH did get some dreadful reviews - apparently they're completely exhausted through playing too much (10 perfs per week!!!!).

[edit]
Oh forgot...Ms van K was very good - and played pretty well too. She's not a short lass is she? (Almost overtopped Jarvi even with him standing on the podium). I suspect there are many that would go weak at the knees over her looks (touch of the dominatrix about her maybe?)....but I'll leave her for you (and keep Ms Grimaud )!

 

Ah yes, I rememmber it well. I was actually at the RAH in person that night (sat in the "choir" seats overlooking the cellos/basses from up high - which is one of my fave spots apart from the stalls on that same side of the hall). Certainly one of my most memerable concert experiences. ...and they finished off appropriately enough with the theme tune from "Dallas" the TV programme as an encore. :ffrc:

Andrew Litton whose now chief conductor at Dallas was prior to that in charge of things at the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra (hereafter refered to as the BSO), which conveniently enough leads me into what I was going to say....

Prior to the commencement of concerts by the BSO in Exeter, and most other venues that I'm aware of, including Portsmouth where I used to live when I was a student and was also a regular BSO patron when they performed at the Guildhall there, there is always a pre-concert lecture/talk. Normally, these pre-concert talks involve someone giving an illustrative talk about the pieces of music to be performed that night, supplemented with relevant musical excerpts played from CD. Incidentally, the speaker at the Exeter concerts is prinipal violist (who quite impressively on one occassion also went off immediately to perform as soloist in Berlioz's "Harrold In Italy"), whilst one of the two alternating speakers at the Portsmouth venue is none other than one of the lecturers from my computer science course that I did there. Anyway, on the odd occassion they also have guest speakers, or a memorable event from last season is when we had an interview follwed by an audience driven question and answer session with the orchestra's current prinipal conductor, Marin Allsop.

I was surprised to learn just how few the contact hours were between principal conductor and orchestra at Bournemouth. Typically, they will spend between 1 and 2 days together for rehearsals per concert. Out of the 13 concerts in Exeter from last season, October 2002-June 2003, Allsop conducted at 3 of those concerts. The orchestra also appears reguarly in Portsmouth and Poole, and occassionally but not so regularly in Basingstoke and Cheltenham too plus some summer only appearances in places such as Winchester Cathedral, with the prinicpal conductor appearing about as many times again at each of the regular venues. The orchestra's appearances throughout the rest of the season are all with guest conductors. So, in this particular example, Allsop was has other engagements throughout the year too with a couple of American orchestras who she guest conducts with, we are talking about conductor and orchesrra meeting up about once a month for preliminary rehearsals and again for the actual concert - so in all, a month meet up happens about twice a month for a few days at a time.

To answer the orignal question then, I'd say that guest conductorships are a good thing, so long as they are long and lasting (and prosperous as well of course).

As for particular principal conductor/orchestra relationships these days not being as long or enduring as they used to be in the past, there is a recent one I can think of off the top of my head, which came to an end last year after a 29 year tenure - Ozawa and Boston (the other BSO ) - they seem to have performed regular subscription concerts in their home town and recorded together quite a lot so there would seem to be a quite enduring and high profile partnership going on there.