# Nationality and Performance



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Do you think a performer or conductor's nationality is a significant factor in their abilities and interpretations of a composer of the same nationality?

In other words, are you more likely to trust a French pianist with Debussy? A Czech conductor with Dvorak? Or is it largely irrelevant?

Personally, for reasons that I think aren't particularly logical, I think I would factor in nationality _except_ for Germans.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Do you think a performer or conductor's nationality is a significant factor in their abilities and interpretations of a composer of the same nationality?


Sometimes with less mainstream repertoire. Eg. with Czech you have Kubelik and Ancerl, Belohlavek, Moravec, Firskuny (but also Aussie the late Charles Mackerras, who many thought to be Czech, even some Czechs themselves!). With Australian classical, it's also mainly our own who have performed music from here, but since the 1980's there has been international exposure of Aussie composers, eg. the Kronos Quartet doing Sculthorpe and also Brett Dean's music being played in Germany & European Continent. So it is getting more diverse.



> ...In other words, are you more likely to trust a French pianist with Debussy? A Czech conductor with Dvorak? Or is it largely irrelevant?...


It can be related to a composer's nationality or where music came from but also about other things that we all know about. Eg. It didn't matter that Yehudi Menuhin was born in America and came to Europe later, he played all kinds of music, even moved into conducting. Jorge Bolet was an expert in Liszt as was Georges Cziffra (the former Cuban, the latter Hungarian). The finest interpreters of J.S. Bach in their time, & who revived him, Casals and Landowska were not from German speaking countries. Nationality can be relevant but it's ultimately more about passion or interest, imo.



> ...Personally, for reasons that I think aren't particularly logical, I think I would factor in nationality _except_ for Germans.


It is kind of logical because the Austro-German repertoire is the core of the western classical canon. No matter what you come to specialise in, you have to know it very well as a basis if not for anything else. The expert in the Spanish realm pianist Alicia de Laroccha played Beethoven and Bach for many years before coming to the repertoire of her own country. One reason is that Spanish music has harmonies and tonalities that are harder to play than the German. German music was like prerequisite knowledge to her, even though her interest in it later was not as great as in that of her own country...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think at times it can make a significant difference. One of the best examples are singers singing a native language versus one who was trained to sing in that language. In Italian opera for example, many of us experienced listeners can easily pick up those with a good authentic Italian accent when singing the Italian arias versus one who sang in Italian but carrying an accent. Yes, the latter can be very irritating.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Let's see... we have Walter Gieseking (a German) as one of the unrivaled masters of the piano repertoire of Debussy.

We have Glenn Gould and Angela Hewitt (two Canadians) among the finest interpreters of Bach's keyboard works.

We have Herbert von Karajan's masterful recordings of Shostakovitch's 10th and all of Tchaikovsky's symphonies.

We have John Barbirolli's (an Englishman) exquisite recordings of Mahler's 5th, 6th, and 9th.

We have Kathleen Ferrier (an English woman) in the most emotion-laden rendition of Mahler's _Lied von der Erde_.

We have Masaaki Suzuki and the Bach Collegium Japan and their exquisite renderings of Bach.

John Eliot Gardiner's greatest efforts seem to be everywhere but among English music: Bach, Beethoven, Monteverdi, Mozart...

Then we have Maria Callas (aka Μαρία Κάλλας) a Greek soprano known especially for her performances of Italian opera.

We have Kirsten Flagstad (Norwegian), Birgit Nilsson (Swedish), Astrid Varnay (American of Hungarian descent), and Lauritz Melchoir (Danish) among the greatest Wagnerian singers ever.

We also have Jean-Baptiste de Lully (originally Giovanni Battista Lulli) ,an Italian, the virtual founder of French opera... and G.F. Handel (a German with years of training and experience in Italy) among the greatest masters of English music and the English choral tradition.

There are instances of French soloists, conductors, and orchestras producing the finest recordings of French music (Jean-Efflam Bavouzet, Pacal Roge, Jean Martinon, Pierre Boulez, etc...) or Russian performers and conductors producing truly special interpretations of the Russian oeuvre (Vladimir Ashkenazy, Kiril Kondrashin, Valery Gergiev, Yevgeny Mravinsky, and Rostropovitch). It might also be true that only the Germans can properly conduct Wagner... but then again... there's Solti.

Ultimately, as Andre suggested, it may be true that the less mainstream repertoire is best interpreted by performers of the same country as the composer. I think this has been true for quite some time of Russian vocal music. But hell... one of the best singers of Dvorak's lieder is Bernarda Fink... an Argentine.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think at times it can make a significant difference. One of the best examples are singers singing a native language versus one who was trained to sing in that language. In Italian opera for example, many of us experienced listeners can easily pick up those with a good authentic Italian accent when singing the Italian arias versus one who sang in Italian but carrying an accent. Yes, the latter can be very irritating.

Unfortunately, one of the most notorious examples of this was that of the Australian Dame Joan Sutherland.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Unfortunately, one of the most notorious examples of this was that of the Australian Dame Joan Sutherland.


Yep. I'm not a big fan of hers anyway.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Do you think a performer or conductor's nationality is a significant factor in their abilities and interpretations of a composer of the same nationality?
> 
> In other words, are you more likely to trust a French pianist with Debussy? A Czech conductor with Dvorak? Or is it largely irrelevant?
> 
> Personally, for reasons that I think aren't particularly logical, I think I would factor in nationality _except_ for Germans.


I think your qualification regarding Germans does not apply to German interpreters performing non-German music; they have the same (usually insignificant) insensitivity to non-German musics that other nationalities do to 'foreign' idiosyncrasies. Your understanding tends to be correct in the other direction. Non-German musicians are familiar with German music, and interpret it in a 'standard' manner, because the music itself is standard throughout the Western world.

The same 'standardness' applies to a somewhat lesser degree to French music. For many years European and New World musicians studied in France, and returned to their homelands to teach students there.

It's hard to generalize about most things; western classical music is such an international art and endeavor that even the unique flavors of the Iberian peninsula and Latin America are pretty familiar to 'foreign' musicians. You _usually_ have to listen close to detect the incongruities, so close that you miss the music.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Do you think a performer or conductor's nationality is a significant factor in their abilities and interpretations of a composer of the same nationality?
> 
> In other words, are you more likely to trust a French pianist with Debussy? A Czech conductor with Dvorak? Or is it largely irrelevant?
> 
> Personally, for reasons that I think aren't particularly logical, I think I would factor in nationality _except_ for Germans.


Sid James spoke about "less mainstream" repertoire, and it is true that when it comes to some obscure Romanian/Serbian/Georgian composer only composers of that nationality will even care enough to put sufficient amount of time and effort into interpreting their work. So this definitely is a strong point when it comes to choosing conductor for some work.

While I do think that Slavic composers often made emotional music (as Germans did heroic), I don't think that it can be applied to conducting. The nation in general can be more acceptive to certain music than the other, so the music of that nation/country will be determined by what was accepted as a standard repertoire; thus, Russian music will have more emotional and melodic music (Tchaikovsky as a typical example) while they will lack in "heroic" motifs, which is hallmark of German music (Wagner obviously, Beethoven's "fate motif" too, etc). So, music of certain nation is filtered by what is that nation more acceptive of, but that does not translate as well to conductors, or musicians in general, since they are individuals. So it's easy to have Argerich playing Chopin better than any Pole I've heard...

When it comes to Germans, they have such a strong tradition of conducting, delivering brilliant conductors all the time, that no other nation can touch them. Brilliant conductors appear everywhere from time to time, but only in Germany they appear on a regular basis.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...It might also be true that only the Germans can properly conduct Wagner... but then again... there's *Solti*...


I remember he was talked about jokingly in an interview by an orchestral musician who'd worked with him in that seminal Wagner cycle. He said that Maestro Solti came across like a Nazi, a bit authoritarian. Of course Solti was a Jew who'd escaped the Nazis & lived out the war in neutral Switzerland (He said in the same doco that the Swiss were the biggest anti-Semites in Europe, but their government luckily wasn't!).He was very focused on beat and rhythmic thrust, like Toscanini was (definitely difficult to work with, but he hated the Nazis and Mussolini, refused to conduct in occupied Europe). Anyway, what I'm saying is it is helpful to be like the music you're conducting or playing in a way. & we personify our favourite musicians by a certain personality trait or stereotype of it. Eg. Solti with his rhythmic pedanticness, Karajan with his icy detachment (my mother called him a wizard, she likes his Wagner heaps, btw), Ozawa with his quirkiness and hit and miss risk taking. So they all become part of legend, a bit related to where they come from & the music they're working with...


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I'll add Sir Neville Mariner for Mozart, and the many many cellists who aren't German who approach the Cello Suites (Ma, Isserlis, Fournier, Rostropovich).

Only reason I could think it could make a difference is that you have Russian schools teaching in a traditional Russian way (if there is such a thing), same as French.... But now a days the music community is so interspersed it doesn't seem to much make a difference. If an American wants to study with a Russian, it's not too difficult to arrange.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Often I read critics in reviews saying something is "idiomatic" which may mean that it's under the direction of a conductor who knows the field. It could have a national connection, but not necessarily all the musicians. Eg. THIS disc of Ginastera's piano concertos with Argentinian conductor and pianist but East European orchestra. I have this disc and it is superb...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Not in ANY way at all..

I am from Miami and have been exposed to some of the worse music in the world,....still, I know exactly what I like in terms of foreign pieces.

I guarantee the your favorite performances of certian pieces are not by a conductor who was born in the same land as the composer.

I can go on and on but it boils down to the individual conductor and how he/she understands the piece...

...not, in any way, nationality.

Silly Poilie...I forgive you, lol!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Do you think a performer or conductor's nationality is a significant factor in their abilities and interpretations of a composer of the same nationality?
> 
> In other words, are you more likely to trust a French pianist with Debussy? A Czech conductor with Dvorak? Or is it largely irrelevant?
> 
> Personally, for reasons that I think aren't particularly logical, I think I would factor in nationality _except_ for Germans.


I've found a trend in my own preferences, in that I regard performers who follow in the national tradition of the composer as preferable. There is a sensibility that is unique to the nations and time periods, that is not communicated unless the interpreter is familiar and consistent with it. For example: There is a wide divide between Cortot's goals in regards to sonority and rubato, when playing Chopin or Schumann, as compared to Richter, Sofronitsky, or Kogan playing a piece by Tchaikovsky, Borodin, or Scriabin.

However, that is my trend because I primarily value music like a historical index (not emotionless, mind you folk). Without a composer/interpreter relationship that clearly represents both, I don't personally see the point of the music. Why should I listen to a piece written by Beethoven, in order to not hear Beethoven? Should your wonderful Brahms, rich in intellect and humorous character, be played without any sense of form as if it needed to be rhapsodized like a Scriabin sonata in order to be emotional?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> ....Why should I listen to a piece written by Beethoven, in order to not hear Beethoven? Should your wonderful Brahms, rich in intellect and humorous character, be played without any sense of form as if it needed to be rhapsodized like a Scriabin sonata in order to be emotional?


This is going above my head, it's getting too intellectual for me. I'm more fussy about how a work is played. Eg. I heard Martha ARgerich and Russian guests playing Brahms' _Piano Quartet #1_ the other week. They played it on steroids like a concerto, not as a chamber work, which it is in the first place (even though, granted, the piano part is dominant). This is why Schoenberg orchestrated the piece as Brahms' "fifth symphony" to avoid it being played badly (eg. the wrong concerto way puffed up like a balloon). So I'm more concerned about these kinds of issues than if she plays Brahms like another composer in terms of phrasing, etc. There was Satie-like whimsy in there which I thought had little to do with Brahms. But more to the point, her dynamics in this recording and all of her guests', were too symphonic by miles. They should have toned it down. This is chamber music not a concerto...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Nix said:


> I'll add Sir Neville Mariner for Mozart, and the many many cellists who aren't German who approach the Cello Suites (Ma, Isserlis, Fournier, Rostropovich).
> 
> Only reason I could think it could make a difference is that you have Russian schools teaching in a traditional Russian way (if there is such a thing), same as French.... But now a days the music community is so interspersed it doesn't seem to much make a difference. If an American wants to study with a Russian, it's not too difficult to arrange.


There definitely is such a thing. I haven't seen anyone catch up with the authenticity of Sofronitsky, Richter, Feinberg, Pletnev, etc. in their recordings of Borodin, Tchaikovsky, and Scriabin, because they often don't focus on characterizing and accenting inner voices enough (where the melody actually lies in Borodin and Scriabin's works, more often than not), and they mistake mellodrama (their anachronistic ideas) for bravura and huskiness (the composer's ideas). They mistake the poem of ecstasy (Scriabin piano sonata 5) for sexual excitement, when it is a theosophic statement.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> This is going above my head, it's getting too intellectual for me. I'm more fussy about how a work is played. Eg. I heard Martha ARgerich and Russian guests playing Brahms' _Piano Quartet #1_ the other week. They played it on steroids like a concerto, not as a chamber work, which it is in the first place (even though, granted, the piano part is dominant). This is why Schoenberg orchestrated the piece as Brahms' "fifth symphony" to avoid it being played badly (eg. the wrong concerto way puffed up like a balloon). So I'm more concerned about these kinds of issues than if she plays Brahms like another composer in terms of phrasing, etc. There was Satie-like whimsy in there which I thought had little to do with Brahms. But more to the point, her dynamics in this recording and all of her guests', were too symphonic by miles. They should have toned it down. This is chamber music not a concerto...


Which is most definitely another concern for me. I don't give much praise at all to performers who don't even play consistently with the genre and form of piece they are playing. Listening to Horowitz play one of Chopin's Nocturnes, I think: "Damn, what do you think you are doing with that sudden ff? Sf does not mean make me jump out of my chair, you nutty Polish man! You would pour cold water on a house guest at night time, wouldn't you?"


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Someone said back then that Horowitz should have been banned from the keyboard! It was just a joke but one can hear why, he was doing "illegal harmonies" long before John Cage came to talk about them, let alone do them :lol: But seriously, I do like Horowitz's interpretations, not only because he takes big risks, but because he had the enormous technique to make them deliver. His recording with Maestro Toscanini of the Tchaikovsky _Concerto #1_ is legendary to this day. It's a travesty that a proper studio recording was not made of that, it was a rubbish radio recording on shellac or something, nor do we have any of the Rachmaninov concertos, except #3 (I think?)...


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> [Unfortunately, one of the most notorious examples of this was that of the Australian Dame Joan Sutherland.


Even more unfortunately, her English was not that good either.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Well, I'm hoping that as a Finnish American flutist, I won't be stuck being able to perform only Finnish (or American for that part) classical music.  I want to excel at all, particularly French, because that's where the cream of flute music comes from. And not to mention Russian stuff, although I find myself more tied to them, even culture-wise.


----------



## doctorGwiz (Sep 25, 2011)

Sid James said:


> But seriously, I do like Horowitz's interpretations, not only because he takes big risks, but because he had the enormous technique to make them deliver. His recording with Maestro Toscanini of the Tchaikovsky _Concerto #1_ is legendary to this day. It's a travesty that a proper studio recording was not made of that, it was a rubbish radio recording on shellac or something, nor do we have any of the Rachmaninov concertos, except #3 (I think?)...


Pristine classical has done a number of restorations of 30s, 40s, and 50s era recordings, and among them is the 1941 recording. Other Horowitz restorations they offer are a 1945 and the more common 1948 Brahms Concerto No.2 both with Toscanini.


----------

