# Vladimir Ashkenazy on NOT talking about music. . .



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Its a wierd topic for a classical music forum, but I read this article recently and thought I'd share it here to get people's comments on it.

Its an interview with Vladimir Ashkenazy about what he's getting up to in his final year at the helm of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.

In radio interviews and in this article, Ashkenazy shows a reluctance to talk about music. Basically he doesn't like to talk about it, he just likes to do it. His approach reminds me of the famous quote by Saint-Saens, "There is nothing more difficult than talking about music."

I won't comment on this yet but invite people's comments. Here are some quotes from the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post (but I don't know how long this online copy of the magazine will be available).

_...I ask him to go on and define his approach to conducting, but of course, such a cold dissection would be impossible. "I don't know. You can't evaluate what happens when you conduct. It's a mystery." As famous for anecdotes as he is for punctuality, Ashkenazy illustrates his point in the form of a story. "Once I had a meeting with Bernard Haitink, one of the greatest conductors, he's a good friend. It was a long time ago because it was the first time I was conducting Beethoven's Ninth, and I thought, I'll ask him for a lesson. He opened the score and said, 'ok well here its in four and here its in three...' but he didn't give me anything! 'Here's the clarinet solo and here's...' Then I said, 'but how do you do it?' and he said, 'no idea.' So, what is the point of the lesson, you know? You can't explain what you do - it's your work but you can't explain things."

...His fondness for Sibelius is well known, so I ask what it is about that composer's music that he loves so much. Again it seems I'm asking an impossible question. "Well you see I don't describe music, that's my principle, and I can't tell you why I like his music. Basically I think, I hope, that I understand what he wanted to say." After a pause, he follows with a line that seems destined to be carved in gold somewhere: "Nobody who has any understanding of what music is about will describe anything about music."

So, why do we like certain composers more than others? I ask, with perhaps a touch of desperation as my list of prepared questions suddenly appears inept. He responds with an avunucular tone: "Well again, you can't describe why some music is on a higher spiritual level than others. And we know when they reach that level and it's worth performing, but we can't describe it."_

Source: _Ashkenazy: "Lucky Me" - The Mystery of Music_, article by Robert Clark in Fine Music Magazine (FM 102.5), February 2013 issue, pp. 4-5: http://issuu.com/finemusic/docs/fine_music_magazine_february_2013


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" is about the most boring principle one can apply to the arts! No kudos for Mr. Ashkenazy on this one.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

I found this a bit funny. And + for newfound respect.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Of course we cannot define everything about music using our feeble language... But to give up on trying is to leave music to a realm of ignorant mysticism that only the few who have once gained the knowledge can afford to enter.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Saw Ashkenazy conduct Brahms #2 many years ago. Always loved his Sibelius symphonies and Prokofiev concerti. His Brahms? Meh....


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It sounds like the outlook of an older person. I can see that music and life itself may get more mystical as we get older. The more we learn, the less we know. 

I am not yet as old as Ashkenazy however.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Weston said:


> It sounds like the outlook of an older person. I can see that music and life itself may get more mystical as we get older. The more we learn, the less we know.
> 
> I am not yet as old as Ashkenazy however.


That's a perceptive observation because I remember Ashkenazy talking about that in an interview on radio here. He said when he was young he like to analyse things and read as much as he could about pieces, composers, interpretation, etc. Now he said, since he's in his senior years he said his aim is to get away from that as much as possible and just make music with as little of those other things involved as possible.

I think this is an interesting article and I am still kind of grappling with what he said in it myself. I'll be back sometime soon to write my thoughts here. For those of you who've read this thread and haven't participated, your thoughts would be welcome on this whatever they are...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

My position is totally different. I love to talk about music and to rationalize it. I think that the work of performing music or of composing music has an irrational part but also a rational one. The irrational part may be related with the "talent", that innate capability someone has of being good at his thing, good taste, creativity, etc. The rational part is related with the structure, the organization of the ideas, the development of the ideas in a consistent way. Each aspect is very important at the different stages of the work and the working process.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

I saw Ashkenazy conduct a Chicago Symphony concert several years ago. "Meh" is about right. I'm not surprised he's not very articulate about his conducting because his conducting was not very articulate. (i.e., as a conductor, he didn't have much to say musically either.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

aleazk said:


> My position is totally different. I love to talk about music and to rationalize it. I think that the work of performing music or of composing music has an irrational part but also a rational one. The irrational part may be related with the "talent", that innate capability someone has of being good at his thing, good taste, creativity, etc. The rational part is related with the structure, the organization of the ideas, the development of the ideas in a consistent way. Each aspect is very important at the different stages of the work and the working process.


I think you are seeing music as a musician/composer/musicologist must. For a listener, structure and process are only important in the results, as the music is heard . The listening is not irrational though, it's non-rational. If arational (like amoral) were a word, it would fit.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cavaradossi said:


> I saw Ashkenazy conduct a Chicago Symphony concert several years ago. "Meh" is about right. I'm not surprised he's not very articulate about his conducting because his conducting was not very articulate. (i.e., as a conductor, he didn't have much to say musically either.)


You'd be surprised how many conductors say similar things to Ashkenazy about the mystery that is the art of conducting. I expected some responses would be to shoot down Ashkenazy entirely, but that's not surprising because posting this article on a forum devoted to talking about classical music does seem wierd. But my making this thread was not meant to troll, more to just stimulate discussion.

In that vein, consider composers who didn't like to talk about their music. Are they any less for that? Look at VAughan Williams, who said to a journalist who asked what one of his symphonies was about that it was a work in a certain key, and that's it. I think it was either about his 4th or 6th symphonies, which are his most aggressive. But I know that he famously said this about the 4th symphony "I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant." Again, pretty vague, but so what? To him, music must express the inexpressible. Again, not such a weird notion to musicians especially, I'd say.


----------



## Cavaradossi (Aug 2, 2012)

To be clear, I don't begrudge Askenazy his reticence. In principle I agree. As a matter of fact, I do hold a grudge agaisnt the CSO management for essentially running Daniel Barenboim (who seems to have no problem articulating his views, musical and otherwise) out of town by insisting he spend more of his time on such public relations efforts and (necessarily) less on music. I'm just saying, compared to other conductors, in my experience Askenazy doesn't seem to have much to say, musically or, apparently, verbally.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I wouldn't underestimate what Ashkenazy has to say musically... either as a performer or a conductor. He has produced more than a few "essential" discs IMO:























































Ahkenazy's position reminds me of a quote by the painter, Edgar Degas:

_"I have spoken to the most intelligent people about art, and 
they have not understood; but among those who understand, words 
are not necessary; you say 'Humpf, he, ha' and everything has 
been said."_


----------



## GSchiappe (Feb 25, 2013)

While reading the blog "Dust of Hue", dedicated to Sibelius, I read this quote when the blogger (Leon) explain his blog's name with this quote:
"If someone writes about my music and finds, let us say, a feeling of nature in it, all well and good. Let him say that, as long as we have it clear within ourselves, we do not become a part of the music’s innermost sound and sense through analysis … Compositions are like butterflies. Touch them even once and the dust of hue is gone. They can, of course, still fly, but are nowhere as beautiful" - Sibelius

That's something to think about. Ashkenazy is even more extreme of course, but I hope this quote can give insights.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Reminds me of Benjamin Britten saying he strongly believed "Artists should not talk." LOL.

Yes, it is the perspective of an older person. The longer you go, the more you know _it is near futile / impossible to lock down any worthwhile aspect of a non-verbal art into meaningful words._

Too, the more I, anyway, know less and less of _'where it comes from' _whether I am playing it or 'making it up.'

Of course, both _"where it comes from"_ and _"what it is about"_ are the most primary of questions just about anyone would love to have fully answered 

I very much like Stravinsky's, "The only worthwhile comment on a piece of music is another piece of music."

[ADD:
'We' do try to articulate much about this most abstract of arts, and teachers must be able to somehow convey something via words to students. Within the teacher - student dynamic, what is said is, if optimal, so personally individuated to the student's perceptions of the moment, that the 'what was said' may have no meaning for anyone else. This leaves us with that maddening posture it is all 'arcane,' which I believe music mostly is.]


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My take on what Ashkenazy says in some ways reflects what aleazk says above. As in any of the arts, there is that tension between what's there and what isn't. The technical things and those wide array of 'other' things, often undefinable and unique to the individual perceiving the thing at hand. I see music is the most abstract of all the arts. In visual art and literature for example you got the image or the words on the page as some sort of common reference point. But as we know, in music, the same score can lead to widely diverging interpretations. Elliott Carter said he saw musical scores as a bit like plays, each performer will bring new things to it, bring their own insights. Same applies I think to how listeners experience music. & Aussie musicologist Andrew Ford said that each performance is a failure, because no single performance can bring out everything in a score in a perfect all encompassing way. I often think that the 'best' and most mindblowing performance must be in the composer's head when he is conceiving a piece.

But I don't think its a problem to talk about music, just as we talk about other things. In terms of my participation on this forum, and also real life conversations about music, or reading what writers have to say about music, I think its all good. I'm not against people talking about music. I'm sure Ashkenazy isn't either. At the root of what he's saying is that its not necessary to talk about music to understand it or relate to it. That's what this interview made me think about.



Cavaradossi said:


> To be clear, I don't begrudge Askenazy his reticence. In principle I agree. ... I'm just saying, compared to other conductors, in my experience Askenazy doesn't seem to have much to say, musically or, apparently, verbally.


Well the proof is in the pudding so to speak. If you don't get much out of his performances, that's fine. I personally am fine with what recordings I've got with Ashkenazy either as conductor or pianist. But I think that what he's saying has been echoed by a number of musicians. Look at Haitink who he talked about in that anecdote about Beethoven' s 9th. Looks like Haitink did not want to say much to Ashkenazy about how to conduct it, because every conductor will have their own natural way of doing it.

& as I said of VAughan Williams, this ties in in some ways about how some composes don't want to attach a program to their music, they want the music to speak for itself. Vaughan Williams was like that, and so was Mahler. Even though Mahler often started with some sort of program in his mind when conceiving a symphony, he was adamant on not publishing this in the program when the symphony was performed. He wanted every listener to take it in in his own way. I read an anecdote where he was furious when a well meaning colleague published his own program of what one of Mahler's symphonies was about.

Ultimately no one is a blank slate. I myself do like to connect what's going on in a composer's life with pieces he was composing at the time. Or connect things like history. But ultimately that's just my view as an individual. & in many cases, these days as I'm getting older, I do that less. I want to get away from that a bit like what Ashkenazy said on radio. Focus on the music mainly not the other things. But we are all different.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Nice article and thought or not provoking 

Good Aussie connection too


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sid James said:


> My take on what Ashkenazy says in some ways reflects what aleazk says above.


Well said both of You!

/ptr


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Yes, it is the perspective of an older person. The longer you go, the more you know _it is near futile / impossible to lock down any worthwhile aspect of a non-verbal art into meaningful words._


This is interesting! To me, the futility or impossibility of it is of no consequence. It's not about "locking it down", either. Talking about non-verbal art is, to me, an art in itself. It's all about saying something beautiful and inspirational, something that can give a beautiful experience to the one reading it, or even "food for thought". It's sort of like poetry, but it differs from poetry because it's still tied to the non-verbal art, by reins of art and imagination, not science and logic.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Xaltotun said:


> This is interesting! To me, the futility or impossibility of it is of no consequence. It's not about "locking it down", either. Talking about non-verbal art is, to me, an art in itself. It's all about saying something beautiful and inspirational, something that can give a beautiful experience to the one reading it, or even "food for thought". It's sort of like poetry, but it differs from poetry because it's still tied to the non-verbal art, by reins of art and imagination, not science and logic.


I agree in some ways, I enjoy reading different opinions of and reactions to music, but at the end of the day, I have to have my own reaction or opinion on the music. So when the interviewer asked AShkenazy why he likes the music of Sibelius so much, I guess the maestro took a bit of a breather because whatever words he uses, he feels they will be inadequate to express what he feels. So he's letting the music speak for itself. He may as well have said to people something like 'come to my performance of Sibelius with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and find out what I think/feel about his music.' I suppose the proof is in the pudding, or product of, what a conductor (or composer?) does. They can talk about it as much as they want, but at the end of the day its the product that 'says it all,' so to speak.

But as I said, good writing on music is indeed an art. & the other thing is that's the job of critics and musicologists, not conductors and composers. Of course, they can do both and all these things. Think Berlioz, Schumann and Hugo Wolf who both composed music and wrote critiques on it. But I guess some musicians are better or more interested in writing/talking about music than others. Same goes for listeners.


----------

