This morning I received a comment on this blog that was filled with venomous vitriol aimed squarely at Gustavo Dudamel and the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
I am always surprised by the Dudamel naysayers or even doubters — have they actually heard the guy conduct, or are they just reacting to the hype? Or to “the politics” they claim to see in his appointment?
Usually, it seems to me, there is something extra-musical about the criticism — especially of the strongly negative variety — of Dudamel.
Ironically (if that’s the word I want), the comment arrived as I was sitting at my laptop writing a preview article for a Bay Area publication on Dudamel and the orchestra’s visit up there later this month, and touching upon this very topic.
As a music critic, you get a fair amount of this stuff sent your way. Perhaps I’m more sensitive about the subject because of it. The general public may not even know it happens. Certainly Esa-Pekka Salonen was never the target of such negativity, even though there were plenty who didn’t take a special liking to him musically.
Of course, the said comment was anonymous, or, I should say, it came from someone who called himself “disgusted.”
Well, Mr. Disgusted, I’m not going to publish your comment, but not because I disagree with it. We refrain from name calling and swearing here at Classical Life, as well as with the broadcasting of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
If you’d like to give it another shot once you’ve calmed down, go ahead. But I can’t guarantee anything on my end.
classical life 
I have only heard him conduct once, and that was before he joined the LA Phil.
So it was a while ago. I thought he was very good, but I’m no expert on conductors.
However, I have a friend who IS an expert. He studied conducting at the Mozarteum in Salzburg and was a conductor here in Orange County for many years before he retired recently. I won’t mention his name, because I am going to quote him, but you probably have a good idea whom I am referring to.
I happened to run into him at Trader Joe’s the other day, and by coincidence, we were talking about Dudamel. He is a HUGE Dudamel fan, says that the Dude is the real thing. He always conducts without a score, and my friend said a lot of conductors who do that “fake it” at least part of the time. They don’t really know the music that well.
He says Dude must have a photographic memory, because he watched him closely and said that he knows every note of the pieces he conducts. But more than that,he claims that Dudamel’s performances are musically profound and sensitive artistically.
I believe that I have seen Dudamel use a score on occassion (I think it was a world premier) but the music was still musically sensitive and artistically beautiful.
When it comes to things like that, you can call me free speech “maximalist” – i am always against censoring. If the rant is the way you have described it, whom does it hurt when published? This type of venting usually tells much more about the ranter than about its subject. Are you sure it’s a he? If so, the name should probably be Mr. Disgusting. When i read similar outbursts on other blogs and on other subjects, they are often so laughable that they actually become entertaining.
After years of being an LA Philharmonic subscriber I have given up my subscription. Of the many concerts I’ve seen with Dudamel, only one or two have been successful. A couple of his interpretations of favorite orchestral pieces have been so deplorable that I found myself having to walk out midway through the piece. I think he is talented but rather young, inexperienced and not ready to take on a major orchestra. His mix of loud vapid dramatic point making, painfully slow tempos and banal interpretive fussiness would be forgivable if the music making had the substance and depth he is rather visibly in search of. Most of the time what comes out of the LA Phil these days when he is conducting is mannered tedious sludge.
I may not be Mr. Disgusted, but I am mightily disappointed in the leadership of the LA Philharmonic under Gustavo Dudemel.
Mark K: While in principle I agree with your overall sentiment, I think there are a couple of points worth noting:
1. This isn’t a public forum; It’s Tim’s Blog. Anyone is free to take the time and effort to start their own Blog if they wish but if Tim wants to censor for the reasons he noted, that’s okay with me.
2. I appreciate the fact that Tim is reading the comments and responds (I do the same on my Blog, as well). You may find obscene comments and wacko theories laughable — I don’t and I appreciate anyone who employs taste in his or her Blog. As I said earlier, anyone is free to start their own Blog — I don’t think Tim is under a first-amendment obligation to be their soapbox.
In principle, I agree with MarK, too. But you’re right Bob, this is my blog, not a public forum … or a wall to paint your graffiti on.
At the newspaper I work for, we recently switched over to Facebook comments in an effort to circumvent some of the more despicable comments. Some of the comments were literally ruining the articles that writers had worked hard on … they were graffiti and slander. All done in the name of ANONYMOUS.
When is it OK to protect your own property from such things? How would you like it if someone spray painted your violin MarK? You know, as a form of free expression? Or called out in the middle of a concert, that sucks!
Thanks to both Bob and Tim for agreeing with me “in principle”. But that is all i stated above – my principle. Did i question Tim’s RIGHT not to publish something on his own blog? Of course not. Did i even suggest that he was wrong in exercising that right? Not at all, i did not. How could i, without seeing that nasty comment? All i did was, i simply described my general preferences in these matters. And i never said that ALL obscene or wacko comments are laughable to me – some are simply stupid, but many others are definitely ridiculous.
But i don’t think that spray-painting someone’s violin is a good analogy. Damaging another person’s valuable property does not equal saying negative things about someone. If however there is slander involved, then it’s a different story and may even be criminal. As for hearing “You suck!” in the middle of my performance, that would be interesting and refreshing, and my reaction will probably be – “Wow, that is a really discerning and sophisticated audience here that is actually paying attention: i should try playing better next time!” – because, to be honest, i always think that i suck when i am performing.
Maybe the main reason for my disappointment in not seeing the offensive comment is that i would have preferred enjoying the feeling when most of the active commenters here were to jump on the offender and completely destroy his (or her) verbally. As we can see, just mentioning that the dirty comment existed already generated a very lively discussion. It is possible that having it here would have provoked even more spirited responses and a hotter debate. The way it stands now, we shall never know and can only guess.
I recall reading comments from a person back in 2009 who said he listened to Mr. Dudamel conduct the Los Angeles Philharmonic (in LA, by the way, and not on tour) in a performance of Mahler No. 1. He said it was poorly done or something along those lines. He based his opinion on years of dealing with the San Francisco Symphony.
I then listened to a recording of the same piece conducted by that orchestra and its Michael Tilson Thomas. Yes, uh-huh, the performance to my ears did sound pretty much like Mahler No. 1. So if there were such heart-wrenching differences between that version and the one led by Mr. Dudamel, I couldn’t detect them.
However, I did notice the acoustics surrounding the performance led by Mr. Thomas lacked the quality of that surrounding Mr. Dudamel. Moreover, I have just listened to a snippet of Mahler No. 1 released by the Berlin Philharmonic led by Simon Rattle. Again, the quality of the acoustics surrounding that version lack the impact (the full visceral appeal) of the Mahler led by Mr. Dudamel.
This gets me back to a point I made previously, where various people can get quite fussy about minor variations in a piece presided over by Conductor A compared with Conductor B–the talent of the conductors and orchestras in question being generally equal or at a high level. Fussy, if not persnickety, about — at least to my aural sensibilities — rather innocuous differences in the way a piece is interpreted, but apparently oblivious to or unconcerned about the overall nature (or quality) of the sound where the piece is performed.
Such people remind me of why the phrase “and other than THAT, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” (or “and other than THAT, Mrs. Kennedy, how was Dallas?”) was coined.
Still puzzled why most people think that even small differences in musical content are more important than those of its delivery packaging? That is unfortunate.
Gustavo Dudamel’s taking the helm of the LAPO was the best move he and the LAPO’s management could have made for our orchestra. He’s a game-changer. This is not a town for any more aging European maestros (though Gian Carlo Giulini’s tenure here thirty years ago was very good for refining the LAPO in THAT era).
Dudamel is a fine musician who will grow even finer while he gives his most energetic years to our orchestra. His connection to Latin America, given Los Angeles’ demographics, is critically important to making community connections and growing future audiences. And his youth in and of itself will take him emotional and thematic places where other young people dwell, so he will help shape repertoire for our and all orchestras in the first half of the 21st Century.
Viva Dudamel !
Perhaps…
But in any case, the name of the late great “refining” Maestro was Carlo Maria Giulini.
I first encountered Dudamel at the Edinburgh festival as he conducted that youth orchestra. All the pieces on the program were well conceived by Dudamel and when I later heard him with the LA Phil I must say that there was nothing annoying about his choice of interpretive concepts. If I were to take the time I could enumerate all the conductors I’ve heard live since the Chicago symphony and Stock in the 1940’s (and I’m not going to research my record collection). Tempos vary, dynamic emphases vary, and of course the individual musicians have their idiosyncrasies in performance. The audience needs to accept that their desires are most likely neither that of the orchestra, conductor, or the composer, and just sit back and appreciate what they came to hear.
Aside from his interpretation of great music, I feel that it’s important to have a conductor of the Phil that “CAN SPEAK ENGLISH”, so that he/she can develop a real rappore with various facets of the Los Angeles community. Why is that skill considered such an optional requirement for the position? I would have a very difficult time successfully interviewing for any job in southern California if I couldn’t speak english. Why is Dudamel or anyone else exempt from this? And please do not suggest that “some English” is sufficient. Michael Tilson Thomas is in part such a fantastic American musical icon, because he is a great communicator. Can you imagine Dudamel ever achieving that?
I have heard Dudamel interviewed at length live. He can speak English, and well. It’s accented English, but he knows the language well enough to communicate what he wants to say. I think he is an excellent and rather charming communicator in English.
Mr. Thompson
I seriously doubt that you could “enumerate all the conductors” that you’ve heard since the 1940’s in such a way that wouild allow you to draw detailed comparisons between various works and performances. That would require a tremendous capacity and gift for memorizing and analyzing acoustic information that very few human beings possess. Perhaps, Mozart, Korngold and a few others have had such gifts, but the statistical probabilities would rule you and me out of that. Furthermore, your recordings are as much influenced by the acoustics of the recording venue, engineering, and the just plain chutzpah of the orchestra that day, than by the conductor.
However, to witness the likes of a Leonard Bernstein walk out on stage and talk about a piece, or witness a DVD of Michael Tilson Thomas exploring the intracies of a Mahler symphony as he does on his outstanding series “Keeping Score”. Now that’s what a great conductor also has to do………………..communicate. Dudamel does not, because he does not have the language skills to do so.
I must say that it has always puzzled me why Los Angeles has found it impossible to bring to the PHIL, a conductor of American origins, that understands the musical and cultural sensibilities of Americans. Where is the next Bernstein, Tilson-Thomas, Marin Alsop, etc.
Tim, what about an article on this topic; the American conductor vs. the L.A. Phil.
Oh, my.
Tim, you mentioned in another thread that “music criticism is not a science.”
When reading William Clark’s opinion, I need to repeat your observation to myself over and over, and over, again.
By the way, Alice Tully Hall at the Julliard School has wonderful acoustics. The main music critic of the New York Times told me so.
Okay, I’m being smart alecky, but as they say, beauty — or good music, or good conductors, or good orchestras, or good musicians, or good verbal-communication skills (in English, for example), or good acoustics — is altogether in the eye of the beholder.
No, probably not “altogether”, but to a certain degree – yes.
William Clark: For the record: Gustavo is an American conductor. And, oh by the way, even with his accent he communicates quite well, as today’s theater telecast demonstrated. He’s certainly more fluently bilingual than I am with my poor Spanish — worse luck for me.
To Mr. Clark:
Here is a link for you:
http://www.laphil.com/watchlisten/videos/video-browse.cfm?cat=0&by=rank
While there click on anything that shows Dudamel and says Talkback or Casual Friday. You will hear someone with a command of the English language and can clearly and effectively communicate his thoughts in said language.
And, by the way, Andre Previn was a conductor of “American origin” who conducted the LA Phil.
As was Alfred Wallenstein. Previn was born in Berlin, I think, but point taken Chris.
IMHO, The Dude is a terrific communicator. The hype surrounding his hiring was a bit much. It made me quite skeptical, but after having seen him perform several times, I’m a fan.
For example, he and Gil Shaham make for a dynamite show.
Re Dudamel; I’ve been attending concerts of the LA Phil long enough to have heard the transformation of the young Zubin Mehta and the young Esa-Pekka Salonen into conductors of the first rank, while learning on the job here in LA. They both worked with other orchestras, yes, but I firmly believe their years here were highly important in their development. I enjoyed hearing them change over the years. And Mehta’s next big American conducting gig after leaving LA being the N Y PHil seems proof enough that our orchestra, now one of the world’s finest, is a fine environment in which to grow and develop. Dudamel is learning on the job, yes. I found some of his musical choices (i.e.the perilously speedy tempos of the final movement of Beethoven’s 7th) to be based on a lack of maturity, rather than musical experience. But, I also heard him conduct the Mahler 9th this last year and it was sublimely beautiful and well thought out. Give him time to grow. Just hope he doesn’t listen to the all the hysterical blathering, but rather continue maturing with our orchestra, learning on the job, and especially, giving us many, many more examples of the incredible diverse music of our 21st century. We have the concert hall AND the orchestra to make sure classical music will continue to matter. Having Salonen, and now Dudamel, as conductors should ensure Los Angeles’ place in the forefront of orchestral music in the US.
Gerry Schroeder
Mr. Punt @ 7,
I have not heard Mr. Dudamel conduct and, while all the hype about him sets my teeth on edge, that’s the music business and I won’t hold it against him.
But I take issue with you. You seem to believe that because (with cheerleading from people like you) LA is becoming an outpost of Latin America, it must have a Latino conductor. That you can say, “This is not a town for any more aging European maestros” shows pure prejudice on your part against white people of European descent.
“His connection to Latin America, given Los Angeles’ demographics, is critically important to making community connections and growing future audiences.”
So, you want an affirmative action conductor that you imagine future audiences of Mexicans can identify with. Forgive me if I think you have little or no interest in music, only multi-culturalism.
Very interesting discussion. I work occasionally with LA Phil, am not a classical music expert, but very much enjoy “The Dude.” I have only seen him previously at the Bowl, but purchased tickets to all four programs at WDCH this month (http://www.laphil.com/dudamel).
I’m midway through those shows and have been consistently blown away. As I said, I’m not an expert. However, the passion and fire and beauty captured in these performances is just spellbinding…I can’t imagine them being any more inspiring. I guess I don’t understand why some people think there’s something so terribly wrong with the man/his work: if he gets classical newbies like me to pony up and enjoy the arts, he must be doing something right…right?