A couple of friends who read my last post have asked why Mark Swed's January 21 column in the Los Angeles Times upset me so. Rereading it, I do have to acknowledge that I have absolutely no problem with the first two-thirds or so, a comprehensive overview of some of the recent frictions between some major American orchestras and their high-profile conductors. (Sort of a "The Pope is Catholic" story, but never mind.) Swed thinks it's a shame that Christoph Eschenbach is leaving the Philadelphia Orchestra (due apparently to widespread disgruntlement in the orchestra), and I also take no issue with that conclusion. (Though I did find it a little odd that in listing Eschenbach's many attributes, Swed counted among them the fact that "in Paris...he has a lavish, authentic Art Deco apartment that's to die for.")
But Swed, one of this country's finest writers on music, did not stop when he should have. He wanted to produce evidence why the Philly musicians are unable to understand what a great maestro they have had, what a great situation they are blowing with their "uppity" (a Swed term) attitude. So he brings up the recent and widely acclaimed documentary, "Music From the Inside Out," a sort of behind-the-scenes look at those very musicians of the Philadelphia Orchestra. The documentary, in attempting to portray the conflicted nature of the orchestral musician (trained to be an individual as an artist but required in large part to subjugate that individuality towards the greater mass of the orchestra and the will of the conductor in particular), showed many of the musicians pursuing their non-classical musical interests outside of their professional setting. These musicians do these things as a release, for love of music in general, and most emphatically NOT for professional critical evaluation on the same terms that they do when they don the tuxes as orchestral players.
Mark Swed somehow thinks that judging these players on how they play salsa or bluegrass is fair grounds for judging the legitimacy of their right to like or not like Eschenbach as a conductor: the documentary is "most revealing," in Swed's words. And how does he know these musicians can't appreciate a genius like Eschenbach? "...Watching them play second-rate bluegrass, jazz or salsa is painful."
But the cheap shots don't stop there. The documentary's makers asked some of the musicians pretty nebulous questions, like "What is Music?" This, of course, is the kind of question famous conductors (with the help of their publicists) have practiced answering for a lifetime of interviews, but section players in orchestras don't exactly have much experience answering. So the fact that some of these working musicians don't exactly possess a Charles Rosen-like way with words should be understandable to a fair-minded person, but I guess it's not understandable to Mark Swed: "One banality after another comes out of the mouths of very good musicians. They're asked: What is music? They answer: It's a mystery. It's just whatever. It's something about intense personal experience. It's everywhere. It tells a story. It takes you on a trip. It's like riding a motorcycle....Listening to them grapple with the notion of noise and music without a background in musical aesthetics is just plain embarrassing."
I don't know, those answers don't sound much different than some I've heard from many concert soloists out there today. Being eloquent or having a strong "background in musical aesthetics" is a nice bonus, but as even Swed acknowledges, you can be a "very good musician" (I'd say even a great one) without it. How is this possible? Wordsmiths like Swed may not like to admit it, but music does occupy a realm beyond the linguistic. In any case, to make a pro-Eschenbach case by castigating these musicians' relative ineloquence is not a legitimate argument, merely another low blow on Swed's part.
But he saves the best (worst?) for last. Swed: "At the end, the film strings together Brahms' buoyant theme from the last movement of his First Symphony with snippets either performed by individual players on their instruments or sung. Each musician tries to give his or her bar or two something personal. The result is saccharine. Then we see Eschenbach conducting the orchestra in a decent chunk of the movement. All the sentimentality is suddenly gone. He is rapt, intense, concentrated. This is the essence of Brahms. These Philadelphians are the Fabulous Philadelphians once more."
Let's see...bits of Brahms' First played by just a little ol' lonely single instrument, maybe sung a little bit by somebody else...now we have the full orchestra playing it, and---guess what---the full orchestra version sounds a lot more convincing, impressive. Wow, what a revelation. I guess that's the kind of insight that the Philadelphia Orchestra musicians are incapable of having, that only somebody with "a strong background in musical aesthetics" could come up with. (Yes, I know I ended that sentence with a preposition. Deal with it.)
There are legitimate grounds for a reasonable discussion about the changing power dynamics between orchestral players, their Music Directors, their Executive Directors, their Boards. I don't feel sorry for the Philly players, who are extremely well-paid. Yes, if the stories out of Seattle are true as reported, those actions by a few orchestra players are reprehensible. But famous conductors of the Eschenbach league are like NFL coaches. Yes, it probably is not totally fair that Jim Mora got fired as head coach of the Atlanta Falcons, when they did not have a terrible record. But if you coach (or conduct) in the big leagues, you have to know that that comes with the territory. Mora will land on his feet, will do high-paid commentary for ESPN for awhile, then most likely land another coaching position. Eschenbach will not lack for work, the highest-paid work available to classical musicians (his salary at Philadelphia was $1.6 million; guest appearances elsewhere and recording income probably pushes him well beyond $2 million). So it's hard for me to share Swed's anxiety on behalf of this oppressed class of famous conductors, even though I completely agree with him that Eschenbach, for example, is a great conductor and musician. Sometimes being a great conductor is not enough, though; there are many reasons why a Music Director and orchestra do not work out after a while...personality conflicts, the history behind the original hiring, or sometimes just the simple fact that a fresh face is needed.
In the end, the reason I have made this lengthy response to Mark Swed's column is that, while I believe he is an outstanding writer and perceptive thinker, I feel that he has badly slipped in this case. His point of view was not well-served by his gratuitous cheap shots at the Philadelphia Orchestra musicians; how well they play salsa or verbalize aesthetic concepts should have no bearing on whether or not they have the right to wish for a conductor other than Eschenbach.
While musicians might gripe about getting bad reviews for their professional performances, by and large they understand in that "field of play" they are fair game for pretty much anything a critic may write about the performance. For the critic to expand his criticism of performers to include activities outside the professional realm is patently unfair. I hope Mark Swed will reconsider his words, and perhaps even offer a clarification.
Phillip Bush (Local 802, AFM, New York City)
