Spurious correlations....

For once this week I'm not going to mention Peter Gelb and the travails of the MET--Oops, I did it again.  Ok, let's get it out of the way:  read here for a discussion of the problem and why things are probably going to get MUCH worse.  Read here for a completely different take on the art, a whole new concept, completely opposite of the behemoth in Lincoln Center.  And, for one of the few times in recorded history, I find myself in disagreement with Greg Sandow.  Here is why.

BUT--ENOUGH ALREADY!!!  What about these spurious correlations?  Being one day past the 25th anniversary of Karajan's death, I'm naturally thinking about the great stick beaters of the past.  This ruminating led me to wonder,

WHAT IF:

Furtwangler in Chicago?

Gustav Heinrich Ernst Martin Wilhelm Furtwängler (yep, that was his given name; a bit of overkill if you ask me) had been able to accept the offer as Music Director of the Chicago Symphony in 1949?  The offer was eventually rescinded due to protestations from the likes of Arturo Toscanini, George Szell, Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, and Isaac Stern, all of whom threatened to boycott an ensemble that would hire a Nazi sympathizer (he wasn't).  In fact, Yehudi Menuhin stated in a lengthy letter to the tribunal that Furtwängler faced following the War:

Unless you have secret incriminating evidence against Furtwängler supporting your accusation that he was a tool of Nazi Party, I beg to take violent issue with your decision to ban him. The man never was a Party member. Upon numerous occasions, he risked his own safety and reputation to protect friends and colleagues. Do not believe that the fact of remaining in one's own country is alone sufficient to condemn a man. On the contrary, as a military man, you would know that remaining at one's post often requires greater courage than running away. He saved, and for that we are deeply his debtors, the best part of his own German culture.

So, instead of Furtwängler, the orchestra endured the unremarkable tenures of Désiré Defauw and Artur Rodziński.  But then KUBELIK ARRIVED!

WHAT IF:

What if Kubelik had stayed?
Stupid critics!
Dumb Boards!

Kubelik had lasted more than three years in Chicago?  The semi-official line is that he was "hounded out of the city" (according to Time) after repeated attacks by critic Claudia Cassidy.  Chicago Sun-Times music critic Robert C. Marsh argued in 1972 that it was the Chicago Symphony trustees who were behind the departure. Their foremost complaint, and that of Cassidy as well, was that Kubelík introduced too many contemporary works (about 70) to the orchestra; there were also objections to his demanding exhaustive rehearsals and engaging several black artists.  Oh my!  Integrating the lily white halls of classical music!  I heard a 1951 Pictures under Kubelik, recorded in the very early careers of Herseth, Farkas and Jacobs, among others.  Astonishing....

So let's see Furtwängler, possibly followed (a bit later) by Kubelik.  Too good to be true.  No to the irascible Fritz Reiner?  How many other things might have been different?

WHAT IF:

The Philadelphia Orchestra, after the retirement (after 44 years) of Eugene Ormandy in 1980, had hired anyone other than Riccardo Muti?  Remember, too, that Ormandy's 44 years came right after Stokowski's nearly 30.  At that time there still existed orchestras with their own distinctive sounds; the Philly had been cultivated by Stokowski and Ormandy to play with a lush string tone achieved in the former's sense through cross bowings.  These were also Music Directors who signed with an orchestra and basically stayed with the orchestra for the entire season, as opposed to the jet-setting maestri of today who give oftentimes as little as 8-10 weeks to their "real" gig.  That's discussion for another time.

A younger Sawallisch instead?

Muti, then a young lad of 39, turned the Philadelphia Orchestra into just another generic band; apparently, recording engineers loved it. For me, every Philadelphia /Muti recording I own is dull in sound, scope, and sheen (or the lack thereof). And who followed him? Wolfgang Sawallisch (1993-2003), Christoph Eschenbach (2003-07, or thereabouts), and Charles Dutoit (2008-2012). This was truly a difficult period in the history of this great orchestra. Eschenbach, never a fan or player favorite (and one who has continued to receive negative press for his opera performances), he was scorned in the local press. Peter Dobrin wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "In three seasons, Eschenbach and the orchestra have produced a handful of brilliant concerts.  More often, though, his rehearsals and performances have elicited a long list of complaints from musicians: getting lost in the score at concerts; leading disorganized rehearsals and then asking for overtime; and insisting on a peculiar rushing and slowing of tempos."

How much of these obvious wrong moves contributed to the orchestra's infamous 2011 bankruptcy?  Probably little, but one does have to consider public perception of the end product.

OR, (and this was the impetus for this diatribe) WHAT IF

Kertesz instead of Maazel

Upon the death of long-time Music Director George Szell in 1972, the Cleveland Orchestra had not hired Lorin Maazel?  The players themselves voted 96-2 to urge the Musical Arts Society to hire Istvan Kertesz.  I am trying to imagine the refined and precise "European" orchestra that Szell created in the hands of that young firebrand.  The results could have been electrifying.  Maazel himself, who would eventually experience success around the world, admitted in 2002 that “the relationship (in Cleveland) remained more or less rocky to the end.”

BUT, the most spurious correlation is this:  Kertesz did not conduct in Cleveland and the following April he drowned off the coast of Israel.  If only, he'd been leading a concert in Severance Hall instead....