PostCage (premiere recording of dharmachakramudra)
rangzen quartet recording of mf
ImprovFriday CD (includes virtual music 2)
talentless?
In today’s NY Times, there is an interesting article about Gilbert Kaplan, a devotee of Mahler’s Second Symphony who managed to snag a lot of conducting opportunities before major orchestras where he conducts, naturally, Mahler’s Second. He’s even recorded it twice. The article notes dissent among musicians in the NY Philharmonic after a recent performance of the Second, as the view among musicians is that Kaplan is ”talentless“ and might be engaged on the basis of his donations to orchestras rather than an innate talent.
I’ve known about Kaplan for many years, and always was skeptical. Not so much because he’s technically an amateur. But because he seems to be a one-hit wonder. Isn’t there more than just the Mahler Second? I love the work, but I’d be just as passionate about Mahler’s Sixth, or any of a number of works by Feldman, Shostakovich, etc. And why is his interpretation considered any more worthwhile than a lot of ours would be, if we had an opportunity to conduct a major symphony?
When I was a kid, I used to attend some free concerts of the NJ Symphony Orchestra that were conducted by a old female patron of the arts who also played cello. She paid for the concert and the opportunity to conduct. Was she talented? Not so much. But I benefitted from her largess just the same, as did everyone else in the audience. And it was our decision to attend or not. While I felt it was a bit weird for someone to essentially ”buy“ their way into being able to conduct an orchestra, at the same time, she had the opportunity and money and used it. As much as I’d like to think that only those who are deserving would be enabled to conduct an orchestra, the reality is that many conductors got there through connections and/or some other form of leverage. Some folks are on the podium because they have perceived star power and can draw an audience, even if their interpretation or skill might not be as good as some other candidates. That’s life, and I get it.
What bugs me the most about the Kaplan situation is that it makes it harder for those of us who are not ”professional musicians“ or ”professional composers“ but who, nonetheless, are passionate and devoted to our musical pursuits. I work as a physician, but have been a composer since I was a kid and while I earn no income from it, make my music available for free on the web for anyone who cares to listen to it. I compose because I like to, and have been fortunate in encountering people who can see beyond the fact that I am not a ”professional“ (since I have a day job outside music) and listen to or perform my music because they want to. But I would also never have any desire to pay someone to perform my music (it was once offered to me and I declined emphatically) and know of no one else who would pay to get performed, either.
If Mr. Kaplan benefitted from his ability to make consistent donations to various orchestras, that’s his business, but I would hate to think that those of us who are not professional composers or musicians but who would be considered as such if we drew income from it, are thought of in a poor light because of Kaplan’s ability to leverage whatever it is that he leverages to get conducting opportunities. And yes, the musical directors and orchestra managers who enable him are just as guilty.
J.C. Combs, 
Daniel Wolf, and 1 other are discussing. 
paul bailey 3:12 pm on Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:12 pm Permalink
david,
i really think that you have nothing to worry about. being vetted through various our social networking musical communities is the best medicine and works as a great peer review. in the last five years we all have much more access to information and music online then ever before.
for me the problems with mr. kaplan are how the nyphil and the economist magazine (which i enjoy each week) went out of their way to promote mr. kaplan and how he seemingly has allowed himself to be called an expert on mahler. what hasn’t become evident was what was his expertise? that he owned an original score and he found some errors?
the idea that we can get together and perform each others music outside of the concert hall is just starting to be realized through the internet (i really enjoyed playing your music at csuf), and eventually there should be less distinction between professional and amateur performances with anybody wanting make music able to find their social group and put on a show.
J.C. Combs 4:28 pm on Thursday, December 18, 2008, 4:28 pm Permalink
I don’t think its any secret that he benefited from his donations. People shell out millions to fly to the moon as well. What pisses me off is that now the snobby classical community is going to label him an amateur and drag him down on that basis. When in reality the debate would be more accurately characterized as whether an ultra-rich person should be able to bribe a role as conductor. Really though, who cares?
Yanni has been labeling himself our modern day Mozart for years and some large sections of the world buy it. He has more performances on PBS than probably most true classical put altogether.
And even worse, you could buy your way into a nice college and study composition and just on that basis alone get more credibility than an amateur composer gets in one lifetime.
dtoub 5:33 pm on Thursday, December 18, 2008, 5:33 pm Permalink
I totally agree, Paul. I’ve always thought of the Web as the great equalizer. That said, there are still some folks out there with money and influence, but not a lot of skill or talent, who will be enabled without peer review. I’d like to think that people can accomplish things on their merits rather than on their personality or wealth, but I know I’m really naive.
Daniel Wolf 9:33 am on Sunday, December 21, 2008, 9:33 am Permalink
The amount that Kaplan donated (7-10k per year for the last 7) was nowhere near enough to pay for the NYPO’s rehearsals and concert; the filled hall, on the other hand, was. A description of Kaplan “leveraging” the performance through his contributions is therefore misplaced.
This particular event was certainly one in which the NYPO tapped into an existing publicity stream and used it to fill the hall for a concert designed as a benefit for the musicians’ pension fund. If there is anything to be critical about, it is the years of critical praise for Kaplan and silence from critics and musicians alike about his musical deficits that have created this particular phenomenon and perhaps the cynicism of the NYPO leadership (as well as other orchestras who have engaged him) to present the performance in these terms. Kaplan no doubt has some textual insight into this particular work, based upon a unique access to sources; a more honest approach to Kaplan would have been to engage him as an advisor to performances and to encourage him to produce a critical edition.
The story does have one positive aspect, and that is that it demonstrates the ability of a good orchestra to function, essentially, without a conductor. In an time in which orchestral budgets are extremely limited yet conducting fees continue to increase for a handful of celebrities, a demonstration like this may be a useful bit of leverage for the orchestras against both this wage inflation and the near-monopoly that a small group of conductors have had.
dtoub 12:19 pm on Sunday, December 21, 2008, 12:19 pm Permalink
Daniel, I’m sure his donations were just a drop in the bucket. But it doesn’t matter—it’s still a conflict or interest and I dont think it’s entirely proper. Whatever—I think we’re in agreement otherwise. Thanks.
J.C. Combs 1:42 pm on Sunday, December 21, 2008, 1:42 pm Permalink
Daniel,
You say the positive is the that orchestra functioned without the conductor. Do you really think that Kaplan hasn’t learned how to read and interpret the score (I mean he’s conducted this same work apparently a massive amount of times)? And I have to believe somebody explained to him how to beat time, raise/decrease volume level and other baton techniques.
The real problem here is the fact that he’s rich and especially right now with the economy going down the toilet its easy to jump on someone for doing extravagant things.
I think a good analogy would be if Mark Cuban decided to coach his team. We know he’s a huge basketball fanatic but really he’s just an amateur with bucks. However, if the team had an average record and continually sold out every game, I think there wouldn’t be a problem. But would we then say, “this shows that a basketball team can play without a coach” or “this guy knows some things or two, enough to carry a .500 record, but he’s no Red Aurabach (? spelling)