The resignation of Esa-Pekka Salonen as Music Director of the San Francisco Symphony is dominating classical-music news because Salonen made no secret why he quit: a falling out with the board over his elaborate artistic plans and their cost. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of this. What I do know is that Salonen is not merely a conductor; rather, he is – a rare species today – a full-service music director with a vision and the means to realize it.
That’s what he showed in Los Angeles, where he shaped the Philharmonic as a cultural institution distinctive to southern California and in synch with contemporary cultural mores. He looked for Americans he could champion and came up with two first-rate West Coast composers – John Adams and Bernard Herrmann – and a magnificent Mexican: Silvestre Revueltas. He inquired into the LA sojourns of Schoenberg and Stravinsky. Theodore Thomas, the founding father of the American orchestra a century and a half ago, said “a symphony orchestra shows the culture of the community.” That’s what Salonen was about.
Music directors who are more than conductors are ever in short supply, and never more than today when a hyperactive international career seems to certify a conductor’s importance. In this space, I have often extolled Delta David Gier, whose Lakota Music Project makes his South Dakota Symphony matter to South Dakota. Gier moved to Sioux Falls and raised a family there.
Salonen’s departure from San Francisco – assuming that loud protests from his own musicians, among many others, have no effect – resonates with a 1950 Boston Symphony debacle, and also controversial board decisions in New York and Baltimore: stories that may be currently instructive.
If ever there was an exemplary music director of an American orchestra it was Serge Koussevitzky, who not only made the Boston Symphony his own but defined its mission for Boston and America. His long tenure (1924-49) coincided with a surging modernist moment – led by Aaron Copland – supporting a fresh identity for American concert music. Koussevitzky not only declared that “the next Beethoven vill from Colorado come” – he in effect created the Tanglewood Festival as an American music laboratory. You may well think: What a legacy! But Tanglewood today is nothing like the Tanglewood Koussevitzky envisioned and realized. That Tanglewood ended the day the BSO board named Charles Munch his successor. Koussevitzky had urged the board to appoint his protégé Leonard Bernstein. Leaving aside the question of whether Bernstein at 31 was ready for such an assignment, he was in all other respects the ideal choice: securing an American classical music was his raison d’etre. He was even a Harvard graduate, a Massachusetts native.
The late Robert Freeman, whom I was privileged to know, was the son of the BSO’s longtime principal double bass. Henry Freeman served under Koussevitzky, then Munch, then Erich Leinsdorf. With each appointment, he told his son, the orchestra declined. Freeman was probably mainly reflecting on the standard of performance. (In a recent blog about the BSO, I had occasion to embed Koussevitzky’s peerless world premiere broadcast of Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra.) Commensurately, the Boston Symphony lost its way. In truth, it has never recovered from the board’s 1950 decision.
And so Bernstein instead wound up in as music director of an orchestra for which he was less suited. The New York Philharmonic had never been mission-driven. Rather, it was misruled for more than three decades by a powerbroker – Arthur Judson — who frankly believed that “the audience sets taste.” Here was a case where a symphonic board itself stepped up in quest of an institutional mission. It fired Judson and, in the same salvo, ousted its music director: Dimitri Mitropoulos, who happened to be a conductor of genius. And Mitropoulos had earlier pursued a brave vision in Minneapolis – a prerogative denied him in New York by Judson’s stranglehold on artistic policy. In any event, when Bernstein took over and declared that he wished to begin with a historic survey of American music, the Philharmonic board passionately approved.
An initiative like that would have resonated in Boston. In New York, it was too late in the day and Bernstein left after a mere ten seasons. His preferred successor, one understands, was another conductor/composer/pianist: Lukas Foss. Foss was an astounding musician (I worked with him at the Brooklyn Philharmonic). It is little recognized that, however incidentally, he was one of the supreme American pianists of his generation. On the podium, his unconventional methods inspired many instrumentalists and alienated others. In any event, the Philharmonic opted instead for Pierre Boulez, who had nothing in common with Leonard Bernstein or Bernstein’s American vision. After that came Zubin Mehta, Kurt Masur, Lorin Maazel, Alan Gilbert, Jaap van Zweden, and now Gustavo Dudamel – an eclectic list resistant to lineage or tradition.
But the most startling conductor appointment in recent American decades came in Baltimore in 1998. David Zinman, a bona fide music director, had turned the orchestra into an important platform for American music. He also had a radically fresh take on Beethoven. And he was a gifted advocate whose singular “Casual Concerts” revealed a zany comedic gift. Zinman was succeded by a major Russian conductor: Yuri Temirkanov. That was a startling coup. At least as startling, it was a rebuff to David Zinman and everything he had achieved. Zinman renounced his “Conductor Laureate” status in 2001.
Beset by conductors, lacking music directors, our major American orchestras today struggle to define what they’re for and how they connect to the changing cities they serve. Perhaps the most distinguished exception, proving the rule, was the Los Angeles Philharmonic under Esa-Pekka Salonen.
Follow-up blogs:
Mark Swed, the Los Angeles Times’ longtime chief music critic, chimes in valuably here.
I deal in detail with Koussevitzky, Mitropoulos, Judson, and Bernstein in Classical Music in America: A History of Its Rise and Fall (2005).
Do you happen to know whether Salonen was actively involved with fundraising while with the Los Angeles Philharmonic? I ask because all of the greatest artistic ideas and visions can’t happen without the financial resources.
Checking the Carnegie Hall and NY Philharmonic 2024-25 seasons recently announced: not a single orchestral work of Ives being played. As for Tanglewood this summer: “Three Places in New England” and that’s it.
Pathetic and shameful.
“Shameful,” perhaps, but not surprising as Ives’s music is rarely performed. I remember the flurry of interest for his centennial year (1974) along with interest for the U.S. bicentennial (1976) but that’s about it.
One thing Mr. Horowitz neglects to mention in his latest opinion piece is that the seasons of today’s major orchestras are so much longer than in the past it is impossible for music directors to. conduct. 150 or so concerts a. season .. It’s not that conductors such as Koussevitzky. were so much more” devoted “to their orchestras than. those of today .
And many great conductors of the past did at least as much traveling around to different orchestras a guest conductors as. those of today . I don’t know a great deal about the South Dakota orchestra but. as far as I know it plays far fewer concerts per season. than. the top orchestras and. does not have a budget which is as large as those in New York , Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago and Los Angeles . I haven’t heard the orchestra but. it seems to be doing. very well under its current music director. , who is doing an admirable job with it .
But. other more famous music directors. . of more famous US orchestras have also. done outstanding work. in recent years such as Muti in Chicago , Osmo Vanska in Minneapolis , Manfred Honeck in Pittsburgh , Andris Nelson in Boston despite the recent negative comments. Mr. Horowitz made about. a recent BSO. concert he attended , Yannick Nezet-Seguin in Philadelphia ,Leonard Slatkin in Detroit , Alan Gilbert and Jaap van Zweden in New York , Gerard Schwarz and. Thomas Dausgaard in. Seattle , Joann Falletta with the Buffalo Philharmonic to name only some .. And. none of these orchestras can be accused of neglecting. contemporary music or music by American composers .
I agree with pretty much everything Joe has written here.
It’s hard to overstate the extent to which the American system of orchestral governance is designed to limit the agency (and there is an important difference between power, which many conductors have too much of, and agency) of highly creative conductors and administrators. Perhaps the most important line in this essay is JH’s description of US orchestras as “beset by conductors, lacking music directors.” To an extent, yes, true music directors are a somewhat rarer species than conductors, but this is partly because our system is largely designed to root out would-be music directors. The one thing almost all stakeholders (boards, administration and musicians) seem to agree on at American orchestras is that the last thing they want is anyone with big ideas, energy, vision and nerve in a position where they have real agency. The real power in American orchestras is in the hands of largely anonymous artistic administrators. It is there job not only to keep the MDs wings clipped, but to make sure that the rest of the guest conductors, staff conductors, soloists and composers are inoffensive, uncontroversial and, most importantly, not going to jeopardize the artistic administrator’s position. A figure like Salonen, who possesses both integrity and credibility, can put a lot of board members’ asses on the line when he takes a principled stand. That’s why they’re feared by medicrities. Take Osmo Vanska, his principled stand saved the Minnesota Orchestra, but in spite of his huge success and legacy there, he is one of the few leading conductors who couldn’t manage a lucrative horizontal move following his departure from Minnesota. Music lovers see great recordings, improved standards, strong reviews and the saving of a great American orchestra as a compelling legacy. Boards and Executive Directors at other bands see a man who stood up to a corrupt and visionless organization in solidarity with the musicians and one. They see him as a threat to their status and security, not because he’s a bad or untalented dude, but because he’s a principled and talented one.
I remember a very famous agent explaining to me some years ago that it was becoming impossible for conductors to ‘progress’ in their careers anymore. “The reason artistic administrators and executive directors love very young conductors is that they have no track record. They’ve never clashed with a board or had a bad week with a peer orchestra. And these people don’t see any value in having built a regional orchestra – the level of arrogance at the big orchestras is such that they just assume that any conductor working for a ‘lesser’ organisation is a lesser conductor.” Zinman’s progression from Rochester to Baltimore to Zurich has become a near impossibility. Karajan’s progression from Ulm to Berlin would be a comical impossibility today, but Ulm and Aachen were where he became both a conductor and a music director.
In a sane world, transformative success in South Dakota would have the major orchestras racing to poach the conductor responsible. Instead, the two options when hunting a new conductor are to appoint someone who is just staggering through the core repertoire for the first time in their 20s or look for someone ready to make a horizontal move. It’s a closed system that lacks creative oxygen. And because horizontal hires are now the only alternative to hiring ‘the unready,’ almost no tenure can be so dull or fractious as to prevent an established conductor moving to another orchestra in their ‘level’. There are many such examples – one is Eschenbach sliding from an artistically listless tenure in Philly to the NSO. This is particularly sad because his track record in Houston, where he was loved by the musicians, was remarkable. On the other hand, his successor in Houston, Jaap van Zweden, was known to be a vicious bully in Houston who presided over an orchestra whose standards slipped because of the pressure and antagonism, but this didn’t stop him getting New York, where he didn’t exactly set the world on fire.
Another structural issue that most American music lovers aren’t aware of is the hugely toxic influence of the LOA (League of American Ochestras – but they’ll always be ASOL’s to me, though). Although the most recent leadership has made welcome reforms, they are not a benign force. They’ve spent years trying to identify and promote the ‘right’ kind of conductors, stacking searches for assistant and associate positions with their handpicked mediocrities. Likewise, their stranglehold on early-career opportunities for would-be artistic administrators means that it’s almost impossible to break into high level orchestra management unless you’ve been a League Fellow (or whatever they call their apprenticeship scheme these days). It’s a perfect system for perpetuating group think and stagnation.
And don’t forget agents!
The old ASOL folks also had long memories (as do artistic administrators), so heaven help the aspiring conductor or administrator who said the wrong thing at a League conference 20 years ago or had a bad day at a conducting workshop when they were in their 20s, let alone dares speak truth to power about the state of the industry. The upshot of this is that, of course, those who understand the problems in the system don’t dare explain the situation publicly. Hence my pen name, which I use with deep regret.
I was an artistic administrator of two orchestras…I never knew I had so much power!
I do agree with much of what Miles Bachman says though I think he gives too much credit to the League of Orchestras in hand-picking music directors. I’ve been a member of the League since 1984 and I’ve never really witnessed that. In fact, I don’t think the League has all that much direct influence on orchestral “life.” (Nor does Opera America, Chamber Music America, APAP, etc., have direct influence in their respective fields.)
I do agree that the way we hire music directors is crazy. We bring in a bunch of total strangers for one week, watch them do three or four rehearsals plus a concert or two and then we’re supposed to choose one. I have never understood why orchestras never promote their assistant conductors when filling MD positions.
HI Larry. I probably should have made clear that ASOL’s power is in connecting early-career conductors and administrators with opportunities to break into the field. You’re quite right that they don’t really have a role with the hiring of MDs of big orchestras. That said, there used to be quite a glaring overlap between the League leadership and private consultants who would help with searches at regional orchestras back in the 80’s and 90’s, although that may have changed. Thanks for the comment. Chances are if you didn’t know how much power you had, that was because you were one of the good guys. They do exist. As far as I know, Leonard Slatkin is the only MD of an American major orchestra ever promoted to that position
from within (St Louis).
I actually think that the League’s “Conductor Preview” has been quite successful in showcasing up-and-coming conductors and letting us management types see and hear them. I attended one in Chicago, 2001, I think. Giancarlo Guerrero was one of the conductors and dazzled all of us. A member of the Eugene (OR) Symphony music director search committee was there and was, obviously, also quite impressed. Next thing you know Guerrero was hired as their MD.
I’m only aware of one “private consultant” who has helped a few of the smaller/midsized orchestras with their MD searches. And I knew of a second consultant who is in the midst of doing what I think is his first-ever MD search on behalf of a good-sized orchestra.
I had forgotten about Maestro Slatkin.
I’d like to think that I’m one of the “good ones” but I’ll let others decide that!
The commentary about ASOL/LAO is ludicrous.. Pure conspiracy theorizing. They never had this kind of power.
Just one quick point of fact: Christoph Eschenbach’s successor in Houston was Hans Graf. Jaap van Sweden was Music Director in Dallas prior to his tenure in New York.
Quick correction: Jaap van Zweden was MD in Dallas; he did not succeed Eschenbach in Houston. (I know because I am a season subscriber to the DSO and saw a great deal of JvZ.) It’s true that some called van Zweden a bully; however, most–including his critics–would say that the standard of performance at the DSO increased remarkably under his baton…which is the only reason the NY Phil would ever stoop to hire a conductor from the supposed hinterlands of Dallas!
What an incredibly inciteful article and great title. As his former concertmaster in Baltimore, it was great to see the referral regarding the Zinman years with the Baltimore Symphony. David Zinman seems to be a forgotten man. He is a giant in our world. It is so sad to see what is happening to the great San Francisco Symphony. They need a Mark Volpe who earns the respect of boards, managements, conductors, and musicians.
As soon as I heard the news I took a look at San Francisco’s programs and there it was: matched bedroom set musicology programming or programs with matched sonorities and little variety that only a music theorist could love.. Programs such as all Sibelius, two Ravel pieces and two Richard Strauss pieces, one with Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Walton. This kind of programming kills orchestras on a regular basis. The disastrous year when eight orchestras were out, sure enough it was the matched bedroom set programming pervading their seasons.
When I retired as a violinist in the Symphony, I heard two pieces I loved back to back: Stravinsky’s The Nightingale and Shostakovich Symphony No. 1. Even I found that the Stravinsky diminished my enjoyment of Shostakovich…it was 45 minutes straight of angular music. I saw a woman checking her watch at intermission wondering why the first half seemed so long.
Michael Tilson Thomas was successful because he virtually never did this. His contemporary offerings were often paired with the best loved pieces in the repertoire. The ear did not tire and new pieces got a hearing.
Matched bedroom set programming does two things, it is inherently more tiring for the ear except in rare cases, and it selects our for smaller niche audiences.
When Houston moved away from this kind of programming our audiences returned. The innovation is still there. The boredom is not. Variety is the spice of life.
And to the commenter above, Hans Graf succeeded Eschenbach in Houston.
What is your opinion of so-called “thematic programming?” I am a great fan of it but, for some reason, many conductors shy away from it. Maybe they feel it is too restricting, paints them into a corner? I’m not sure.
These days 99% of orchestras follow the same format as one hundred years ago: overture; concerto; intermission; symphony or large-scale tone poem. You’ll see a program like: Adams, “Short Ride in a Fast Machine;” Mendelssohn Violin Concerto; Shostakovich 5th. Three great pieces which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
Every program I have ever produced, beginning in the 1980s, has been thematic. It’s the only way to go.
Yes, I know what you have done, Joe.
But there is surely room for the occasional overtly ‘themed’ programming of compositions (eg. East meets West or French collection….whatever….the list is endless and it’s a fun party game) However concert programming often may seem a random selection of compositions, but to the avid reader of programme notes….voilà….there is a link between all the compositions but it’s not the actual selling point of the concert as such. What is important is that classical music remains relevant to the community and that concerts (not always in the standard 2 hour formula) invites all to listen and engage. Last week as I left the concert hall, a rather unshaven looking man wanted to chat to me about the Tchaikovsky concert he had just heard with his free ticket, saying how it moved his soul. As we approached the train station he said goodbye and disappeared off into the ranks of rough sleepers.
Alberica: A touching story, but do you suppose this “unshaven” man will now buy a ticket for a future concert, having received one for free? And, what does “relevant” mean for an orchestra, or anything, for that matter. Is Taylor Swift “relevant?’ She sure is highly entertaining. Agree with you about better programming and non-standard concert formats. The problem with many of the very large orchestras is their restrictive collective bargaining agreements, which discourage change of any kind. (Full disclosure: I have been a card-carrying member of the AFM since 1971, so don’t brand me as “anti union.”)
Paul Hanson: Agree with much of your first paragraph. For paragraph #2, exactly which modern composers have put “heavy” financial demands on orchestras? They get a royalty, which varies according to the number of performances they get each year. (John Williams makes more money that “Joe Blow.” and their publisher charges a rental fee. Yes, the rental fees are sometimes exorbitant but they are often negotiable. (Dirty little secret of the music biz.) There may, indeed, be some conductors who have donated services. Maybe not many but probably some and one or two “freebies” is not going to solve the financial problems of most orchestras.
Paragraph 4: I can’t imagine that there are many artists who would “willingly” work for free. Would you? They might do it out of desperation but, again, on or two freebies doesn’t add up to much.
Paragraph 5: Bravo! But, remember, the way to attract Black audiences is not to play Black composers. The way to attract Latino audiences is not to play Latino composers. You play this music because it’s great music. BTW, when did classical music ever “resonate with all walks of life?” I have no problem saying that certain art forms have wide, broad appeal — does the name Taylor Swift ring a bell? — and certain art forms have a narrower, niche appeal. Classical music has always been, and will always be, a narrow, niche art form. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Classical music is not for everybody, neither is rock and roll, blues, hip hop, country and western, gospel. Everybody likes some kind of music but nobody likes every kind. Remember the words of Arnold Schoenberg: “If it is art, is not for all. If it is for all, it is not art.”
Sorry to go on for so long.
Regarding your Schoenberg quotation, I have to disagree. There are a few, very, very rare occasions when it is both art and for all: The Beatles.
The Illusion of Grandeur in Classical Music Institutions
Classical music institutions have long been revered as bastions of cultural excellence, often proclaiming themselves as the “best” in the land. However, this self-proclaimed status is frequently rooted in historical prestige rather than current innovation or relevance. The reliance on the laurels of the past—performing standard repertoires that have been celebrated for over half a century—has led to a stagnation in the evolution of the musical arts.
The Cost of Modern Composers’ Stardom
The contemporary era has seen a shift towards creating “superstars” out of modern composers, often at exorbitant costs. These financial demands place a heavy burden on institutions that are already grappling with fiscal deficits. It begs the question: where does the line between artistic pursuit and financial reality blur?
A Call for Altruism in the Arts
Why should the financial onus rest solely on the institutions? There is a case to be made for composers and conductors to occasionally donate their work and talents, paying homage to the very platforms that elevate their creations. Such acts of generosity could alleviate the financial strain on these institutions and allow for a broader range of artistic expression.
The Unheard Voices of the Music World
The classical music scene is changing, and the upcoming generation is at the forefront of this shift. They are no longer content with the status quo that elevates a select few to stardom while leaving a multitude of talented musicians and composers unheard. There is a growing recognition that many artists would willingly offer their work for free, seeking artistic fulfillment over material gain.
A Plea for Inclusivity and Recognitio
It is time for the classical music community to awaken from its slumber of elitism and recognize the value of overlooked musicians and composers. These individuals deserve opportunities to showcase their talents and contribute to the rich tapestry of the arts. By embracing inclusivity and shedding the veneer of exclusivity, classical music can remain a vibrant and evolving form of expression that resonates with all walks of life.