# In conversation with Neeme Järvi and his sons Paavo and Kristjan



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Gramophone had made available a very interesting, thought provoking interview between Jolly James and Neeme Järvi and his sons Paavo and Kristjan. It is a fun read, mixed in with elements of pride, nostalgia, and regrets. One of the topics explored there, and here, as many of you will recall, is the identity of orchestras now then, say, three or four decades ago. Here are some excerpts of the conversation.

Source: 
*A Conducting Dynasty: **In conversation with Neeme Järvi and his sons Paavo and Kristjan
*https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/a-conducting-dynasty-in-conversation-with-neeme-paavo-kristjan-j%C3%A4rvi

*James:* How do orchestras retain a personality down the generations? The Cleveland Orchestra, for example, is still recognisable as George Szell's orchestra all these years later...

*Kristjan:* That's like the Vienna Philharmonic, but there are very few orchestras in the world like that.

*Paavo:* Well, the Czech Philharmonic still sounds like the Czech Philharmonic!

*Kristjan:* That's an incredible orchestra - probably one of the best orchestras which has that type of tradition. But mostly it is through a certain cultural identification - a pride.

*James:* Is it a flip side of the easy dissemination of music that orchestras now sound very similar and no longer have the immediately identifiable personalities that they once had?

*Paavo:* It's because the world is so much more cosmopolitan: in the Berlin Philharmonic you've a French flautist, an English oboist and, among the double basses, an Australian and two Finns.

*Neeme:* One problem with orchestras is when the chief conductor changes every four years. It has to start from nowhere each time. Take Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra, they lived together for over 25 years - here was a conductor who asked for his wishes every day when he came to his orchestra. He created his style and his repertoire, and it was always great because professionally it was at such a high level. There was a George Szell sound. There was a Mravinsky sound. It comes from working with an orchestra for a long time and making them a highly professional ensemble.

*James:* Szell, Reiner and others were legendary for their dictatorial style. The musicians were terrified of them, yet the results speak for themselves … That couldn't happen today.

*Paavo:* No, of course not. Well, in North Korea perhaps! [Neeme: 'You can't do terror nowadays.']

*Kristjan:* Governance of conductors is very like governance at the state level. Yes, dictators get amazing results. But at the same time you can empower the people and lead them, not actually govern them but direct them. And that's how we all work, not by terror. Orchestras are just small nations.

What do you think of Neemi's position? But does Kristjan also have a point?
Please, what say you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's true that orchestras did have more distinct identities in the past. There were different national schools of instrumental playing; a French woodwind section, or a Russian brass section, sounded very different from their counterparts in Germany or the United States. Conductors then cultivated their own sounds. An interesting and attractive aspect of music-making has been largely lost in the age of globalism.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> It's true that orchestras did have more distinct identities in the past. There were different national schools of instrumental playing; a French woodwind section, or a Russian brass section, sounded very different from their counterparts in Germany or the United States. Conductors then cultivated their own sounds. An interesting and attractive aspect of music-making has been largely lost in the age of globalism.


The globalism aspect is a misfortune, I agree. I wonder, though, whether the trend in getting away from the practice of conductors in cultivating their sounds may actually serve the music better (giving it more of its personality than that of the conductors', esp. in regards to complex works like those of Bax or Bruckner). Many would point out Bernstein in his exaggerated ways in molding the music and creating the sound world that may not fit the music all that well of, say Sibelius or Mahler. Personally, I think too much has been made of that, but do see their point.

But now with the anti-globalism fervor that's going on, with lesser-known (or provincial) orchestras making their presence known, the trend may be in danger of reversing back to the practice of maestros' personalities interjecting themselves in future performances. But then again, it is probably much more complex (changes in economy, donorship that colors organizational decisions, attendance, changes in styles of music, you name it).

Maybe we're just stuck in this reality.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

What's missing maybe isn't an institutional sound, or a conductor's sound, but a personal sound from players. Go listen to Chicago recordings from the early 50s on Mercury when Kubelik was there. What a brass section! Herseth on trumpet, Farkas on horn, Jacobs on tuba! What a sound - Herseth's playing was instantly recognizable. Ormandy had the same luck in Philadelphia. Two of the bassoons in that era, Schoenbach and Garfield, were so refined, as was the oboist Tabuteau. In London the likes of Dennis Brain and Alan Civil thrilled with their horn playing. Today there are players who are fabulously skilled, no doubt, but for some reason the individual players just aren't as famous as those men from years ago. Can't explain it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Orfeo said:


> The globalism aspect is a misfortune, I agree. I wonder, though, whether the trend in getting away from the practice of conductors in cultivating their sounds may actually serve the music better (giving it more of its personality than that of the conductors', esp. in regards to complex works like those of Bax or Bruckner). Many would point out Bernstein in his exaggerated ways in molding the music and creating the sound world that may not fit the music all that well of, say Sibelius or Mahler. Personally, I think too much has been made of that, but do see their point.
> 
> But now with the anti-globalism fervor that's going on, with lesser-known (or provincial) orchestras making their presence known, the trend may be in danger of reversing back to the practice of maestros' personalities interjecting themselves in future performances. But then again, it is probably much more complex (changes in economy, donorship that colors organizational decisions, attendance, changes in styles of music, you name it).
> 
> Maybe we're just stuck in this reality.


Traditions of instrumental playing are one thing, and conductors' eccentricities are another. But I appreciate individuality in the art of musical interpretation, and so, I suspect, did most music lovers before international blandness made people forget what it was like.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

On a documentary DVD about Conductors, several musicians who played under both older and newer styles of conductors generally seem to think that the dictators created a better sound and performance. (That is not the position that I would have expected.)


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

I think the material point here is the way that orchestral conductors move from one orchestra to another with a much greater frequency these days, as compared to their predecessors. Certainly it is true that the long-standing conductors like Szell stamped their authority on their orchestras - helped by the atmosphere of compliance that existed in those days - but the relatively short tenure today makes it difficult for a conductor to impose his style with any degree of permanence. It is also significant that the repertoire of an orchestra may change if it gains a new specialist conductor, as concert promoters will want to give him a suitable window to display his crafts. And on most occasions, when a conductor moves on, the management will replace with someone who has different interests, to bring a fresh focus to programmes. Of course, all orchestras that wish to keep in business will expect new appointees to provide the foundation repertoire, of Beethoven etc


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

JAS said:


> On a documentary DVD about Conductors, several musicians who played under both older and newer styles of conductors generally seem to think that the dictators created a better sound and performance. (That is not the position that I would have expected.)


Yes, I've even observed this from colleagues in music school. They would prefer a conductor to yell at them and get them pumped up, like a coach, in order to perform their best. This presumes that the "resting state" of an orchestra is inert, lethargic, and inattentive. That's plain sad! No musician should really _have _to be so pushed by a conductor to be that way. But perhaps back in the day, bad, unmotivated musicians were even more common, so a tyrant conductor really did put the musicians on track. I just find it sad. I'm glad the orchestras themselves have evolved more over the decades to not be so dependent.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Yes, I've even observed this from colleagues in music school. They would prefer a conductor to yell at them and get them pumped up, like a coach, in order to perform their best. This presumes that the "resting state" of an orchestra is inert, lethargic, and inattentive. That's plain sad! No musician should really _have _to be so pushed by a conductor to be that way. But perhaps back in the day, bad, unmotivated musicians were even more common, so a tyrant conductor really did put the musicians on track. I just find it sad. I'm glad the orchestras themselves have evolved more over the decades to not be so dependent.


Perhaps better than the Reiner / Szell approach of ruling with terror would be someone like Arthur Nikisch, who reportedly could overwhelm the players with his charm and get them to play their hearts out for him that way. Of course I'm not old enough to have seen him, but as a child I did see Leopold Stokowski in action and even get to meet him. He was another charismatic, inspiring personality and was able to get his characteristic lush, expressive sound from many different orchestras.

In my own experience, I played under an abusive band leader uncannily similar to the one played so brilliantly by J.K. Simmons in Whiplash. He achieved great discipline and good end results, (he played favorites like the J.K. Simmons character, and I was a favorite, so I had few complaints) but I always thought there was a tentative, restrained characteristic to the playing that the band could never entirely shake off.


----------

