Letters
Please feel free to comment on any article or feature on this site, or musoc.org or music in general, by emailing gro.cosum@srettel. There is no Big Brother-style login necessary. Musoc.org may publish your comments for public consumption or delectation; if you wish them to remain private, please mark your email 'Not for Publication' or (ideally) email gro.cosum@ofni instead. Your comments may be edited for punctuation, grammar or style, but the substance will be untouched (expletives excepted) - say what you want about the culture industry and its cronies without censorship. Replies to all messages are made privately; your response to any reply may be merged where appropriate with original comments. Editor's notes where appropriate are asterisked. Please scroll down for earlier letters.
You can now read 2009 letters here and 2010 letters here.
Newest letters are on the homepage.
JANUARY 2012
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Jan.14th » Mr Berger is, if palpably nothing else, consistent. His most recent post [below,Jan.12th] is characteristic of its author's flailing desperation to assert some standing, or reach for some validation of his statements to date. I can admire, to an extent, his persistence, save that the same quality can be isolated in repeating sex-offenders. Mr Berger's defence of himself fails - not least since my attacks can only be scurrilous if they are rebuttable. But Mr Berger cannot rebut them. The "facts" of which he speaks are nothing of the sort. They are assertions. That is an entirely different nexus of information. My accusations and allegations have not been answered, and they remain unanswered still. He has no qualifications save as an amateur. Were it otherwise, they would have been produced. He has known and studied with "many highly respected composers, musicologists, conductors, instrumentalists, singers and professors of music", save that none of them can be identified.
Self-evidently: I can be rendered imbecilic only in the light of evidence to the contrary. Of which there is none. Indeed - and assuming Mr Berger is a graduate of something (we know it isn't music) - he must have learned from somewhere that evidence and its analysis are the only real tools of learning, and he has failed repeatedly to answer a single question that I have put to him. The same problem besets his laughable statement of certitude that he has read "countless books on music history..." Even if that were true - and it manifestly is not - that statement achieves nothing. The issue for Mr Berger is not (as he believes) the presumed validation of self-reporting statements of conviction, but his failures as a correspondent to act as a well-read and learned individual. That he has failed to do so is inevitable, but his enthusiasm for blank statements of unsupported conceit is becoming sadly dull. The ham-fisted syllogistic failure of his statement, "So much for my not being well read" (which cannot flow from the statement "I have read countless books"), demonstrates the sort of child-man with whom I am having to correspond.
The same ghastly sophistry infects his references to the CSO. For perhaps the last time: it doesn't matter whether Mr Berger has heard the CSO under Solti. So did I, and the experience was commonly awful - notwithstanding the fact that Mr Solti and I were quite good friends, and I enjoyed debating similar issues with him at home in London, as I have done with three of the other conductors to whom Mr Berger refers. I also know what one of them thinks of Mr Berger's "Hogwash" reference, save that he learned about it from me, rather than by reference directly to Mr Berger's pathetic blog. The issue, moreover, is cemented for me and my readers by Mr Berger's confession that his views - as I said they were - are informed by recordings, radio and television broadcasts. I dimly recall dismissing Mr Berger as a little man with a CD collection, and it seems I should revise that by adding "and a television set". Bravo. Just what the world needs: another semi-literate armchair critic with a remote control. Mr Berger "knows [the CSO's] playing from recordings", and he lists the usual suspects as evidence for his standing. No: Mr Berger does not know their playing from recordings, but even if he did he cannot tell us - as I predicted - how the CSO and LSO differ. That concession almost brings an end to this correspondence. I had expected some attempt by Mr Berger to avoid the humiliation of conceding my challenge, but he has failed in this regard as, it seems, in all others. He cannot "put into exact words what the differences of sound are between the CSO and LSO, but they certainly DO NOT sound alike" is a statement that I would damn in my 11-year-old son, who certainly writes better than Mr Berger and knows, almost certainly, rather more of music and art.
I would not sign my name to such a statement since it is almost sickeningly embarrassing, and I recoil from it almost as much as I do its author. The same vile impotency clings to his belief "that the Muti/Chicago collaboration will come to be known as a formidable one." This is not judgment, at least not as Pope defined it, and I am actually saddened to read that this is the best that Mr Berger has to offer. His failure - and the twitching horror of his insupportable statement that the orchestras of Vienna, Berlin, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Cleveland, London, Paris, Dresden, Leipzig, Munich, Prague and St Petersburg are all distinguishable - is the most disgraceful embrace of deceit and delusion I have read in a long time. I would consider it indefensible, regardless of its source. But Mr Berger hasn't heard each of these orchestras live, and he never will. I, on the other hand, have heard them all - many times, both in concert and during rehearsal, and with everyone from Karajan to Dudamel. The issue separating us is not one of substance, therefore - since the mewling and puking Mr Berger has none - but of self. He has been damned by me as an amateur and a buffoon, and he has done nothing to demonstrate that I am wrong, save protest and opine. He writes instead of Buffalo without addressing the actual point I made - namely Mahler/Vienna as opposed to Falletta/Buffalo - because he has no option but to defend himself in the crushing absence of anything substantive.
Such people are beneath contempt. However, if Mr Berger would like actually to debate these issues then I shall do so only once the "Hogwash" reference is removed, and apologized for. I cannot enter into a dialogue with anyone who would write with such pathetic disrespect of one of the world's leading performer/academics. Mr Berger would like some respect himself - certainly he writes like a man who otherwise protests too much his alleged standing - but he will never get any for as long as he maintains the shameful insult of Mr Hogwood on his blog. I note en passant that Mr Hogwood has discovered a new work by Brahms during his researches, so perhaps the tasteless Berger will revise his blog in its light, if only in acknowledgement of this singular contribution to the world's musical life. Either way, Hogwash is beneath the apparent ambition of someone who seeks to impress upon his readers the virtues of classical music. I would refer my readers of this correspondence - of whom I gather there are now quite a few - to my previous letters. Mr Berger is beyond redemption until Hogwash goes. Until then, I shall pursue my consideration of Berger and his unflushable blog with rare determination. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Jan.12th » Once again, Matthew Boyden has made accusations against me [below, Jan.11th] which are so ludicrous that they make me howl with laughter rather than causing me any anger or emotional distress. The fact remains that I am a highly trained, experienced and knowledgeable classical musician, and no amount of scurrilous attacks on me can invalidate this. I have known, studied with and performed with many highly respected composers, musicologists, conductors, instrumentalists, singers and professors of music, and have earned their respect and admiration. They would call Mr Boyden an imbecile for describing me as he does, although I will not do so myself. I would very much like to read his forthcoming Schoenberg biography, and I believe I may have already read his one of Richard Strauss. I have also read coutnless books on music history, theory and biography. So much for my not being well read. Regarding the Chicago symphony, I have heard it live under the late great Sir Georg Solti, and in countless recordings, radio and television broadcasts, and know its playing from recordings conducted by many other great conductors such as Reiner, Martinon, Kubelik, Boulez, Barenboim, Previn, Levine, Abbado, Monteux etc, and even under Frederick Stock, who died about 70 years ago.
One of my horn teachers was a former member. However, I have not had that much chance to hear it in the past several years in any way, because it has made very few recordings and no longer has the exposure it used to. I have yet to hear it under Muti, a conductor I admire greatly, so I will have to reserve judgment, but I have every reason to believe that the Muti/Chicago collaboration will come to be known as a formidable one. It's difficult to put into exact words what the differences of sound are between the CSO and LSO, but they certainly DO NOT sound alike to my far from inexperienced ears. Nor do the other great orchestras of Vienna, Berlin, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Cleveland, London, Paris, Dresden, Leipzig, Munich, Prague, St Petersburg or other major musical centers. JoAnn Falletta has had considerable acclaim leading the Buffalo Philharmonic in recent years, and has made several recordings with it for Naxos, including a number of interesting rarities which had been long forgotten, and she has recently been appointed principal conductor of the Ulster Orchestra, certainly a reputable one. The Buffalo Philharmonic has had a number of eminent conductors, including Josef Krips, William Steinberg, Michael Tilson Thomas and the late Lukas Foss. Mr Boyden certainly has an impressive background, but that does not excuse his scurrilous attacks on me. I wish he would learn to disagree without being disagreeable. My condolences on the recent passing of his mother. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Jan.11th » The toothless Mr Berger has published another brilliant riposte on his blog. Thank you for the laughter, Mr Berger. I fear this risible man is unable to generate the blood flow actually to write anything with some sting to it. It is, as Margaret Thatcher said of an attack from Geoffrey Howe, "like being savaged by a dead sheep". As for my expertise, it's not in issue. I am the author of numerous prize-winning books - with an 800-page biography of Schoenberg to appear in 2012 - none of which I had to publish myself! Mr Berger, on the other hand, is a vanity publisher of no standing, who merely states that he is "exceptionally well read". There is no evidence for that on The Horn - the only point of reference we have for Mr Berger's absent learning. Moreover, he has defended himself in terms - again - that lack any certainty, or evidence, rendering his protestations as mute as his intellect. As such, I have not accused Mr Berger of ignorance because he attacked "the many" statements I have made concerning orchestras - for the simple reason that he hasn't done as he claims. I have accused Mr Berger of ignorance because he palpably has no idea of the issues, and is barely able even to keep pace with the arguments (supposedly) being debated. His ignorance is manifest also in his insults of Christopher Hogwood - the source of my personal disgust at the dreadful Berger. I am not myself a supporter one way or another of historical performance, and if Mr Berger had paid attention he'd know this. He'd know also that the NQHO is not a period orchestra.
But that is again not the point - because Mr Berger is a toothless buffoon, and a dull one at that. As anyone who has read our exchanges will have noted - and our letters have a considerable following among my correspondents - he has not addressed a single one of the points made to him. This failure to answer the question might be acceptable for a self-publishing non-entity, but they are not for me. Indeed, I would much rather engage in a debate of the issues. I take much less pleasure from squashing pompous little men than I do from intellectual engagement, but the unpalatable Berger cannot manage that - or, at least, he has yet to. I am not holding my breath since, quite obviously, Mr Berger is not up to it. Anyone who doesn't believe me can read our exchanges at musoc.org - during the course of which Mr Berger has been challenged repeatedly to make a point, or argue a submission - such as what precisely are the differences between the modern CSO and LSO?
That I find Mr Berger repulsive is neither here nor there. People like him are a virus in the modern world of criticism and research - not least since they conduct none of the latter, and generate little of the former. My observations on the other hand are based on genuine study of source materials - in French and German, and through years of work in Vienna, Berlin, Munich, Paris and London. They eclipse necessarily the conceit and vulgarity of mere opinion. That is why I am published, and Mr Berger is not. I shall be delighted to read a submission of substance from Mr Berger. Until then, or until he excises with an apology his rudeness to Mr Hogwood, I shall be going nowhere. I have infinite patience for the likes of Mr Berger. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Jan.6th/9th » There seems little point in persisting with Mr Berger. He is a buffoon, and barely warrants my consideration. However, and because his letters are a source of great amusement to my friends and correspondents, I shall reply to his latest [below, Dec.22nd] demonstration of inadequacy. Firstly: he is wrong to imply that I am no longer involved in musicology. Unlike Mr Berger - who has confirmed his absent qualifications, or experience, to justify any opinions, far less those to which he has signed his family name without embarrassment - I have completed recently a 275,000-word biography of Arnold Schoenberg, to be published in 2012. I am sure Mr Berger can scrape the money together to buy a copy, although I shall not be on hand to explain its complexities to him. As for my work as a barrister (and distinguishing Mr Berger's manifest lack of attainment), my successes - and my CV - are published online for all to consider. Of course, they are not published on my website - I have no need to create a vehicle to be published - but the contents are clear, and tested easily enough.
The same may be said of Mr Berger's assertions. The comparisons I make between orchestras of the past and those of today are not mere opinion. If this silly man were paying attention he would understand that my comparisons are not of timbre only, but of instruments. That distinction is fundamental to the NQHO's existence. It doesn't use the same instruments as modern orchestras, and it therefore sounds different even before one considers the more complex issue of style. That the earlier orchestras were superior artistically is self-evident, and does not need pursuing here (save that JoAnne Falletta in Buffalo is playing Mahler more advantageously than did Mahler in Vienna) - since the details are complicated, and well beyond Mr. Berger's limited scope. However, it is worth noting his bold assertion that - not having heard the CSO live (the only context for any contemporary analysis of value) - he is able to form what passes for a view from a performance he saw on television. You couldn't make this man up, although I am able to report that someone much like him will appear in fiction later this year. A television broadcast - like any recording - adapts necessarily the frequencies in the hall, to the point of abstraction. Having attended live concerts for years, as a professional critic, which were released subsequently on CD, I am all too aware of the deceit perpetrated by recordings and broadcasts, and my father - the most prolific record producer in history - would attest to the wholesale misrepresentation of any electronic transfer of sound. But such truisms are en passant. Mr Berger seeks to impress upon us his views of a TV programme! Played through television speakers.
Regardless, Mr Berger says nothing of how the CSO and LSO differ. This is, of course, because he cannot. His ignorance and posturing - which are manifest from our correspondence - have not once been supported by hard analysis, or evidence. Again, simply stating that the CSO doesn't sound like the LSO can advantage no-one, save for an uninformed non-entity like Mr Berger. Naturally, and as someone who has not been published (other than by a college rag), there is no risk that anyone will ask him to write anything in the future, so there is little chance his tinpot rantings will infect anyone else. However, it does concern me that, despite having done nothing with his "life in music" (the title of his autobiography, perhaps?), he continues to think himself entitled to his views. It must be an American thing. Even so, I was unable to contain my laughter when reading his desperate attempts to disprove my damning of him as the worst sort of amateur - namely, the empty vessel making the most noise - by citing JoAnn Falletta as a "world-famous conductor". What he says of Arthur Weisberg and Maurice Peress may well be true, but none of this trio amounts to anything in the scheme of things, and certainly not in terms sufficient to validate Mr. Berger's failed existence. As for bias, I cannot deny that I find Mr Berger repulsive. Everything for which he limps causes me to recoil instinctively. However, I am not biased against modern orchestras. Indeed, the virtue of an intellect is that one's mind remains forever open, and I was as impressed by the CSO's strings as I was disappointed by the blandness of Muti's interpretation. As such, my disquiet is informed as strongly by the absence of interpretative invention as it is by the homogeneity of sound in the vast majority of modern performances. Obviously, I base such views on live performances, rather than TV broadcasts or recordings, and I am sure JoAnn Falletta is a genius to compare to Abdendroth or Furtwängler. However, and for the sake of this correspondence, I am happy to concede that the dozens of events I attend annually, in many different countries, rarely generate in me anything more than disappointment. Perhaps I should fly out to Buffalo, having been dissatisfied recently by a performance in Vienna?
Either way, I am not going to revise my views in the light of Mr Berger's soi-disant observations. Like their source, they amount to nothing. I propose, as before, that he remove his reference to Christopher Hogwood from his website, for the reasons given previously. In the meantime, I shall continue to encourage Mr Berger to read a book every now and then. For my part, I shall certainly continue to write them - of which ambition Mr Berger can remain, as ever he was, an impotent bystander. Happy New Year!
Postscript. It has come to my attention that Mr Berger, at the end of another idiotic and badly-written entry on his vacuous blog, has advocated that: "some one [sic] should remind Matthew Boyden's mother to give him a thorough Spanking. [He]...needs to learn some manners". I replied to that injunction, but Mr Berger saw fit not to post it - as the mediator of his own blog, of course. Regardless, I would invite Mr Berger to do what my mother cannot! She died 14 months ago. Bravo, Mr Berger. As on the ball as ever. Notwithstanding this characteristic failure of judgment, it is worth deliberating briefly on a petition to manners from a man who has insulted openly the work and talent of Mr Christopher Hogwood - you know, the real musician. Hypocrisy and banality are easy bedfellows, and in Mr Berger they are unusually well suited. I would add that I should be very happy to visit New Rochelle, in order for Mr Berger to have a go at administering the spanking he urged of my mother. If his physique is as feeble as his mind then I suspect my mother would still do a better job. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
DECEMBER 2011
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Dec.22nd » The younger Mr Boyden can say whatever he likes about me [below, Dec.19th], but I am glad that he is no longer involved in musicology and criticism. Perhaps he will be a far better barrister. Again, he has made some comically ludicrous assumptions about me. Look who's talking about "blind assertions of personal conviction"! His invidious comparisons of orchestras of the past vs those of the present day are perfect examples of this. They are his own opinion, to which he is certainly entitled. But if he thinks that I have not heard the recordings of orchestras of the distant past he could not be more mistaken. Some are wonderful, but I hear absolutely no evidence that they were in any way superior artistically to those of the present day. I have not had much chance to hear the Chicago Symphony in recent years, so I can't vouch for its playing, but a recent Mahler 7th on TV under Pierre Boulez was absolutely impeccable, and the brass were anything but harsh. One thing is certain: it does not sound at all like the LSO; it has its own distinctive timbres, just as all of today's top orchestras do.
The claim that my knowledge of music comes entirely from reading CD liners is far too ridiculous for me to find offensive. JoAnn Falletta is a world-famous conductor, currently with the Buffalo Philharmonic. Arthur Weisberg is one of America's leading conductors of contemporary music, and Maurice Peress is also an internationally acclaimed conductor who had served in the 1960s as assistant conductor of the New York Philharmonic under Leonard Bernstein. All have praised my playing highly, and my reviews of international touring orchestras and world-famous musicians appearing at Queens College were also highly praised. Merely because certain great composers of the past may have said certain things in their letters and elsewhere proves absolutely NOTHING negative about today's orchestras. Mr Boyden's claims are thus extremely disingenuous. Let's face it: both John and Matthew Boyden are extremely biased against today's orchestras, most likely because they have come to so idealize the musical past that they are totally unable to appreciate the considerable virtues of those of today.
My blog has also been very well received by many people, including some leading music critics and others. Again, the term "Christopher Hogwash", which I recently coined, is not meant as an attack on Hogwood's musicianship, but merely describes the arrogant rhetoric of HIP musicians and those critics and musicologists who support it blindly, and who sneer at the use of modern instruments with so much irritating superciliousness. I could write a book about this. Perhaps I will some day. I wish continuing success to the NQHO, to which I have no animus. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Dec.19th » I am glad Mr Berger enjoyed [Letters, Dec.8th] some of the comic flourishes in my last letter. There are fewer moments for him to enjoy in this, its sequel. The scale of Mr Berger's absent learning - manifest from his most recent letter, to say as little as possible of his embarrassing website - has been advanced yet further by his failure to address a single one of those points raised in my correspondence. He has further assisted our knowledge of his character by posting a long, but thankfully hilarious, list of his "attainments". As for making assumptions of Mr Berger's education, I have assumed nothing. He writes like a man whose musical education has been scraped together from CD liner notes, and for whom actual learning is as mythical as his assertion to be able to distinguish the LSO from the CSO. That claim renders Mr Berger a liar, as well as an idiot. Moreover, and because he is unable to address my arguments in detail, or at all, it stands to reason that he is either uneducated or a coward. That he appears to be an American does not discount the possibility that he is both, of course. However, he has provided helpfully a series of highlights from his distinguished CV, by way of clarification. He asserts that he "studied music history, music education, and performance at Hofstra University, Stony Brook University and Queens College, City University of New York". Self-evidently, he does not have a degree in music from any of these institutions. He is, furthermore, an amateur horn-player, who has played in amateur orchestras for such "well-known" conductors as Maurice Peress, JoAnn Falletta, Arthur Weisberg. Well-known where, exactly?
As for Mr Berger's anti-intellectualism, this is express from his failure to create any argument of note, but to repeat instead blind assertions of personal conviction. As he should know, there could be no better definition of anti-intellectualism, since opinion is neither tested, nor testable, and his views remain nothing more than the feeble rhetoric of a failed musician charged sufficiently on misplaced vanity and self-denial to consider his views interesting to the world. Of course, as a fool, Mr Berger has no recourse but to rely on blank statements. He "fails to see how any one could accuse the magnificent brass sections of the Royal Concertgebouw, Berlin Philharmonic, LSO, Chicago Symphony, Vienna PO and other top-tier ensembles of lacking mellifluousness". Of course he does. I, on the other hand, have heard each of these orchestras many times over in the flesh - in their concert halls, around the world. I heard most recently the CSO in Carnegie Hall, in April this year, with Muti doing nothing of interest with Symphonie Fantastique. I thought the string playing exquisite, but the brass was harsh, and the ensemble distended. The players were technically outstanding, but there was not a single bar of character or personality. Save that the strings were much more beautiful than they are in London, there was no difference at all between the CSO and the LSO. How could there be? These orchestras are staffed by international peripatetic musicians playing much the same instruments!
However, the most damning indictment of Mr Berger's pathetic ramblings comes from Mr Berger himself, who writes: "I wish that the Boydens [sic] would stop putting words into the mouths of long dead composers." He precedes this ambition with the following statement: "If Gustav Mahler could come back today and hear or even conduct these and other great orchestras, he would no doubt be filled with not only admiration but awe at the sheer quality of their playing." So, it's OK for Mr Berger to indulge in conjecture, but not "the Boydens". Bravo, Mr Berger. What must the "Queens College student newspaper" be doing without him?
I shall close by amplifying once more the man's colossal stupidity. He says we need a time machine to "know...what the orchestras before the age of recording sounded like." We do not. We have the early recordings of three-dozen performers/conductors who worked successfully for and with everyone from Mendelssohn and Wagner to Liszt and Brahms - far less Mahler, Strauss, Elgar, Debussy and Ravel. There is no reason to believe that these recordings, from the 1920s, were anything less than representative of the generation that preceded them. Listen to the recordings of Fiedler et al, and it is possible to know what was common in the 1870s and 80s. We know also from the writings and correspondence in particular of Richard Strauss - which I have studied in their original form and context - that orchestras improved technically between the 1880s and 1930s - but at a gradual but steady cost to character, identity, balance and timbre. A time machine is not necessary when considering the contemporary reflections of the most important conductor-composer of his age. Many of these make my argument for me. Save that his website is a perfect representation of the shallow insights of a student newspaper critic, Mr Berger remains the ugly, twisted face of vanity publishing, and he should consider better the basis for holding the views he does. Certainly, no institution or company of note has commissioned (or paid) him to do anything, and this absence of success should have been sufficient to ensure that the empty vessel remained silent. It is a tragic, but unremarkable reflection of the age that it does not.
I note that Mr Berger's desperation extends to a reference, by way of exculpation, to his disability. I care nothing for this sop to vulnerability since it doesn't engage with the issues supposedly being debated. If Mr Berger wants compassion then he should consider retracting his shameful abuse of Christopher Hogwood. Since he won't, and despite conceding that he has acted disrespectfully towards a musician of brilliance, talent and insight, it must be presumed that Mr Berger's disabilities are not uniquely physical. Happy Christmas, Mr Berger. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Dec.8th » Matthew Boyden's comically ad hominem attacks on me [below, Dec.5th], accusing me of being "ignorant" and "lacking formal education", remind me of that wonderful old saying: "Never assume, because it makes an ASS out of U and Me." I never indulged in any such nasty comments against Mr Boyden or his father; I merely accused them of arrogance. Yes, the younger Boyden has made quite a few mistaken assumptions about me: I don't even wear boxing shorts, and anyone who knows me would collapse in laughter at hearing me being accused of being "anti-intellectual". Again, I meant no disrespect toward Christopher Hogwood as a musician, even though he too has been guilty of snootiness toward non-HIP performances, and can be extremely pedantic at times as an interpreter. I have studied music history, music education, and performance at Hofstra University, Stony Brook University and Queens College, City University of New York. I have played horn under such well-known conductors as Maurice Peress, JoAnn Falletta, Arthur Weisberg and others and have been praised highly by them for my playing, although I am no longer active due to a physical disability. I have played in numerous orchestras, opera companies, concert bands and chamber ensembles as far afield as Italy, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji and Samoa. I have also studied the natural horn at Stony Brook with the distinguished American horn player William Purvis. I was the classical music critic of the Queens College student newspaper, and have also served as a substitute music teacher at various public schools on Long Island.
Mr Boyden claims that over the years the brass in modern orchestras has grown "larger, louder and less mellifluous." I fail to see how any one could accuse the magnificent brass sections of the Royal Concertgebouw, Berlin Philharmonic, LSO, Chicago Symphony, Vienna PO and other top-tier ensembles of lacking mellifluousness. If Gustav Mahler could come back today and hear or even conduct these and other great orchestras, he would no doubt be filled with not only admiration but awe at the sheer quality of their playing. Dismissing them orchestras as being merely "loud, aggressive and homogenous" is the height of arrogance and fatuousness. They can also play with the utmost delicacy and finesse. And none of them sound alike. We will never know exactly what the orchestras before the age of recording sounded like unless some one invents a time machine, and the earliest orchestra recordings are nothing but pale shadow of what they sounded like live. If recent concerts by the NQHO have been enthusiastically received by audiences and critics, I offer my congratulations. But I wish that the Boydens would stop putting words into the mouths of long dead composers. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
Re: Christopher Hogwash
Dec.5th » I am writing again with reference to Mr Berger [below, Dec.2nd], despite not having received a reply to my previous letter. This failure came as no surprise. It is easier to ignore criticism than to learn from it, and Mr Berger is manifestly not at risk of demonstrating any learning. He claims to have "studied musicology", whatever that means, and there is certainly no evidence for this assertion on his website, or in his consideration of the very precise allegations contained in my letter. Indeed, Mr Berger appears shamelessly to be an avowed anti-intellectual - as evidence for which I would refer the reader to the grotesque arrogance and baffling rudeness of "Christopher Hogwash". Should Mr Berger contribute anything to musical life to warrant comparison with Christopher Hogwood, or the Portsmouth Sinfonia for that matter, then he might be entitled to express himself as he does. But Mr Berger is that regrettable consequence of the internet age - the self-publisher - and his website may be enjoyed only as the Boswell to Wikipedia's Johnson. It is hilarious for all the right reasons.
However, the vanity of the man is less disturbing than the stupidity of his views, none of which have been subjected to peer review. Until now. For a start, he opines that "most of the performances of works by 19th and early 20th century composers by today's leading conductors and orchestras have sounded perfectly clear and well-balanced to me", which would be amusing were it not also bewilderingly crass. No-one cares what anything sounds like to the individual. Nothing valuable flows from blank opinion, and had Mr Berger any understanding of Qualia, he might recognise how little is gained from statements that demonstrate an absence of (and require no) analysis. What does this self-reporting statement achieve? It is as empty as Mr Berger's greying boxer-shorts, and leaves the reader in a state of ignorance comparable only to that enjoyed by its author.
He continues: "not every performance is perfect". Save that such insights are, perhaps, available from children under the age of ten, it is what is conjoined to this truism that grabs one's attention. I failed apparently to mention that: "composers...were often very displeased with the way their music was performed by the orchestras of their day, among them Mahler, who often found orchestras woefully unable to play his music as he wanted." I did not need to mention this, since the issue being debated had (and has) nothing to do with technical fluency. Like most people lacking a formal education, Mr Berger has failed to answer the question. Neither my father nor I have said anything about technical facility, or tuning (although Mr Berger might like to read my namesake's History of the Violin, which deals at great length with issues of pitch and harmonic relativity) and neither consideration has informed the NQHO's existence. Rather, and for the last time, the defining issue is that the balance achieved between sections has been lost to the pursuit of perfection, and that this caucus race has seen art smothered by otherwise irrelevant considerations. The chase after perfection has seen instruments "refined" by scale, and not by considerations of beauty, and there is no arguing with the distention that has resulted in brass instruments growing larger, louder and less mellifluous over time. Even Mr Berger's untrained ear should be able to recognise that. So, anything that Mr Berger says of Mahler or Casals is not on point, and could not be since, had he read anything that either man wrote about performance - as an aesthetic rather than a technical consideration - he would know that both of them obsessed over details that have since been lost to the torrent of sound and fury produced by every modern symphony orchestra. I have heard many more of them than has Mr Berger - having been a professional critic and musicologist for a decade - and I know the scores to which he would refer were he able to do so constructively. This perspective entitles me to confirm my father's despair, informed by his experience of producing more than 2000 recordings, that modern performance practice has done damage to the art of serious music. Consequently, we can - for the reasons I gave in my first letter - know with some confidence how composers would react privately to modern performances, and it is because their scores are served badly, if at all, by an approach to performance that has become loud, aggressive and homogenous.
I am sure Mr Berger would be invited to an NQHO concert. My father is more generous than I am towards such people. However, and in consideration of someone who would write with such disrespect of a musician of Christopher Hogwood's calibre, I would repeat my dismissal of him as an empty vessel making an ugly noise. His ignorance is palpable, and of no concern to anyone interested in learning, debate and analysis. When, and if, Mr Berger addresses the detail of my first letter, I shall write again. Until then, I spurn his ill-informed nonsense as the rantings of a little man with a CD collection. God save us from amateurs. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
Christopher Hogwash
Dec.2nd » Matthew Boyd's claim [below, Nov.28th] that I am "ignorant" of the writings of the famous composers and critics he mentions could not be more off base. The younger Boyden's comments are typical of the way HIP arrogance and presumption has reached preposterous lengths. I most certainly can read scores, and I am a trained musician who has also studied musicology. Most of the performances of works by 19th and early 20th century composers by today's leading conductors and orchestras have sounded perfectly clear and well-balanced to me. Of course, not every performance is perfect, but Boyden also fails to mention that the composers he lists were often very displeased with the way their music was performed by the orchestras of their day, among them Mahler, who often found orchestras woefully unable to play his music as he wanted. Pablo Casals stated flatly, for example, that in his youth orchestras did not play in tune. The first performances of the Beethoven symphonies in Vienna were apparently played atrociously, and the musicians had inadequate rehearsal time. Berlioz struggled mightily to get the orchestras of his day play his music; it was as difficult for them as the music of Carter and Babbitt is for today's orchestras.
I repeat - we do not and cannot know how long-dead composers would have reacted to the way our mainstream orchestras play their music today. And I have no objection to the existence of the NQHO; I merely question the notion that such an orchestra was desperately needed in our time. I would certainly be curious to attend any of its concerts if I could. They might be interesting or even very enjoyable; but not necessarily better than the LSO and other great orchestras today.
I've come up with a punning term for the arrogant rhetoric of HIP advocates, conductors, other musicians, critics or musicologists. It's called "Christopher Hogwash" - a pun on the name of the distinguished English conductor and harpsichordist. No offense meant to Christopher Hogwood personally, but I've always been irritated by the claims of people such as Gardiner, Hogwood, Norrington and others of their ilk about how "right" they are and how "wrong" those who do not use period instruments and avoid classical music's equivalent of political correctness - the blind faith in period instruments and the sneering at modern instruments which has been so common ever since the rise of the whole period instrument movement.Mind you, I have no objection to the use of period instruments, and have a number of CDs by Gardiner, Norrinton and Harnoncurt etc. I have enjoyed SOME period instrument performances, not because of the use of period instruments but in spite of them! Quite a few other recordings have sounded simply awful, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The claims of John Boyden and Matthew are Christopher Hogwash at its worst: insufferably arrogant and presumptuous, and yes, bigoted toward today's many magnificent mainstream orchestras. They have carried the rhetoric about the supposed superiority of period instruments to preposterous lengths. I would like to see a category of "Christopher Hogwash award of the month" at musoc.org, for the latest particularly fatuous statement about period instruments by anyone. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
NOVEMBER 2011
Re: Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Nov.28th » In reply to Mr Berger [below, Sep.23rd]: I make no apology for the fact that my father is the Artistic Director of the New Queen's Hall Orchestra, and neither shall I deny the value of my ten years' experience as a music historian and critic. I should add that, although now retired officially as a musicologist (having re-trained as a barrister), I continue to take great interest in contemporary research into performance and performance practice. It is for this reason that I take considerable issue with Mr Berger's rhetoric. I do not restate his correspondent's accusations of bigotry and intolerance, since neither is particularly certain, and cannot be determined without much closer scrutiny of Mr Berger's character. That pleasure does not concern me. What can be said with certainty is that Mr. Berger is ignorant. If he had read the writings of Wagner, Brahms, Joachim, Mahler, Strauss, Shaw, Schuh and Newman - to name but a handful of those musical figures who considered issues of instrumental scale and balance of pivotal significance - then he would recognise that it is more than possible to know, as my father does, that all of those individuals named above would have been appalled by the unnatural imbalance between sections as they have evolved in the modern symphony orchestra. I make this very point in my biography of Richard Strauss, in which I deliberate at length on the scoring of Elektra as an exemplar of the substantial shift in orchestral timbre and balance that occurred between 1909 (when Elektra was premiered) and 1948, when the composer visited London for the last time. To that end: the difference in instrument scale and amplitude was identified by an 84-year-old man with serious hearing loss.
However, anecdotal observations are less relevant than are the scores themselves. Anyone able to read a full score, as I am sure Mr Berger can, will be able to identify voluminous points of detail that are lost in any modern performance of the established romantic masterworks. As a commonality - and platitude, perhaps - the symphonies of Brahms, Bruckner and Mahler (and the large orchestral works of Debussy, Ravel and Strauss) to name but a few - are commonly violated by modern orchestras because there is no natural balance between the sections. That is the whole point, and the root of the problem. When asking, consequently, how my father might know how "Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Holst, Vaughan Williams and others would not have [felt about] the way our modern orchestras play their music?", he fails to appreciate that the scores themselves demonstrate that there must have been a reason for the ubiquitous obsession with voicing in 19th century orchestral writing. If that is lost to the battery of sound and fury produced by the LSO, for example, then it cannot be said to express what was manifestly intended by the composer. It is not a concern for authenticity. It is a concern for art, and the mind of the composer.
So yes, my father does know, and is right to have concluded as he has done that modern orchestras fail such music as surely as they abuse the hearing and sensibilities of the players themselves. As for Vaughan Williams, Mr Berger's banal observation should be leavened by some understanding of the human condition, and the truth of most people's priorities. It may reasonably be said, as it has been by everyone from Korngold père to Richard Taruskin, that a composer is usually the last person to complain when someone is good enough to play one of their works. Greed and vanity are rarely overtaken by, or sacrificed to, the god of aesthetics. The same may be said of ignorance. Mr Berger needs to read a little more and react a little less. If he understood, or could read, the scores of those composers to whom he refers, he might better appreciate the appalling mess that is the modern symphony orchestra. Matthew Boyden (Exeter, England)
OCTOBER 2011
Re: Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Oct.26th » Why cannot Mr Berger [below, Oct.7th] accept the possibility of an alternative set of aims and methods to his own? To suggest that acoustics are the reason for extra loudness is plain daft, especially when many halls have been with us for generations. If he disagrees with me about the sameness of modern orchestras, he must also accept that he disagrees with Gunther Schuller, who claimed on BBC Radio Three last Saturday that "all orchestras sound the same, these days". Equally, if Mr Schuller and I are wrong, why does Mr Berger argue that conductors are sufficiently skilful to overcome modern problems of balance? Why should they have to worry about such an issue?
Finally, I am happy to tell you that, at our recent concert, I met a gentleman who had flown from Bogotá just to hear the NQHO. When was the last time such a journey was made for such a reason? At our next concert (November 23) we have people coming from Germany to hear a Brahms symphony. Don't you find that wonderful? I certainly do. As the American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "If a man write a better book, preach a better sermon, make a better mousetrap than his neighbour, tho' he build his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door." Amen to that and thanks to Mr Berger for encouraging me to enlighten him to a new and wonderful set of possibilities. I am beginning to love the man. John Boyden, Artistic Director, The New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Re: Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Oct.7th » Sorry, but Mr Boyden [below, Oct.6th] is merely setting up a lot of straw men. Enough to create a fire hazard in fact! The fact that some musicians use ear plugs usually has more to do with the acoustics of certain concert halls than brass instruments used today. I have yet to hear a single concert in recent years where the brass overwhelmed the rest of the orchestra. Conductors today are skillful enough to prevent this. And no, orchestras DO NOT sound alike today at all. There have been changes in the way they have sounded from the past, but absolutely NO internationalized homogenization of sound. It's physically impossible for orchestras to sound alike, as they consist of different musicians playing different makes of instruments in different concert halls. No two orchestras sound alike, period. I want rich,full-blooded brass playing, not the feeble sound of the pea shooters used in the past in England. Again, I have no animus toward the NQHO itself, I just find Mr. Boyden's claims ludicrous. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
Re: Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Oct.6th » Further to Mr Berger's refusal [Letters, Sep.23rd] to answer my point about the need for players to wear earplugs in the modern symphony orchestra, may I say that I saw Vaughan Williams conduct his Serenade to Music in 1953, so I know what a symphony orchestra sounded like 60 years ago. I also attended his 85th birthday concert, when Basil Cameron stood in for Boult, who was ill. The latter gave me a ticket for VW's funeral in Westminster Abbey, so I claim some small insight into the nature of London's musical life at that time. Indeed, I first heard the LPO in 1946 at a schools concert in a cinema by the Thames in a much-blitzed London. My father was a founder-member of the Royal Philharmonic in the same year and I can assure you that the skinny trumpet he played at that time bore little relation to the fat length of plumbing he owned thirty years later!
No, the truth is that I do know what I am talking about when it comes to orchestras and the sound they make today and the sounds they once made. I well remember listening to foreign radio stations in the late 1940s and early 1950s and knowing from which country, let alone from which city, each came. Today, we have, as Berger correctly implies, a universal modern symphony orchestra. If he wishes to continue this correspondence, I shall be pleased to smack his balls back to his side of the net. But, before I do, I really must insist that he deals with the issue of the self-deafening orchestra if he wishes to be taken seriously. I have no doubt that Jonathan Swift would have found the idea beyond satire: I and my colleagues and a growing numbers of supporters certainly do. So, first things first and an end to positing inconsequential questions regarding the likelihood of dead composers approving or disapproving orchestras they never heard. One thing's for sure, I bet they wanted to hear the strings. John Boyden, Artistic Director, The New Queen's Hall Orchestra
About Nigel Kennedy...
Oct.5th » I ought to sue you guys as after reading that article about "Nige" [see Pseudo Cream] I couldn't keep the contents of my stomach down and so had to buy another meal. This is the man that produced, for me, the definitive version of the Elgar Concerto when he recorded it in the 80s. He is the only soloist in the modern era who keeps the cadenza in the third movement flowing - in most cases the Concerto is a case of "wonderful first two movements, but the third is a let-down". The nearest I heard to Kennedy was Ida Haendel/Boult but even this remarkable and underrated violinist never managed to get the last movement quite as right as Kennedy did. Same goes for Perlman and Zuckerman, and pretty well everyone else who's played it in modern times. No doubt if Anne-Sophie Mutter ever does it we'll get some lovely noises, but I don't think even her glitz will carry that cadenza either.
Which means that by rights Nige ought to be the greatest violinist of our age. Instead of which, he decided to stop playing music by "dead people" and took up playing Jimi Hendrix (who was deader than the proverbial doornail when Kennedy made this momentous decision). Then later he started 'reinventing' art music which has been perfectly good enough without his 'reinvention' for many years. At least Vanessa-Mae is honest about what she does, which is more than can be said for Nige.
It's sad - the likes of Russell Watson, Katherine Jenkins and Bond never had a contribution to make to art music so we haven't missed anything. Kennedy did have and I think we've missed a lot. The only consolation I suppose is that whereas Perlman, Zuckerman, Vengerov and their like are quite obviously very nice people, Kennedy is a complete **** and we are probably better off without him. Keep up the good work, Musoc, love the new site. Neil (Prague, Czech Republic)
SEPTEMBER 2011
Re: Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Sep.23rd » I would like to clarify one thing about my letter [below, Dec.18th, 2010] regarding the New Queen's Hall orchestra. Contrary to Mr. Boyden's claims [below, Sep.19th], I was not being in any way "bigoted" to or "intolerant" of his orchestra. I have no objection to his orchestra's existence; in fact I would be very curious to attend any of its concerts if I could. My objection is to his preposterous claims that mainstream orchestras use instruments which are "inappropriate" to the music of 19th or early 20th century. How does Mr. Boyden know this? His claims about orchestras today being too loud are completely bogus. I have never heard anyone but HIP fanatics making this ridiculous claim. And I repeat - how does Mr. Boyden know that composers such as Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Holst, Vaughan Williams and others would not have loved the way our modern orchestras play their music? He does not, and cannot. For example, Vaughan Williams, who lived to as recently as 1958, never expressed any dissatisfaction with the orchestras of the 1950s, which were the same as ours, as far as anyone knows. The fact that the New Queen's Hall's recent concerts have been enthusiastically received is irrelevant; I don't begrudge the orchestra its successes in the least, and have no animus toward it per se. What I DO object to are the ludicrous accusations Mr. Boyden levels at today's mainstream orchestras. Robert Berger (New Rochelle, New York)
Anne Midgette's Revealing Views
Sep.19th (submitted Aug) » The Washington Post's Anne Midgette finds that wearing lingerie is appropriate while performing a classical music concert and scolded L.A. critic Mark Swed for daring suggest the attire was too revealing... All excuses are good to Midgette including that Wang works with designers... but the top of the line was reached when she wrote "To Mark Swed's credit, his review went on to praise Wang's playing. But he, and all of us, should understand that, rather than shutting the doors to the under-18 set, Wang's manner (she's a refreshingly normal, down-to-earth young woman) and attire - as well as her remarkable talent - represent some of the best chances we have of getting those under-18-year-olds into the concert hall to begin with." What utter tripe! You see the guy is forgiven because he praised her playing... Imagine the scolding had he found the music making superficial! And Anne Midgette needs more of Yuja's revealing skin for classical music to have a chance to getting younger audience to the cabaret - hum, pardon me, the concert hall! No doubt if only Argerich had stripped more than her soul on stage, younger audiences would have flocked to Carnegie Hall. The Midgettes of the classical music world need seats to be filled so they can survive. She is so desperate that even a novelty act would do: you can't be serious! Furthermore, this kind of attire may also have the perverted opposite effect of bringing more grey hair to the hall... Marc Villéger (West Vancouver BC, Canada)
Defending the New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Sep.19th » I have had Mr Berger's comments [below, Dec.18th, 2010] on my claims for the New Queen's Hall Orchestra brought to my attention. I am delighted to be included in any Hall of Shame that supports his narrow-minded bigotry. Why people feel the need to defend symphony orchestras, which deafen their players with inappropriate instruments, or by insisting they insert earplugs into their own heads, is beyond me. Neither am I alone in my claims. Indeed, we have had a myriad of extraordinary reviews from the best critics over the past 20 years in support of the NQHO's ethos. Neither does the NQHO make claim to authenticity. It may have done so in its earliest days, but that was before the word became debased. Last week the NQHO celebrated the opening of its 20th Season with a concert that produced yet more accolades. As the only orchestra of its kind in the world, I should have thought a man from the Land of the Free would have found it in his heart to tolerate one, small voice of protest at the sameness and inevitability of the vast majority of present day orchestral performances. He should also consider how the NQHO erupted from a society that enjoys the doubtful advantages of a Marxist arts' policy. But, then the blinkered are denied stereoscopic vision. John Boyden, Artistic Director, The New Queen's Hall Orchestra
Facile Arguments of Cultural Levellers
Sep.19th (submitted May) » I have recently discovered your site and am delighted to find that I am not the only voice in the wilderness proclaiming what ought to be a self-evident truth: that music written by (say) Bach, Beethoven or Britten is intrinsically of far greater worth than that of (say) the Beatles or Britney Spears. Those of us who love real music know this for a fact - and I value your efforts to rebut the facile arguments by cultural levellers that a rap "song", containing as it does misogyny, homophobia, pornography and obscenity in inverse proportion to musical talent is as deserving of equal status as a song by Schubert.
I saw from a Google search that musoc.org has received some very hostile press from the UK's Guardian newspaper - a sure sign you are doing something right! I would have thought it was plain that your site is aimed at those who already appreciate the distinction between what I call "music music" as opposed to pop music, rather than dilettanti and newcomers, so the suggestion that you will deter potential converts is nonsense. Sadly though, the trendy types who peddle the myth that all music is equal tend to see what they want to see, rather than what is actually there. Neil (Prague, Czech Republic)