Bernstein At His Worst
There's just no pussy footing around what an absolute turd burglar of a piece Bernstein's Mass is. I was just listening to Baltimore rehearse it at Carnegie, and it is done no favors by their production. I don't know why orchestras can't wrap their head around this, but once you have a rhythm section playing with you, you've got to mic everything. You can't leave half of the acoustic up to chance. Well, you can, but the result is an awful goop of a sound which should be an embarrassment to any self-respecting musician. No orchestra would ever consciously play out of tune, but they are perfectly content (and oblivious to) bad sound projection.
Jubilant Sykes was marking most of his part, but he does sound like he'll be the one bright spot in an otherwise miserable evening. He's got a fantastic, complex voice.
Beyond that, nothing else is worth hearing, unless you are hardcore into Bernstein or music theater. The street chorus is chock full of musical theater singers all overacting their hearts out. Marin Alsop is along for the ride, rather than driving the piece, and it's just a shame to see so much time and money wasted on such crap.
Bernstein was a musician of the first rank, and a composer of the third rank. He punched out some of my all-time favorite music, but his ambition was so much greater. He had the ultimate masterpiece complex: feeling that every piece needed to be a 'masterpiece'. Sadly, the more he tried to write great music, the more his efforts showed. Bernstein just always reminds me of someone standing on his tiptoes to try and seem taller than he really is.
There are great moments in Mass, but they are too few and far between to be worth the effort of excavation.
Labels: Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, jodru, Leonard Bernstein, Masterpiece Complex
posted by jodru at 17:50
21 Comments:
Well said.
> what an absolute turd burglar of a piece Bernstein's Mass is
You're saying the Mass is gay?
No. (Can a piece be gay?)
I am fascinated by how conflicted the writer of this screed is. On the one hand, he says LB "punched out" (what macho writing!) some of his "all-time favorite music." On the other, the writer is archly dismissive, cribbing the same attitude that Harold Schonberg did in his initial review.
The writer would better spend his time, in my opinion, examining just why he himself is so conflicted. LB was NEVER conflicted: he dreamed big, lived big, and composed big; when he failed, he failed big.
“I still don’t quite know where its [The Mass] true home should be. Is it the Vienna State Opera or a high school auditorium?" -- Leonard Bernstein
Lenny was plenty conflicted throughout his life. He was also full of contradictions.
He was not the fount of conviction that you perceive.
The view expressed in my post echoes the contradictions of the man. Though it was uncharacteristically harsh, there is no conflict there. Bernstein is what he is. He was capable of absolutely brilliant writing, but he was not capable of sustaining his brilliance.
I knew him, and found him to be without conflict in his motivation when it came to his motivation for composing.
LB's personal tent was vast enough to encompass all his CONTRADICTIONS, but that is another matter.
LB was a "fount of conviction." If you had known him, you would know that was the least of his issues as a man.
That's an awfully narrow revision of your remark.
Lenny went from 'NEVER conflicted' to 'without conflict in his motivation when it came to his motivation for composing'.
Okay. So, he never was conflicted when it came to his motivation for composing, according to you.
I'm not buying it, given how conflicted he was as a man on almost every level.
But since you knew the guy, what do you make of the piece?
Pace, I did not revise my comment, I clarified it, as I evidently did not express myself clearly the first time. By writing that just now, I do not mean to be contentious or narrow, but rather precise.
I resist armchair statements about other composers' motivations when I can -- especially when I don't know them personally. Nothing is less understandable than another man's motivations. Even less can they be posited by their work. Wagner, by most accounts, was a shit of a man, yet he gave us the Ring. Bernstein was smart enough to know that, on a bad day, someone as talented as he could write music that reflected their limitations as a person; on a good day, one can exceed, become a vessel, blah, blah, blah.
But all this is the sort of thing graduate students get stoned and sit on the floor in a circle to discuss. Professionals just get their work done.
What do I make of MASS? I think that what I think, and what you think, are to MASS' enormous and growing popularity among actual music-lovers and to the actual artistic achievement that it actually is (whether it is, or anything is called a "masterpiece" is irrelevant: one leaves it to those cross-legged enthusiasts on the floor), of the same import and insight as two flies crawling along the hide of an elephant: we see little, understand less, and are (lest we forget) among our betters.
Oy vey! 'Among our betters'?
This from a guy/gal who disdains the academy?! That's an awfully elitist perspective.
Lest you forget, because apparently you have, Lenny was no better than you or me or anyone else. He was an ordinary human being just like the rest of us. He had extraordinary talents, to be certain (composing wasn't one of them), but that doesn't make him better than anyone else. Nor does it make him beyond reproach, which is the truly eerie part of your noncommittal answer.
The phrase "one's betters" is a very specific one to anyone who is well-read, for starters; it refers entirely to people who have accomplished something one has not and from whom there is MUCH to learn. It has nothing to do with Academe (how in the WORLD did you see fit to drag that in? Still smarting from some mean old teacher lording it over you?)
I sincerely encourage you to re-examine your artistic achievements in the cold light of day, examine your career honestly, re-examine your personal and professional achievements honestly, without resort to fantasy and then re-read what I have written about "one's betters."
When did I ever for an instant infer that LB was beyond reproach? I wrote a parable that explained that you have not yet achieved anything, so it was sort of silly for you to take pot shots at him in your cavalier, Monday-morning-quarterback sort of way. You have evidently missed the point of the (generous) little parable I offered. I'll be more direct, and less generous to you: if you really do consider yourself LB's peer, then you must be accomplished indeed! From what you have written, it seems clear that you are not, or your remarks would not have the sort of erratic, nothing-to-lose zeal that they do.
There is nothing "eery" about my comment about MASS, though the fact that you find it eery identifies you (at least to my experience over the years) as one who takes rash swings at powerful artistic voices because you feel, in fact, powerless., not yet having achieved anything serious yourself.
One might grow by accepting the fact that LB, while having been no "better" than you, is not yet your peer. Maybe he will be one day. But he was, for better or worse, a genius, and you are not. To get there, you have a LOT to achieve, learn, live, and suffer. Up until then, you're still going to have to sit at the kid's table.
This post has been removed by the author.
I've never sat in the presence of great composers (and I have sat in the presence of many) and thought, 'this fellow is my better'.
Nor should you, though you are entitled to whatever quaint sayings strike your fancy.
I'm perfectly content in my accomplishments to date, and I don't feign any false superiority to Bernstein or anyone else. The issue isn't about my qualifications (or yours) versus Bernstein's.
The issue is (or was) the quality of his Mass as a piece of music. I stand by my assertion that it is an absolute turdfest.
You have yet to make a judgment on the piece, and now you have gone from avoiding making a declarative statement about its merits to making presumptuous statements about me. That belies the demerits of your argument, Anonymous.
You are free to erect an altar to Leonard Bernstein in your head and anoint him a genius, but the fellow was certifiably not a genius.
He ranks with Leo Delibes and Alexander Borodin, having written a handful of absolutely indelible music. But the rank of true compositional genius eludes him, as is evident when even the briefest comparison is made between his music and that of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven or any number of other unqualified geniuses.
Should you comment again, I would love to hear your unvarnished opinion of the piece, and not another blind obeisance to the imaginary genius of old Lenny. It seems to me, however, that you are taking the position that unless one has achieved a similar level of fame and accomplishment, that one is not qualified to weigh in on the merits of his music. So, I won't hold my breath; although, I'd encourage you to let go of your sense of propriety and enter into a genuine dialogue.
Bernstein may rank with Borodin, etc., but this piece ranks with "Miss Saigon" , or possibly (with more generosity), "Hair."
Certainly Claude-Michel Schonberg also has more acheivements under his belt than I, so perhaps I lack the qualifications (and genious) to compare the pieces, but I do think that there must be some allowance made to point out the un-economical use of orchestration or the un-subtle libretto as marks of lackluster workmanship.
If you are one that considers the words "God said that sex should repulse, unless it leads to results..." or the portrayal of Charlie Brown asking that "if he should believe in God, who should believe in him..." is controversial and groundbreaking, then you should be equally moved and shaken by the heartwrenching song "The Movie in My Mind," sung by the illegitamate lover in VietNam.
It is also fair to say that the cast of over 200 people could have been cut down to an orchestra of 50 players (which includes the choir) that would do the job just as musically. Certainly, it would lack the spectacle of the thing... and I think Bernstein realized that with his "...high school auditorium..." comment. The real question we should be asking is why this was produced by a major symphony orchestra, and at Carnegie Hall of all places? ...Though, it's hard to argue as the night of my attendance was sold out with a very enthusiastic crowd.
BTW, I do think "turd burglar" is the wrong choice of words, especially given it's association with discrimination against homosexuals.
"The real question we should be asking is why this was produced by a major symphony orchestra, and at Carnegie Hall of all places? ...Though, it's hard to argue as the night of my attendance was sold out with a very enthusiastic crowd."
Really?
Has the long run of pretty little things that play violin concertos that are museum pieces and the incessant "3 (insert nationality here) pieces" styles of programming not made it painfully apparent that a unique and eye opening musical experience is the last thing the concert music world wants to offer us.
I really don't think anyone who has been around concert music for very long really has to ask this question. We all already know the answer.
I think a better question is "when will things change?" Every day I increasingly get the feeling that the answer to that question is "soon".
Things will not change.Music people love will continue to get performed. The rest is, well, the rest....
"Certifiably," Leonard Bernstein was, in fact, a genius, according to IQ statistics. The fact that I was able to catch writer jodru out on this statement is another example of how careless s/he is as a writer and thinker.
In a culture that encourages intemperate, poorly thought out flings at people who have accomplished much in an almost desperate desire to provoke a response -- any response -- from a world that isn't listening, jodru's various comments (yes, like the "turdfest" comment, which in its sophomoric homophobia is contempt-worthy) strike me as they do the anonyomous writer who took such exception to him above: as self-trivializing and ultimately dismissible, unworthy of further response. I am not surprised that jodru's (respectfully) critical correspondent chose to walk away from his diatribe.
Is Bernstein's IQ on record anywhere? That would be interesting to know.
But in musical terms, no one refers to someone's IQ when determining genius. Again, Anonymous, that line of argument belies the demerits of your underlying thesis. If Bernstein is a musical genius, where is the musical evidence?
Brilliant performer? Absolutely.
Brilliant composer? Certifiably not. He was capable of brilliant moments, but not sustained genius, which is the best test. (That's a whole other discussion)
As to the character of my comments about the inexcusable mess that is Mass, they were given in a vernacular which is unique to my generation. We grew up using the term 'turd burglar' and 'turdfest' and every variation in between as another way of saying 'crap', 'shit' or what have you. It'd never occurred to me that these terms were considered euphemisms for homsexuality until the comments on the post.
Was it sophomoric to call the piece a turd burglar? You bet. By design. Sometimes, when you hear something so offensive, decorum goes out the window. I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing a verbal grenade every now and then. There are few pieces of music that garner such utter contempt from me.
People are free to walk away, of course, but the thing I find interesting is that no one has come forward in defense of the piece. The arguments simply return to this supposition that Bernstein was an unimpeachable genius, when he certifiably was not.
BTW, I think it's quite clear that I am a he (just click my name in the sidebar), and if you spend any time at all on this blog, perusing other posts, you will see exactly how thorough I am capable of being. But clearly, when one uses the term 'turd burglar' one is not engaging in a genteel discussion. I wasn't submitting a proposal to Perspectives on New Music. I was blogging the bile that backed up after hearing truly execrable music.
That's my personal taste. I'm sure that most people on earth would agree that Malmsteen concerto is a turd burglar of a piece, too. The only difference is that I'd actually sit through that.
I don't know who the people are who have been taking pot shots at jodru are, but I do have something to add, in passing.
I read his list of composers on the newmusic reblog. More over-reaching. Jodru should compose a piece that is half as adored and hated as the Bernstein MASS in his dreams.
Leonard Bernstein was not an"unimpeachable genius." He was (and still is, in death) just out of jodru's league. That is something jodru hasn't understood that yet.
Hmmm, I don't know how this turned into a discussion about me. It seems that by simply stating my opinion (albeit in a harsher way than usual), I've opened myself up as a target.
That's understandable, but are we never to have opinions about anything? Anonymous, are you seriously suggesting that unless someone has been music director of the New York Philharmonic and won countless Grammy awards and commissions, that one is unable to critique Bernstein's work?
My 3-tier ranking of composers isn't reaching for anything. Do you, Anonymous, seriously think that I'm saying I rank somewhere on that list?
The book I referenced, '50 Greatest Composers', was written by a total novitiate. He had no musical background and almost no knowledge of classical music before he wrote that book.
Let's let that fellow have his system and me have mine. We all rank composers in our heads. The purpose of that post was simply to share my personal method for ranking composers. It has already prompted another blogger to share his ranking method.
I'd encourage you to share your own. Apparently, Bernstein, and his wretched Mass, rank fairly high on your list. More power to you. Instead of repeatedly coming to this post to get a pound of flesh from me that you're never going to get, why not respond on the actual merits of Mass?
At no point has anyone suggested that I am Bernstein's equal.
While it is not uncommon for writers to deliberately savage their peers in order to bring attention to their own work, that is not at all my motivation here. Bernstein's Mass is a truly god-awful heap of garbage, in my opinion. This is a blog. It's made to share opinions like that.
I can't understand the animus towards such a simple opinion, especially when it is not at all an uncommon one.
Dude!
Bigger feet than ours have stomped this piece over the years. Still, the audience who walks into the room with open ears and a willingness to hear, gets something for the investment. Regardless of the reaction to the piece - pro or con - there is a reaction. Often, a strong one. So what if it sucks? I hate dark beer, but I'm not much into vilification of the brewmaster. Waste of time better spent extolling the virtue of a fine wheat. But seriously, kids, the 'show' works for those who want it to. For the rest, ask for the cash back and find a better beer elsewhere.
It works for me and I've seen the power of it when it works for others. Still worth my time.
Next!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home