The classical blogosphere has been abuzz with reactions to the recent cross-country tour of the LA Philharmonic with their new music director, Gustavo Dudamel. The “Dude”, as he’s been monikered (cue “Big Lebowski” reference…oh wait, the LA Times has already done that – see the last line), has been touted by many (and certainly by the LA Phil PR machine) as the future of classical music (no pressure…).
It is, I think, human nature to want to cut the mighty down to size, and perhaps that lies behind some of the criticism – Peter Dobrin of the Philadelphia Inquirer puts it succinctly as “Dudamel falls short of hype”. The main critique, from San Francisco to New York, is the perceived incompleteness of musical ideas and unevenness of pacing and interpretation. John von Rhein of the Chicago Tribune goes so far as to call it a “lack of musical depth”.
All of which I think is a little unfair. Dudamel, at 29, is a young conductor and remarkably young to be a music director of a major ensemble. Those of us who have seen him in action (albeit via video) immediately realize his volcanic musical energy, communicative passion and tremendous charisma. If one’s interpretive ideas are formalized and codified at 29, one should quit conducting; that’s the whole point of being an artist (absorbing, reimagining, constantly developing) and the whole joy of following an artist over the course of their career (being privy to that often extraordinary journey).
But in the end, it’s Anne Midgette at the Washington Post who hits the nail on the head for me. Her point, in a nutshell – Dudamel doesn’t represent the future of classical music:
The people who are trying to move classical music into the future are thinking about alternate kinds of programming, new venues, different repertory…Dudamel’s whole training appears to have been about perpetuating the status quo…I think…one reason he’s been so exciting to many people in the [classical music] field: he represents a future without radical change
Because, if you think about it, there’s nothing terribly forward-thinking or future-minded about a telegenic and charismatic young conductor (hello, Leonard Bernstein?). Yes, the back story (Venezuela, El Sistema) makes for a compelling rags-to-riches narrative, but that can’t carry the future of classical music either (although the notion of El Sistema itself is being implemented in several U.S. cities – now that might really impact the future).
To all the critics and haters out there – I hope you’ll judge Dudamel as you would any other enormously talented 29-year-old conductor. And to those who think the future of classical music lies in a magnetic young maestro – we can’t rest something as important and burdensome on a single set of shoulders. We need ideas, outside-the-box thinking and the courage to break from the past, and from what is familiar – strenuous and scary work. It’s much easier, I suppose, to do what we’re doing now; pinning our hopes on a savior who, eventually, may become the scapegoat at whom we point an accusatory finger.
For an outside-the-box discussion with some heated back-and-forth, take a look at this:
http://www.insidethearts.com/sticksanddrones/2010/05/26/ron-spigelman/2544/
The LA Phil went overboard with the Dudamel PR, as they’ve done with Esa-Pekka Salonen before him. On the other hand, Dudamel got good notices conducting the resident orchestras in the cities that the Phil recently visited and his performances in Berlin, via their Digital Concert Hall sounded pretty good and looked well-received.
He has damage to undo in Los Angeles as the Phil’s sound has been pessimized for Salonen’s preferred repertoire which, incidentally, had way too much Salonen in it. The Phil can and does play the classical repertoire exceedingly well when others, not limited to Dudamel, are on the stand so there’s hope.
If anything short of critical rapture means failure, then the Phil’s tour failed. Looking closer, there were a couple of negative, a couple of positive, and several mixed reviews of which the latter had some specific and valid points for improvement. I do think Tommasini of the NYT had his backhand ready and Davidson of NY Mag went into the concert with Hollywood on the brain and wrote accordingly. The LA Times in turn overreacted as they’ve been complicit in the hype for many, many years.
I hope that the Phil learns from this PR experience and that Dudamel will get his chance to actually shape the orchestra and its direction. I am not positive though that it will happen. There’s too much Adams and Salonen still loitering about the place.
In defense of the critics, if the LA Phil promotes the new 29-year-old conductor as superman, and then in performance you find the musical conception very inconsistent and the orchestral playing spotty, then is it mean to call them on it? The critics should put it into some broader context, but they also have to write about the performance they heard.
As usual, the most thoughtful assessment comes from Alex Ross from a New Yorker article earlier this year. He is generally quite impressed and hopeful about Dudamel but also notes that he has work to do organizationally and musically. An excerpt an full link below.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2009/12/14/091214crmu_music_ross?currentPage=all
…Dudamel long ago proved himself to be a master of roof-raising occasions. The real test of his abilities will come more gradually, as he goes about the daily business of running an American orchestra: conducting subscription concerts, planning future seasons, hiring musicians, soliciting donations, and—if he is truly a miracle worker—changing the complexion of the audience. Just before Thanksgiving, I returned to Los Angeles to hear how Dudamel and the Philharmonic worked together under more ordinary circumstances, in the regular subscription series at Disney Hall. I attended two consecutive performances of a high-minded, echt-Viennese program: Mozart’s “Prague” and “Jupiter” Symphonies and Berg’s Violin Concerto, with Gil Shaham as soloist. The works fell outside the late-Romantic and conservative-modern zones in which Dudamel has made his mark—his home turf of Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bartók, Prokofiev, and Shostakovich.
They were elegant, thoughtful readings, proof of Dudamel’s range. They were not, however, anything to put in the time capsule…
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2009/12/14/091214crmu_music_ross?currentPage=all#ixzz0pG4dHMKG
In defense of the young, charismatic Leonard Bernstein, at the time that he WAS young, he began championing such composers as Barber, Diamond, Mahler (whose music had been vilified earlier in the 20th century in America), Copland (who probably didn’t need much championing, granted), among others. He was a huge supporter of composers, perhaps because he was also a composer? He was the one who brought classical music to television with the NY Phil’s “Young People’s Concerts” which opened the door for other classical concerts to be broadcast on TV. I remember seeing Glenn Gould performing on TV, for example, with an orchestra (not the NY Phil). The Boston Pops began broadcasting also, although that might have occurred at the same time (look, NY has a great idea! Let’s do it too!). Bernstein set the standard for American conductors, showed American orchestras that they didn’t necessarily need a European conductor to lead them, and showed Americans that 20th century music was nothing to be afraid of. What part of that isn’t forward- looking and influencing the future of classical music?
Could Dudmel do the same? Only time will tell. He needs to find his “groove” in LA, decide what he wants to accomplish there. He needs his own strategic plan. I think it’s great that he’s taken the LA Phil on an American tour — maybe that needs to also be something other American orchestras do more? Perhaps when money flows from the skies like rain…..