|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
After reading this 2 year old article by David Hurwitz, I started wondering if maybe he wasn't onto something. Mehta seems to have sort of faded away, yet in the 70s (pre NYPhil) he made a number of recordings that still get people excited. I kind of thought maybe he was washed up (didn't really know he was still recording).He hasnt recorded Mahler 9, or any of the Rach symphonies.... wonder how they might be now, if he recorded them with a top orchestra?
Mike
Follow Ups:
To quote Zappa's famous remark that kicked off an orchestral performance of 200 Motels by the LAPO. I wish I had been there!
Zappa doesn't have much to say in his autobiography about this collaboration, other than it was pretty cut and dried and that he was not allowed to record the event by union restrictions.
But it seems Mehta as a youngster had a certain flair for the spectacular and a willingness to step outside the normal concert hall bounderies (in fact, I believe the 200 Motels concert was performed in a hockey stadium). Zappa and Mehta had a mutual interest in Varese and Stravinsky and must have had some sort of rapport on the basis of that. In any case Mehta's recording of the Varese pieces for decca was Zappa's favourite recording of his favourite composer's music. That particular endorsement has more value to me than the boring criticisms "offered" here. The Varese is one of my favourite recording as well, along with his Planets, Zarathustra, Alpine Symphony, Turandot and Sacre, all recorded during his early LAPO tenure.The later Zubin as "celebrity" conductor, not to mention his role as the puppeteer of the Three Tenors atrocities, now that's a different story entirely. But I don't think it's fair to dismiss his earlier period by this unfortunate turn of events.
which were variable. His command of his musicians onstage was usually very good, and considerably less variable that Bernstein's. It is not the match of Stokowski, Toscanani, Reiner, Szell, etc. but in this unionised age, no one can do that consistantly.However, where he was unusual in the late 20th century was that he was an orchestra builder. His auditions were strenuous and his penchant for "retiring" beloved but "over the hill" players, though well handled, was well known. The professionalism of the NY Phil under Mehta shot up when compared to the late Bernstein/Pierre Boulez era. Whether the interpretations kept pace with the actual skill of the players I leave to the listener. But the fact was that he took the Israel Phil and the LA Phil from obscurity to international reknown and restored the reputation of the NY Phil as a great orchestra. For that accomplishment he deserves considerable credit. Those are his duties as music director, not specifically as a conductor and one has to hear the performers frequently and in the hall to appreciate them. Recordings are a very different animal, where only interpretive skill matters much and even the laziest and most jaded player can try to do well!
ruin my love for his planets w/LAPO on LP nor the strauss alpine symphony-same format. his planets are THE version to have for both perf and recording.
the alpine simply stomped the other three i have and they are all respectable (eg-b.walter etc). the sheer joy of the playing is a thrill.
......regards.....tr
For a period in the 60s, Mehta offered more energy and a better glimpse of the romantic style than most, allowing him to assume a position along with Bernstein and Solti. Perhaps his greatest failing was that he tolerated some raggedness of ensemble, tho not to the degree that many bonifide greats have done (just listen to some of the orchestras that Furtwangler led, not to mention Walter, etc.).Mehta wasn't affraid to use genuine and thoroughly authentic modifications of tempo, such as were the absolute rule during the late 19th century, but he didn't use them enough to develop a confident style in this manner.
I still think his Schoenberg "Transfigured Night" captures more of the true post-romantism that many other, wrong-headedly cerebral performances which look at the young late romantic from the point of view of the old serialist (i.e., Boulez). And, both of his Zarathustras (analog and digital) are excellent performances, full of unbridled liberties characteristic of the era, but which latter 20th-21st century conductors shrink from in their timorous, cowardly fear.
When I heard Mehta live with the LAPO in the mid sixties I remember enjoying the performances. He was building an orchestra and the standard repertoire was new to him.Mehta faded fast, however. He got a lot of criticism in LA, much of which I agreed with. "Cheap", "Shallow" and "Clueless" were terms which cropped up in the LA Times. The orchestra building stopped short; one wag insisted Mehta had turned a third-rate band into a second-rate band.
I have heard numerous Mehta performances of his usual programs all of which supported the "Shallow" and "Clueless" evaluations. He seems to lack any concept of the music at all, and his orchestras sound raw and wayward, with poor ensemble.
Just my humble opine, but it's safe to say the novice could avoid Mehta's work completely and miss nothing.
"...it's safe to say the novice could avoid Mehta's work completely and miss nothing."Well, it seems that Decca/London recorded classical music with natural timbre, lifelike dynamics (micro/macro) and expansive soundstage... long after Mercury, RCA and others abandoned minimalist techniques that made earlier efforts legendary. Mehta/ LAPO/ Strauss: Alpine Symphony (1975) is a fine example of the enduring Decca/London sound. Perhaps artful engineering masked composer Strauss' "shallow" score and conductor Mehta's "clueless" interpretation, but the resulting LP (London CS-6981) to my novice ears is nonetheless spectacular.
And, for example, Mehta's Decca/London (1973) Puccini: Turandot (w/ Sutherland/ Pavarotti) is beyond reproach, is it not?
I stand by my opinion, minor Strauss and minor Puccini notwithstanding. Mehta has taken a modicum of talent a very long way.
more informed than my own, that's for sure!Sorry to learn that "Turandot" is minor Puccini, though . Act III, cosi comanda turandot - nessun dorma , is my favorite 7 minutes of emotive opera, thus far .
I am a "La Boheme" kind of guy (try Beecham with deLosAngeles and Bjorling--yummy!)
All very true.The article fails in one critical respect. It fails to ask the two most important questions - who cares and why bother?
Maybe Mehta was a great conductor when with Decca, maybe he has some great recordings left in him. But really, there is no shortage of great conductors and great performances. It's hard to see how the bombastic Mehta could possibly have anthing not already bettered, so who cares if he could still make good recordings?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: