Sunday, October 9, 2022

Dvorak 7 - A Recording Survey - Some More

 Vaclav Talich/Czech Philharmonic - 'Present at the creation.' An orchestra almost literally created to play Dvorak. It's possible that Talich got even the slight deviations from the score from Dvorak himself, and if he didn't, it's still in a style Dvorak would have recognized. By our standards it's a very romantic reading, and if you'll permit a heresy I'll say that it's objectively a bit too much, but Talich almost always 'cuts with the grain' in a way that draws attention to the music's inherent detail rather than to the interpretation. Listeners would have to wait until Harnoncourt to hear a reading of the opening where you feel so many nature effects, and unlike Harnoncourt, Talich has the sense to speed up when things get more turbulent. All throughout makes just about everyone else seem thoughtless in this score he's clearly meditated on for his entire life. The only trouble is that I don't think Dvorak meant anything quite this romantic. Without the consistent rhythmic pulse of a dance, it feels too earnest for Dvorak. Nevertheless, when Talich resolves to dance in the Scherzo, nobody, not even Sejna or Mackerras, can possibly match this expression organic as a Pilsner. A

Sejna/Czech Philharmonic - Even more than Talich, this is the unmatched authenticity of the great Czech tradition. It goes almost exactly at Dvorak's specified metronome markings, with an unmatched feel for Dvorak's folk dance rhythms with absolutely perfect rubato that only exists in the obvious transitional bars of the structure. Other orchestras make Dvorak something gruff - the Czech Philharmonic makes Dvorak a 19th century Mozart - leavening even the biggest climaxes with levitating agility, velvet warmth and spiritual grace with textures vivid enough to eat. The only problem is that there is a level of extremes missing on both ends of the dynamic spectrum which dampens the excitement, and cannot just be explained away by the relatively mediocre mono sound, but rather, the drama is simply provided by the performance going at such lightning motion. This is thing of life, an evolving organism. Just listen to that clarinet wail in the last movement.... This is true music. A+

Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt/NDR Symphony, Hamburg: Wow that's a lot of rubato.... A good faith effort by musically curious North German performers to recreate the Czech style. They make a lot of wonderful Czech noises in the winds and brass, and even if the Hamburg strings can't imitate the inimitable, they have a gemutlichkeit that is entirely in keeping with Dvorak's bittersweet spirit. These were always incredibly underrated musicians, but HSI does not make matters easy in the first two movements for them with his constantly yo-yo'ing pulse. Some of this is clearly a little beyond the orchestra's fingers, and surely they could have gotten the mic closer to the timpani and trombones who barely sound present. Clearly HSI heard what Talich did and wants to chase that air of authenticity when it would probably do him better to just follow the score. I expected something much more restrained and tasteful, but they are making a full court press for schmaltz. It's a very good faith effort from an orchestra that can't possibly have played this work often, but ultimately, this is more a credible impersonation from people who know their Viennese than the real music of a forgotten people. C+

Rafael Kubelik/Vienna Philharmonic - My dirty Dvorak secret. Kubelik is my favorite conductor, and yet I don't like most of his Dvorak. Kubelik is just too tolerant of imprecision and skewed balances for this composer whose every bar dances, a fact made worse by his recording a cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic - the world's least toe-tapping orchestra. Nevertheless (and I'm a minority of one here...) this is easily his best Dvorak 7, with rubato to capture every lyricism and every excitement - even if it's not nearly as natural as in his Mahler and Janacek. Even if Kubelik doesn't always keep them together, the understanding of the Viennese for Dvorak is far, far more innate than in Berlin. The scherzo is incredibly dirty, but it speaks pristine Czech. The Viennese have a bass heavy sound lacking in Prague that adds an entirely welcome darkness. Kubelik stretches the second movement around like Furtwanglerian clay, but the biggest problem, as always in Kubelik's performances, was in the finale. He plays it as a grim piece of romantic tone painting with a lot of rhetorical rubato, when the whole point is that it's a peppy march that houses grim content. Dvorak 7's rhythms smile while its harmonies frown. An experimental Dvorak 7 with interesting ideas, but ultimately, it just wasn't Kubelik's piece. Kubelik was never an 'Upper Case R' Romantic, but a romantic he very much was, and Dvorak was secretly a classicist. Generally speaking, Kubelik's greatest strengths were in grander composers than Dvorak, and even when Dvorak speaks grandly, he speaks with understatement. C-

John Barbirolli/Halle Orchestra - If it were purely an interpretation, if orchestral playing didn't matter, this would without parallel. I don't know what makes Barbirolli's feel for Dvorak so instinctual and beyond the Mahler for which he's so much more famous, but this is perfect for Barbirolli, who, contra his reputation, rarely overstates his case except in the glorious way he lets the strings emote in forte with maximum passion and vibrato. He works to elicit the most incredible dynamic and textural shading, leaves just enough rubato to let the overtones emit their special glow over the orchestra, and lets the pacing simply flow in a manner that never lets go of the ear. It's not like the playing is at all bad, but don't expect real refinements. The only real problem is the brass and particularly the trumpets, which is is as piercing and unbalanced as the rest of the orchestra is beautifully balanced. My guess is Barbirolli just couldn't do anything about it and gave up. Barbirolli turned the strings lack of technical acumen into a virtue, making their naturally dirty sound into folk fiddling. In a way, it all sounds like more like a village band than an orchestra, which is, perhaps, the most authentic sound of all. Interpretation: A++, Overall: A-

Pierre Monteux/London Symphony - I'm not one for Brahmsian Dvorak, but Monteux is Monteux. The LSO of those years was a crude instrument, but Monteux endows them with a sunlit Brahmsian glow which is entirely beyond the Czech Philharmonic's inestimably great capabilities. Monteux was 84 here, and here as everywhere he has no lack of vitality, with rubato all over the place so subtle you'd never notice if you weren't listening for it. The phrases simply rise and fall as though they were assembled with nature's fractals. There is so much gentleness and introspection which a less mature spirit could never find. I do wish Monteux would take a little less time basking in the beauty of the slow movement, but when the playing is this beautiful and overtone rich, you can forgive him. And just in case you think Monteux has lost a step, he explodes in the finale like a rocket at Cape Canaveral, and yet there's the same rubato, with the same knowledge of exactly how to apply it when the spirit changes to maximize lyricism, character, and excitement. There are times when I would rate this as the greatest ever performance, but there are just so many candidates. It's just another day at the office for a conductor who radiated such pure music that every performance is endowed with an ineffable spirituality.  A    

Constantin Silvestri/Vienna Philharmonic - You really never know what you're going to get with Silvestri. It amazes me that some critics who devalue all sorts of 'emotive' artists do not find Silvestri erratic. Silvestri defines it. In his way, Silvestri's romanticism was as willful as Koussevitzky or Barbirolli. Much of what Silvestri gave us was glorious, some is deliriously wrongheaded - this falls into group 2. On the one hand Vienna Philharmonic makes lovely singing sounds, on the other, they're completely uncoordinated. They do the best they can to respond to what is clearly an enormous number of demands from the front, but Silvestri demands so many things of them that he confuses the hell out of them and can't keep a lot of the thing together - particularly the opening. At any point before 2015, a conservatory orchestra with this level of imprecision would get reamed by its conductor. Of course, the highlight is the slow movement, which for its occasional oddities is absolutely beautiful in its overdone way - Rachmaninovian perhaps.... but for the most part, this performance is just mannered in a composer who does not tolerate mannerism as well as he looks amid and an orchestra that cannot keep up with its conductor. Silvestri was notorious for demanding so much rehearsal that he'd refuse all kinds of engagements if they didn't give it to him, but this sounds like however much rehearsal he got he needed twice as much. There are such truly beautiful lyric things here, but so much of this performance just falls apart. The reason, fundamentally, is that Silvestri doesn't understand that this piece is not lyricism with manic interruptions of drama. The lyricism only truly works when put in a greater context, while Silvestri is trying to savor and illuminate every possible expressive nuance along the way. That sort of mannerism is impossible in such an unmannered composer like Dvorak.  D+

Antal Dorati/London Symphony - Dorati, as so often, belies his reputation for aggression, and so does the LSO. Hardly any conductor goes to greater trouble to honor Dvorak's impossibly specific dynamic markings, and reminds us just how much of this work is soft and lyrical even as Dorati, as ever, provides us the full measure of drama. It is a darker vision, full both of visciousness and fragility. Whether at forte or piano, and at the many gradations upon the spectrum, the orchestral balances ('chording') are so exquisitely impeccable. Has any conductor ever thought this deeply about the analytic side of this symphony and made heard its many countermelodies, accompanying motifs, crossrhythms, odd textures? The sudden dramatic tempi changes in the first movement coda are an awkward misfire, but otherwise, what is on hand here is so exquisite. It never seems self-conscious because Dorati balances this fastidious lyricism with white hot rage in the dramatic passages. One of the most poetic Dvoraks ever set down, radiating a deeply unhappy spirit. A- 

George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra - A lot of people rate this the greatest Dvorak 7. The 2nd movement IS the greatest set down, with rubato that is.... well it's a revelation. Nobody mixes the pastoral and turbulence like Szell. The rest is not on such a level. The last movement is empty virtuosity that does not even feel exciting amid all that gruffness. It's generally a very aggressive performance that, sadly, has dull sound which doesn't even let its excitement stand on its own merits. It's certainly not bad, the clarity of the Clevelanders is as always a marvel, but as great as alleged it isn't. B-

Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic - Lenny just doesn't really get it. He loves the melody of course, but he doesn't get the irony between song and dance. One just has the sense Bernstein thinks this is a generic romantic work by an unspecified composer - full of big tunes and loud sounds, but subtlety was not exactly Lenny's thing. The more grandiloquent, the better he got, but winking intimacy like Dvorak? D

Suitner/Staatskapelle Berlin - The dirty secret of Dvorak is that Suitner made the best cycle, capturing Dvorak's mixture of song and dance better than any Slavic conductor. 7 is not the absolute highlight (5 and 8), the last movement is simply too slow and sober to capture its turbulence. But the mixture of linear clarity and warmth is so like the Czech Philharmonic, and Suitner makes absolutely clear that Dvorak is the great heir to the Mozart and Schubert he also conducts so well. B-

Karel Ancerl/Czech Philharmonic

Carlo Maria Giulini/London Philharmonic - Once again, I don't like Brahmsian Dvorak, but of course, Giulini's gentle humanity makes it mostly work. Giulini is characteristically slow, and crucially does not let the bass or brass stint on the dramatic weight. Nevertheless, the prevailing spirit, as so often in CMG, is elegiac and glowing, with the most refulgent, overtone laden string sound you will ever hear in this work - including Monteux's LSO. It is particularly moving in the slow movement, too often forgotten but which is the crux of the whole work. It's impossible to overlook here, he stretches it to Brucknerian proportions, making the kinship with Bruckner 6 unmistakable. It's too self-consciously profound to be ideal, this is Giulini after all, but Giulini uses every instant of that extra time for extra weight and passion. Whether this is Dvorak or Brahms or Bruckner, it is so profoundly moving. The problem is, of course, in the later movements. Giulini never passes up an opportunity to sing and passes up every opportunity to dance. Getting Giulini to dance properly is about as likely as getting Pavarotti. No amount of beautiful orchestral glow in the trio can cover up the fact that this is a conductor who doesn't want to have fun. Giulini's romantic splendor is not a substitute for Dvorak's grim ironies. In Giulini, everything means exactly what it says it means. B

Kubelik/Berlin Philharmonic: A performance I despise where Kubelik proves himself a bit of a self-hating skoda. Dvorak 7 is not Wagner, and yet Kubelik plays him with the Berliners as pure Walkure. I just don't get this egregious lapse in judgement. It's dramatic, sure, but Dvorak 7 is not a statement of brooding tragedy. It even has a horrible wrong note at the finale's climax in the brass. I'm not listening to this again. D-

Colin Davis/Concertgebouw: There's nothing to say that the performance itself doesn't say better. It's the other sui generis performance, which captures Dvorak's turbulence as no one else does. The dynamic contrasts are enormous, the sound of the Concertgebouw always alternating between warmth and fury. No performance is as great at showing Dvorak's ironic mix of dance and rage. The Concertgebouw, ever one of the clearest orchestras, displays a very Czech incision, with staccatos that are absolutely together. Few scherzi 'cook' like this - like a jazz band taken wing. The second movement, so clearly recalling Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, has only felt this warm under Giulini. So intense is Davis's involvement that occasionally sections of the Concertgebouw a very little bit of trouble keeping up, but otherwise, it never gets better than this. A+

Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian Radio - 

Levine/Chicago Symphony

Vaclav Neumann/Czech Philharmonic The Czech Philharmonic in so much Czech Philharmonicness you have to spell it Ceska (with vowels my keyboard doesn't access). Never has the orchestra sounded riper, piquanter(?), woodlandier,... whatever you want to call it. The only problem is that Vaclav Neumann is clearly as disengaged an interpreter as he is skilled an orchestra builder. There is a certain cynicism in a lot of latter day Czech Dvorak performances. It's just what's expected of them in every tour, and for the #1 Prague orchestra it sounds like a delivery vehicle for gorgeous execution bereft of much insight. You compare this with Sejna and Talich, and it's just autopilot. Like Kubelik, I think Neumann was a much better Mahler conductor. It can't be denied that they make lovely sounds, but this is your pro-forma Dvorak 7. Except for some beautifully eminent contrabassoon and double bass, there's no distinguishing feature except the beautiful particularities of Czech orchestral sound during the Soviet era - captured in more modern sound. I don't doubt that makes this performance perfect in the ears of some, but some of us need a personality amid all the beautiful machinery. If Karajan or Ormandy were Czech, they'd lead a performance like this. I think I listened to the digital one but I'm not putting myself through this twice. C 

Christoph von Dohnanyi/Cleveland Orchestra: Look, I'm president of the Dohnanyi fanclub. At this point I think he and Mariss Jansons are the greatest conductors I ever heard live, and it's a sad commentary that people find him heartless. Fastidious he may be, but it's because he's one of those rare musicians who organizes music on a quantum level, and unlike, say, George Szell, consistently uses his analytical abilities to overlay his musicmaking with sincere expression. Emotionally, he is on a such a more sophisticated, specific level than most 'expressive' conductors. Dohnanyi is musicmaking for adults. This isn't just a conductor who thinks about where to play piano or crescendo, but which instruments, the exact sort of bowstroke of the strings and breath from the winds, and how every one of them will affect the music forty minutes later. That sort of depth is so much rarer than you think, and rarer still is a conductor who does it without vitiating the emotional content. Everything is thought through here - harmonies, dynamics, balances, color... with rubato perfectly calibrated to maximize the momentum and not a scintilla more. The only problem is that this is Dvorak - the world's most artless composer, who spontaneously erupts with melody and rhythm.  So there are much better Dvorak 7s, no matter what Hurwitz says. Jansons does a similar approach, and there is no questioning where Jansons's heart is here. Dohnanyi deconstructs Dvorak to its bolts, and then reassembles it piece by piece. Every line and chord weighted, every sound scrubbed squeaky clean, but whereas Jansons's heart rings out in full vibration, Dohnanyi here expresses a much more generic character. The skill by which Dohnanyi does all this is uncanny, but except for his red-blooded finale, it's still not Dvorak. Give us Davis a hundred times before this. Davis leads with instinct, not intellect. This approach is perfect for so much else, but Dvorak 7 is not the Leipzig Romantics or Second Viennese School in which Dohnanyi has no peer, and playing him with those accents only represses the work's natural expression. Along with Davis, Dohnanyi gave us the greatest of all Dvorak 6's, but for its many virtues, this is not on so lofty a plain. Otherwise Dohnanyi's Dvorak is senselessly overrated: instead, listen to him do Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Mendelssohn, R. Strauss, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, Henze, fuck... listen to nearly anything except the Bohemian stuff... because for some reason his Mahler sucks too. C+

(note from 2025: Going back to this without the pressure of comparative listening was an extremely edifying experience. Long as you didn't have the razor sharp teeth of versions like Davis and Dorati ringing in your ears, there is no lack of primal force or color here. I think the problem I had was that the Cleveland Orchestra has never been a sound that warms to my ears: everything is so 'white', 'treble-heavy', perhaps even without personality. But who can possibly deny that the Cleveland Orchestra has so many other magnificent virtues - precision, virtuosity, linear clarity? In retrospect, I vastly underrated this performance because the Cleveland Orchestra is simply less characterful than European orchestras of similarly sterling reputations. It's a lot easier to forgive lack of color in a composer like Mendelssohn than in Dvorak, and I consequently undervalued all the things that were great about it. And besides, the finale is not just 'red-blooded', it's the most exciting goddamn thing ever. A-)

Wolfgang Sawallisch/Philadelphia Orchestra

Mariss Jansons/Oslo Philharmonic: Since Jansons died I've again become his biggest fan (and that's saying something). I used to think Jansons's essential musicianship was lost on his recordings, but now that we can't hear him live, the care of his recordings have all sorts of qualities I used to not appreciate. In a generation of careful and hard working maestros of understated integrity, no one in his generation but Dohnanyi ever exhibited this level of care; but he was, ultimately, better than Dohnanyi. He did not have Dohnanyi's  sophistication and winks, and in the more ironic environs of modernism could seem a little lost; but within Jansons's spider web of rigor was a heart that would melt stone. I don't know if classical music has a performing artist in the recorded era who so united head and heart. Jansons makes us hear so many little details of harmony, counterpoint and texture that no other conductor notices. The dynamic contrasts and warmth of the sound puts all but the Czechs to shame. Jansons puts a few feet wrong here, not because of his hair below average tempi, but because the occasional rubatos seem pasted on rather than organic - when already you have such perfect dynamic and linear control, what use is there in changing tempo? The scherzo is particularly of below average pace - Jansons keeps a tight lid on the abandon so we may hear all those nuances usually lost in the 'shuffle', the result sounds more like a waltz than a furiant, but never in the scherzo have you heard this cat scan's worth of detail. The second movement and finales are as good as they've ever been done - full of warmth, passion, and, yes, detail. Like Monteux only moreso, Jansons's musicmaking is surrounded by this indefinable spiritual gravity that mesmerizes, note by note it pulls you ever further in until you and the music feel as one. Perhaps the result is a little bit more heart on sleeve and deliberately tragic than Dvorak meant, but so much heart is articulated here with so much intelligence. Objectively: B+ For me: A

Harnoncourt/Royal Concertgebouw: This reading has things so far beyond any other. Look at the score and listen to how many dynamics Harnoncourt honors - perhaps a far easier proposition when you look at how slowly Harnoncourt crawls through the opening, and yet the effects Harnoncourt draws, even within the markings' parameters, are so specific and subjective that there is always material of great interest. The distant horn calls, pesante landler rhythms, near-klezmerish clarinets, are almost Mahlerian. Harnoncourt, ever himself, clearly speaks Czech music with his own inimitably strong Austrian accent. The scherzo is clearly done with a greater legato and soft dynamics to emphasize it's closeness to a waltz rather than the Czech furiant dance, and yet Harnoncourt does not have the conducting technique to pull off his non-traditional reading. No matter what his changes, he's still far more authentic to Dvorak than the more internationalist style of, say, Dohnanyi. What follows is one of the truly great second movements, notation respectful while playing with free rubato that is never obtrusive and some of the most songful, expressive playing you'll ever hear in this work. The problem is the vitiated finale. Being weird is forgivable, being boring is unforgivable, and that movement is just awful. It's tragic because there is so much right and unique in this performance. No one should be ungrateful to have heard it, but you don't get Harnoncourt's strengths without his weaknesses. He is a 'musical event', a fact of music history that will never sound like anything but himself. Here, Harnoncourt is nearly as much a hinderance as a help, but it is still an absolute necessity performance for listeners who love this work to hear. B- 

Myung Whun-Chung/Vienna Philharmonic

Ivan Fischer/Budapest Festival: Here's more Brahmsian Dvorak that's better than I give it credit for being, and Fischer is another conductor for whom I'm 'in the tank.' 

Mackerras/Philharmonia: Sir Charles will always have a chamber of my heart, but my estimation of him has gone ever so slightly down. The pandemic aged this listener. Snap and swing don't have quite the appeal they used to, and Sir Charles's deliberately lean palette can occasionally be as short of expression as it is long on excitement. Mackerras will always be a first class Dvorak conductor, Dvorak's truest musical grandson among maestros. Particularly in the Scherzo, there are things beyond just about everybody else (that flute ornament!). Mackerras understands what it means to 'be' Czech music beyond even what most Czechs do, and clearly, Mackerras has studied with Talich - either him or his recording, because there's nor a single effect on his recording Talich didn't do first, but in (relatively) much better sound. One problem is that the Philharmonia strings sound surprisingly small and scrappy, but the bigger problem is that Mackerras is clearly going for a very 'Czech', 'folky' Dvorak 7, full of Mackerras's eternally vibrant rhythms and 'fun'. There is no mistaking the irony of such peppy rhythms housing such grim content, but at the same time, the Philharmonia doesn't particularly understand what he's doing - they're just playing another job and Mackerras does not refine them to reflect his conception the way Monteux or Dorati would. B

John Eliot Gardiner/Royal Stockholm Philharmonic: A great maestro of the orchestra this choral master has never been, but Gardiner has learned a lot about how to conduct an orchestra since his 'sowing machine' days of the 1990s. The military precision will never leave him, but now he gives orchestras the space to breathe the phrases and harmonies, and he was always more meticulous about composer's markings than 90-95%. Dvorak 7 speaks naturally to both Gardiner's natural vitality and his explosive personality. Gardiner knows how to rage and dance both, and this choral conductor has finally learned how to make the orchestra sing, phrase, and bend the phrase. Talich and Monteux give us still more cantabile, but this is a performance that does just about everything it should. A-

Jiri Behlolavek/Czech Philharmonic


Saturday, October 8, 2022

Dvorak 7 Recording Survey - A Beginning

Vaclav Talich/Czech Philharmonic - 'Present at the creation.' An orchestra almost literally created to play Dvorak. It's possible that Talich got even the slight deviations from the score from Dvorak himself, and if he didn't, it's still in a style Dvorak would have recognized. By our standards it's a very romantic reading, and if you'll permit a heresy I'll say that it's objectively a bit too much, but Talich almost always 'cuts with the grain' in a way that draws attention to the music's inherent detail rather than to the interpretation. Listeners would have to wait until Harnoncourt to hear a reading of the opening where you feel so many nature effects, and unlike Harnoncourt, Talich has the sense to speed up when things get more turbulent. All throughout makes just about everyone else seem thoughtless in this score he's clearly meditated on for his entire life. The only trouble is that I don't think Dvorak meant anything quite this romantic. Without the consistent rhythmic pulse of a dance, it feels too earnest for Dvorak. Nevertheless, when Talich resolves to dance in the Scherzo, nobody, not even Sejna or Mackerras, can possibly match this expression organic as a Pilsner. A

Sejna/Czech Philharmonic - Even more than Talich, this is the unmatched authenticity of the great Czech tradition. It goes almost exactly at Dvorak's specified metronome markings, with an unmatched feel for Dvorak's folk dance rhythms with absolutely perfect rubato that only exists in the obvious transitional bars of the structure. Other orchestras make Dvorak something gruff - the Czech Philharmonic makes Dvorak a 19th century Mozart - leavening even the biggest climaxes with levitating agility, velvet warmth and spiritual grace with textures vivid enough to eat. The only problem is that there is a level of extremes missing on both ends of the dynamic spectrum which dampens the excitement, and cannot just be explained away by the relatively mediocre mono sound, but rather, the drama is simply provided by the performance going at such lightning motion. This is thing of life, an evolving organism. Just listen to that clarinet wail in the last movement.... This is true music. A+

Rafael Kubelik/Vienna Philharmonic - My dirty Dvorak secret. Kubelik is my favorite conductor, and yet I don't like most of his Dvorak. Kubelik is just too tolerant of imprecision and skewed balances for this composer whose every bar dances, a fact made worse by his recording a cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic - the world's least toe-tapping orchestra. Nevertheless (and I'm a minority of one here...) this is easily his best Dvorak 7, with rubato to capture every lyricism and every excitement - even if it's not nearly as natural as in his Mahler and Janacek. Even if Kubelik doesn't always keep them together, the understanding of the Viennese for Dvorak is far, far more innate than in Berlin. The scherzo is incredibly dirty, but it speaks pristine Czech. The Viennese have a bass heavy sound lacking in Prague that adds an entirely welcome darkness. Kubelik stretches the second movement around like Furtwanglerian clay, but the biggest problem, as always in Kubelik's performances, was in the finale. He plays it as a grim piece of romantic tone painting with a lot of rhetorical rubato, when the whole point is that it's a peppy march that houses grim content. Dvorak 7's rhythms smile while its harmonies frown. An experimental Dvorak 7 with interesting ideas, but ultimately, it just wasn't Kubelik's piece. Kubelik was never an 'Upper Case R' Romantic, but a romantic he very much was, and Dvorak was secretly a classicist. Generally speaking, Kubelik's greatest strengths were in grander composers than Dvorak, and even when Dvorak speaks grandly, he speaks with understatement. C

Pierre Monteux/London Symphony - I'm not one for Brahmsian Dvorak, but Monteux is Monteux. The LSO of those years was a crude instrument, but Monteux endows them with a sunlit Brahmsian glow which is entirely beyond the Czech Philharmonic's inestimably great capabilities. Monteux was 84 here, and here as everywhere he has no lack of vitality, with rubato all over the place so subtle you'd never notice if you weren't listening for it. The phrases simply rise and fall as though they were assembled with nature's fractals. There is so much gentleness and introspection which a less mature spirit could never find. I do wish Monteux would take a little less time basking in the beauty of the slow movement, but when the playing is this beautiful and overtone rich, you can forgive him. And just in case you think Monteux has lost a step, he explodes in the finale like a rocket at Cape Canaveral, and yet there's the same rubato, with the same knowledge of exactly how to apply it when the spirit changes to maximize lyricism, character, and excitement. There are times when I would rate this as the greatest ever performance, but there are just so many candidates. It's just another day at the office for a conductor who radiated such pure music that every performance is endowed with an ineffable spirituality.  A    

Antal Dorati/London Symphony - Dorati, as so often, belies his reputation for aggression, and so does the LSO. Hardly any conductor goes to greater trouble to honor Dvorak's impossibly specific dynamic markings, and reminds us just how much of this work is soft and lyrical even as Dorati, as ever, provides us the full measure of drama. It is a darker vision, full both of visciousness and fragility. Whether at forte or piano, and at the many gradations upon the spectrum, the orchestral balances ('chording') are so exquisitely impeccable. Has any conductor ever thought this deeply about the analytic side of this symphony and made heard its many countermelodies, accompanying motifs, crossrhythms, odd textures? The sudden dramatic tempi changes in the first movement coda are an awkward misfire, but otherwise, what is on hand here is so exquisite. It never seems self-conscious because Dorati balances this fastidious lyricism with white hot rage in the dramatic passages. One of the most poetic Dvoraks ever set down, radiating a deeply unhappy spirit. A- 

George Szell/Cleveland Orchestra - A lot of people rate this the greatest Dvorak 7. The 2nd movement IS the greatest set down, with rubato that is.... well it's a revelation. Nobody mixes the pastoral and turbulence like Szell. The rest is not on such a level. The last movement is empty virtuosity that does not even feel exciting amid all that gruffness. It's generally a very aggressive performance that, sadly, has dull sound which doesn't even let its excitement stand on its own merits. It's certainly not bad, the clarity of the Clevelanders is as always a marvel, but as great as alleged it isn't. B-

Leonard Bernstein/New York Philharmonic - Lenny just doesn't really get it. He loves the melody of course, but he doesn't get the irony between song and dance. One just has the sense Bernstein thinks this is a generic romantic work by an unspecified composer - full of big tunes and loud sounds, but subtlety was not exactly Lenny's thing. The more grandiloquent, the better he got, but winking intimacy like Dvorak? D

Karel Ancerl/Czech Philharmonic - 

Suitner/Staatskapelle Berlin - The dirty secret of Dvorak is that Suitner made the best cycle, capturing Dvorak's mixture of song and dance better than any Slavic conductor. 7 is not the absolute highlight (5 and 8), the last movement is simply too slow and sober to capture its turbulence. But the mixture of linear clarity and warmth is so like the Czech Philharmonic, and Suitner makes absolutely clear that Dvorak is the great heir to the Mozart and Schubert he also conducts so well. B

Constantin Silvestri/Vienna Philharmonic

Carlo Maria Giulini/London Philharmonic - Once again, I don't like Brahmsian Dvorak, but of course, Giulini's gentle humanity makes it mostly work. Giulini is characteristically slow, and crucially does not let the bass or brass stint on the dramatic weight. Nevertheless, the prevailing spirit, as so often in CMG, is elegiac and glowing, with the most refulgent, overtone laden string sound you will ever hear in this work - including Monteux's LSO. It is particularly moving in the slow movement, too often forgotten but which is the crux of the whole work. It's impossible to overlook here, he stretches it to Brucknerian proportions, making the kinship with Bruckner 6 unmistakable. It's too self-consciously profound to be ideal, this is Giulini after all, but Giulini uses every instant of that extra time for extra weight and passion. Whether this is Dvorak or Brahms or Bruckner, it is so profoundly moving. The problem is, of course, in the later movements. Giulini never passes up an opportunity to sing and passes up every opportunity to dance. Getting Giulini to dance properly is about as likely as getting Pavarotti. No amount of beautiful orchestral glow in the trio can cover up the fact that this is a conductor who doesn't want to have fun. Giulini's romantic splendor is not a substitute for Dvorak's grim ironies. In Giulini, everything means exactly what it says it means. B

Kubelik/Berlin Philharmonic

Colin Davis/Concertgebouw The other sui generis performance that captures Dvorak's turbulence as no one else does. The dynamic contrasts are enormous, the sound of the Concertgebouw always alternating between warmth and fury. No performance is as great at showing Dvorak's ironic mix of dance and rage. The Concertgebouw, ever one of the clearest orchestras, displays a very Czech incision, with staccatos that are absolutely together. Few scherzi 'cook' like this - like a jazz band taken wing. The second movement, so clearly recalling Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony, has only felt this warm under Giulini. So intense is Davis's involvement that occasionally sections of the Concertgebouw a very little bit of trouble keeping up, but otherwise, it never gets better than this. A+

Rafael Kubelik/Bavarian Radio

Levine/Chicago Symphony

Vaclav Neumann/Czech Philharmonic A-

Mariss Jansons/Oslo Philharmonic

Christoph von Dohnanyi/Cleveland Orchestra: Look, I'm president of the Dohnanyi fanclub. At this point I think he and Mariss Jansons are the greatest conductors I ever heard live, and it's a sad commentary that people find him heartless. Fastidious he may be, but it's because he's one of those rare musicians who organizes music on a quantum level, and unlike, say, George Szell, consistently uses his technical/intellectual abilities to overlay his musicmaking with sincere expression. Emotionally though, he is on a such a more sophisticated, specific level than most 'expressive' conductors. Dohnanyi is musicmaking for adults. This isn't just a conductor who thinks about where to play piano or crescendo, but which instruments, the exact sort of bowstroke of the strings and breath from the winds, and how every one of them will affect the music forty minutes later. That sort of depth is so much rarer than you think, and rarer still is a conductor who does it without vitiating the emotional content. Everything is thought through here - harmonies, dynamics, balances, color... with rubato perfectly calibrated to maximize the momentum. The only problem is that this is Dvorak - the world's most artless composer, who spontaneously erupts with melody and rhythm. So there are much better Dvorak 7s, no matter what Hurwitz says. It deconstructs Dvorak to its bolts, and then reassembles it piece by piece. Every line and chord weighted, every sound scrubbed squeaky clean but expressing generic character. The skill by which Dohnanyi does it is uncanny, but except for his red-blooded finale, it's still not Dvorak. Give us Davis a hundred times before this. Davis leads with instinct, not intellect. This approach is perfect for earlier romanticism, but Dvorak 7 is not the Schumann in which Dohnanyi has no peer, and playing him with an accent from 1840 only represses the work. Along with Davis, Dohnanyi gave us the greatest of all Dvorak 6's, but for its many virtues, this is not on so lofty a plain. C+

(note from 2025: Going back to this without the pressure of comparative listening was an extremely edifying experience. Long as you didn't have the razor sharp teeth of versions like Davis and Dorati ringing in your ears, there is no lack of primal force or color here. I think the problem I had was that the Cleveland Orchestra has never been a sound that warms to my ears: everything is so 'white', 'treble-heavy', perhaps even without personality. But who can possibly deny that the Cleveland Orchestra has so many other magnificent virtues - precision, virtuosity, linear clarity? In retrospect, I vastly underrated this performance because the Cleveland Orchestra is simply less characterful than European orchestras of similarly sterling reputations. It's a lot easier to forgive lack of color in a composer like Mendelssohn than in Dvorak, and I consequently undervalued all the things that were great about it. And besides, the finale is not just 'red-blooded', it's the most exciting goddamn thing ever. A-)

Wolfgang Sawallisch/Philadelphia Orchestra

Harnoncourt/Royal Concertgebouw This reading has things so far beyond any other. Look at the score and watch how many dynamics Harnoncourt hon B- 

Ivan Fischer/Budapest Festival: 

Mackerras/Philharmonia: Sir Charles will always have a chamber of my heart, but my estimation of him has gone ever so slightly down. The pandemic aged this listener. Snap and swing don't have quite the appeal they used to, and Sir Charles's deliberately lean palette can occasionally be as short of expression as it is long on excitement. Mackerras will always be a first class Dvorak conductor, Dvorak's truest musical grandson among maestros. Particularly in the Scherzo, there are things beyond just about everybody else (that flute ornament!). Mackerras understands what it means to 'be' Czech music beyond even what most Czechs do, and clearly, Mackerras has studied with Talich - either him or his recording, because there's nor a single effecy on his recording Talich didn't do first, but in (relatively) much better sound. One problem is that the Philharmonia strings sound surprisingly small and scrappy, but the bigger problem is that Mackerras is clearly going for a very 'Czech', 'folky' Dvorak 7, full of Mackerras's eternally vibrant rhythms and 'fun'. There is no mistaking the irony of such peppy rhythms housing such grim content, but at the same time, the Philharmonia doesn't particularly understand what he's doing - they're just playing another job and Mackerras does not refine them to reflect his conception the way Monteux or Dorati would. B

John Eliot Gardiner/Royal Stockholm Philharmonic




Wednesday, October 5, 2022

People of the Mirror: Part 2 for Yom Kippur

 

So why don't you just leave if you're frustrated?
It's not like buying a new pair of shoes, it's not like you go out, eat a lobster for the first time and suddenlywhooooaaaaa you've stopped being Jewish.
Leaving a religion is literally a 100 or more year process by which, generation to generation, families unpinch their nerves from old superstitions, old patterns and pathologies, antiquated responsibilities. The only way you truly leave a religion behind is by modern entropy. There's no point in leaving religion behind if your morale goes to pieces from not knowing how to order your life anymore, or throw yourself into the first political ideology that scratches your itch. No, leaving a religion is something that just happens in modern life whether anybody does it consciously. Every time you don't wait the full six hours before putting a little cheese in your salad after a lunchtime hamburger, the entropy happens a little more.
Religion is neither a respite from modern life nor a holdover from the pre-modern, religion is an attitude toward modern life. Every new modern innovation is a new chance to prove one's faith, to find a 'Jewish' or 'Christian' way to respond to the latest development, and to demonstrate to yourself and others that no matter how bewilderingly different life becomes, life still has continuity with the way things used to be. So every time there's a new recent change, there's the question, do we go with the modern development which makes life easier, or do we use this development as a way to proclaim our faith again and make our lives harder?
And with every new development that makes life harder, there's more temptation to lessen the bonds of faith, and with every bond loosened, the more people wonder 'well, what's the point of keeping this faith at all?', and then they leave. So the more people leave the faith, the nuttier get the people get who stay in because they resent modernity all the more - not just out of jealousy or fear, but out of grief. They think of all those deserters whose presence might have enriched their lives, and they're as likely to become obsessed by what religion has lost them as what religion has gained them. And eventually, there is no option in their minds but to declare war on modernity itself, the modernity which now defines their religion as much or more than the traditions ever did - a war which they always win, because they believe in what they're doing more than we do. We just want justice now, they want justice in all eternity. They see a moral responsibility in having as many children as they can, we see only the difficulty in having kids. We believe in living and let live, they believe in conquering and converting. Which side has greater willpower, great manpower, greater desire to change the world?
But Jews.... well, Israel or not, our wars are pretty pathetic. We're a religion of 15 million people, possessing a strip of land the size of New Jersey. No historical epoch ever hinged on whether we win or lose a war, and yet... So much within other societies seems to hinge on Jews.
Nobody knows exactly when the Moses story took place or which Pharaoh Moses faced down, but it's generally thought that the chronology lines up with Ramses II - in other words, the exact end of the Pharaonic golden age, after which there were multiple droughts which caused economic collapses, which then caused foreign invasions. Furthermore, the notorious Pharaoh Akhenaten, who ruled less than a century earlier than Ramses II - the Pharaoh who determined that there is only one god and all other gods do not exist; where'd he get the idea?... Did he get the idea from his slaves? Or were Jews enslaved by his successors to stop monotheism from spreading?
The moment Rome finally 'solved' its Judean problem by crucifying half a million Jews, Rome was at its territorial zenith during the period of 'The Five Good Emperors.' This happened in 135AD, and it was all downhill from there. Less than 200 years later, a Jewish splinter sect subsumed the entire Empire. No Roman Emperor's refulgence could command the awe of a single god on a cross who rules all the universe.
Spanish Unification happened in 1479. It was only thirteen years after that all its Jews were forced to convert or be expelled (not to mention killed...). The year of the Alhambra Decree was, in fact, 1492. So the same year that Jews left Spain was the exact year Spain became something other than Spain - not just an Iberian peninsula but a worldwide machine of death, theft and terror. We've all heard the rumor that Christopher Columbus was Jewish ('he captured the British and made them say Kiddish'), but how many of those conquistadors were, in fact, converso Jews fleeing Spain, repaying what was done to them and determined to create new life for themselves by any means necessary?
Karl Marx came from the very first generation of Jews born after the Napoleonic Code who could take political emancipation for granted....
....Y'know I could go on for a while.....
The point is not that Jews have survived all this time because we're strong, the point is that we've survived in spite of being weak. If a sizable movement of people decides to leave Christianity and form a new movement, Christian or otherwise, it's automatically world news. If yet another group of Jews decides to splinter themselves from Judaism, nobody cares but Jews. And yet, there are these unmistakable traces that forever makes some of us wonder if there is an invisible hand guiding things so that Jews are a direct influence in the rise and fall of... well... everything we know.
And the ultimate evidence that these traces are there are how people project onto Jews whatever it's convenient for them to think Jews are. You do not see yourselves in Jews. You do not see your surroundings or figments of your imagination in Jews, you see yourselves upside down, backwards; reciprocal versions of yourselves, and these reciprocal Jewish visions are also mirror images of the people in your country you most hate. Many poor see in Jews not only the rich but the greedy keeping them down, many rich see Jews as the liberal do-gooders trying to strip them of their money. Many powerless see in Jews the animating hand which keeps them impotent, many powerful see in Jews the hand which steals the power that's rightfully theirs. The stateless see in Jews the worst sort of imperial occupiers, yet there isn't a state on earth that can do without Israel's intelligence and innovations. In Jews, racists see color and antiracists see whiteness. In Jews, MAGA Trumpers see decadent liberal roadblocks to a Christian state, while Corbynite leftists see bloodthirsty zionists whose conspiratorial lobby stymies the worldwide socialist revolution. So many right wingers hate the liberal Jews of their own country but love Israel and everything associated with it; so many left wingers hate Israel and everything associated with it for but love the liberal Jews of their own country.
Part of the reason Jewish influence is so prolific in world history is that we have been defined as literally everything, and can therefore fit in literally everywhere, but only to a point. We are that friend you love but inevitably tire of halfway through the third hour and have a friendship ending fight by hour 6, because we are everything you are - good, bad, beautiful and ugly, and we're also everything you're not. We are white and of color, we are a race and a religion, we are among the greediest capitalists and most fanatical communists, we are creators and repudiators to both Christianity and Islam.
In nearly every other form of bigotry, the main response is disgust. It hits you at the gut level, but over time prolonged exposure to what disgusts you can be learned to be accepted, even loved. But in antisemitism, the main reaction is paranoia: you see the hand of Jews everywhere, and in everything. With paranoia, there is no guarantee that with more acclimation, you get less paranoid. Over time, over and over again, people seem to decide that they like Jews less, not more. So yeah...:
Being Jewish...
I don't like it.

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

People of the Mirror - Part 1 for Kol Nidre


Being Jewish....
I don't like it.
It's just not a great way to live in the world... it means never being able to give more than 70% trust that gentile friends and partners have your best interests at heart, it means never being able to have more than 70% trust that the Jewish people you love won't sell out your best interests out of fear, anger, and stress, and it means never having more than 70% trust that for reasons you can't understand, the entire universe isn't actively conspiring to make your life as hard as it can be - after all, isn't that what many people still think we're doing to them?
Dear readers, the more sincere among you might read the above and take vague insult at its lack of faith in you: "How, after all we've done for you, can you doubt us?" The more cynical would read it and and say 'so what? That's just the price of living in the world? Jews are no different from everybody else."
Both are right, and that's the trouble. Perhaps we'll get to that in the root of that problem in this "sermon," perhaps not. The ultimate point is exactly that no: we're not different than everybody else; in fact, we're so similar to you that we're your reflection. We are everything you see in your bathroom hand glass, reflected back in the inverted direction - we are the 'People of the Mirror.' Being the 'invisible man' has always been the opposite of the Jewish problem; we are so visible that you see our images multiply vastly in places we've never been.
So many gentile lives are constrained from too few choices, most Jews are stuck by too many. So many gentiles worry that they'll never get what they need, Jews worry that everything they need will disappear tomorrow. So many gentiles feel the chip of humiliation, and dream that with more things: titles, privileges, pride, their humiliations will cease. Jews are history's ultimate proof that everything you think is helpful is worthless: from materials to titles to privileges to pride to ESPECIALLY MONEY. There is no such thing as a life protected from humiliation - the whole point of how to live a good life is that we endured our humiliations with faith, honor, responsibility, righteousness, kindness and community; that we show seven good faces to a world that's wanted Jews dead for 2000 years, will want us dead many times yet again; and many people who seem friendly to us now may in fact turn into the filthiest collaborators with those who'd want to annihilate us.
No Jew seems oppressed until every Jew you know disappears overnight. No amount of money protects us, no amount of prestige stops us from being blamed, no amount of power cannot be stripped at a moment's notice. It is the eternal Jewish lot to rise as high as any outsider can possibly rise in a foreign society, only to fall the very moment when things go wrong and the true insiders need meat to throw to the populace.
We are the People of the Mirror because we are the people of the middle; we are the preferred face of the underclass to the overclass, we are the preferred face of the overclass to the underclass - doctors, accountants, lawyers, landlords, teachers, community organizers... We are the converted conservatives no far right winger ever trusts, we are the subversive communists no far left winger ever trusts. Among us are Kissingers - amoral strategic masterminds who ensure circumstances that permit fifty years of right-wing rule, among us are Sanderses - moral fanatics who shake societies to the root and break open the bottles of chaos on the off-chance left-wing revolution can win. It may be a coincidence that both of them were Jewish, but the consequential nodes of historical change that come from the Jewish people are so disproportionate.
It seems over and over again that Jews are the lab rats for the future of every host country. After Egyptians enslaved the Jews, Egyptians became slaves who worked the land so that 2000 years of empires could plunder Egypt's resources: Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Sanasid, Roman, Byzantine, Calphate and Ottoman. After two-hundred years of endless Judean rebellions, Romans finally put all of Judea to the cross, only then for Italy to become the most chaotic country on earth, with 2000 years of endless squabbling intrigue. After Spain expelled its Jewish population, torturing and burning so many Jews who became Christian and plundering all the (supposed) Jewish wealth - they became a gold-encrusted country of zealots who used their plundered imperial treasure to spill hundreds of years of blood in fanatical religious wars. For 300 years, the Russian Czars imprisoned Jews in the Pale of Settlement, only to end up in the prison of the USSR from virtually the moment the Czarist Empire collapsed; and after one generation of relative freedom, Putin seems on the verge of closing that door again.
I know that this all seems like a very selective reading of history - no doubt it is, but it is very difficult for some Jews to separate themselves from this sort of jingoistic historicism; certainly it is for me, and it's even harder for antisemites. But even if it's true that a god willed it so, is that god good?
What force for good would make Jews endure what we've endured? What benevolent force would test Jews like this, as though we are just some sort of divine laboratory through which God puts yet another permutation of suffering and humiliation to test how we react before he subjects a slightly less virulent version of his latest pandemic to the general population? What is so worthwhile that anything is gained from all this? What is worthwhile to subject us to the eternal dread of not knowing whether what comes next is something awful? Is such a god worth honoring? And even if he isn't, can he really be escaped simply by not believing in him?
Atheists certainly think so, and there are certainly moments of my life when I've been one of them, but the coincidences of everything in life are just so massive; from how so many events repeat themselves in history and personal lives to the fact of life's very existence. We may not know what god is, but there is something out there which causes 'us', and whatever it is does not seem to be moral by any understanding we have of morality. Evidence to the senses tells us that there's nothing out there looking over us, but look at everything in context - the one thing we all know is there is the eternal wheel of fortune that disappoints every expectation. We have made so much progress as a species, and yet by progressing we're killing off a million other species. We have made technology that can improve the lives of every person on earth, and by developing such technology, we may blow every person on earth up. The ironies of existence are just so perfect, so elegant, so devastating. And if, as the Deuteronomist says, God has set before us life and death, blessing and curse, how is our will particularly free when there are only two (or at best four) choices?
So yes, of course Jews worry about all the things gentiles worry about too, but Jews 'worry ^squared.' That fake exponent doesn't mean we worry more, or that we worry more dramatically, it means our worries have more variables. When other demographic groups are threatened, they can pretty much guess where the basic threat comes from. There is no such guess among Jews - the threat can come from anywhere and with no warning at all. Germany and Austria were thought the most philosemitic countries in Europe, Medieval Spain thought the goldenest of Jewish periods, Renaissance Poland a place where protection of Jews was thought ironclad.
The only warning, literally the only one, is when many people believe in what they believe too strongly, Jews get killed. When Jews believe in what they believe with too much passion, Jews get themselves killed. Whatever your system of belief, if you believe it applies to every situation, you've created an impossible standard. No coherence was made out of crooked humans, and if humanity is incoherent, Jews are even less so. We should have ceased to exist when the Romans allegedly killed off 580,000 of us, then exiled and enslaved the rest. But we're still here, still alive, still thriving until that next moment we're put back into another of the endless death camps.
So if you believe in some movement too strongly, you will come to loathe so many Jews that even if you don't have a conscious antisemitic thought in your head, you will become an antisemite when you follow your thoughts to their logical endpoint. I could give a litany of examples in everything from the Trump movement to the Women's March, from Black Lives Matter to Evangelical Christianity. If you don't like ambiguity, you're trouble to Jews with a Capital Tet, and however much you depend on Jews - the very success, money, and connections you resent, there is a greater than 90% chance you will all eventually decide you have no need for us, and are better off if we were simply not there. No doubt, the logic of your particular belief looks fine to you, but the logic of every movement in every society always looked fine to them. It all has a two-dimensional patina of truth on a three-dimensional reality. Maybe the logic of your beliefs has succeeded where everyone else's has failed, but are the odds of that any greater than the fact that Jews have still survived until now?
It's absolutely true, Jews achieve disproportionately and there is absolutely no sense in pretending it isn't. It's just a thing that happens because when the knife's to your neck for 3,000 years, your culture figures out how to achieve highly in the hope that it gives us a little bit of the security we've never had, and in the process there come times when a disproportionate number of us game your system. I'm sorry, but that's the reward we get for you killing us once every hundred or so years. You're probably gonna do it again, so fuck you, what can we do but live well while we can?
To be continued on the Day...

Saturday, October 1, 2022

Further Thoughts on the Comic Fat Man


The reason to create a list and ranking of 'comic fat men' is because the 'comic fat man' persona is suddenly a simulacrum of a past that suddenly seems quite distant. Until roughly 2013-14, right or wrong, it was simply taken for granted that class was still a greater barrier to advancement than demographic identity. Whether one views the change as good, bad or neutral (and full disclosure: I'm very much inclined to the third belief) cultural discourse and iconography has changed more remarkably in the past ten years than at any point since the Hays Code was lifted in 1968. The figures represented in this are all figures whose dominant presence in our life was before Obama's second term.
What made the comic fat man distinct, aside from size, was the precariousness of the overweight man's position in a society that between 1968 and 2014 was transitioning from antiquated notions of social class to a world that promised absolute freedom to all, but bequeathed only a small bit of it, and almost all beholden to the cis-heteronormative white male. This appearance of freedom was an obvious lie to everyone not of that very particular demographic, but Hollywood's comic fat man was in a utterly unique position to demonstrate the blatantness of the lie because he was both a cisheteronormative white male, and also, thought by all an utterly inadequate exemplar of it, and therefore experiencing all the humiliations and rejections which everyone else was experiencing, but since they had had so little representation on screen, figures like John Candy and Chris Farley were in fact sublimated representations of the trials undergone by a much wider demographic swath.
The ultimate 'Comic Fat Man' role is Del Griffith in John Hughes's 1987 movie, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Del Griffith is the ultimate low-class slob, continually treated by Steve Martin's Yuppie WASP character - Neal Page - with withering contempt. Del is benevolently well-meaning, but utterly oblivious to the encyclopedia of ways in which his manner puts off people of greater advantages, and being a person of low advantages, how was he ever in a position to learn? He was clearly scrambling for his whole life to make ends meet as a door-to-door salesman, and could not even take sufficient time off from his work to mourn the passing of his beloved wife. We are called to identify with Steve Martin's character, because his level of privilege is that to which we all aspire, and we laugh at John Candy's grossness. But the reason the movie is both funny and sad is that we all worry that we are much more like John Candy's character than Steve Martin's, and 99% of us are.
Comedies of identity were more rarely made in 1987, and those few which were were cast by good looking actors of color and good looking women, because casting two removes from society's normative ideal was apparently too much to ask. Eddie Murphy could headline comedies that were box office kings, but even Whoopi Goldberg had to star in movies surrounded by white actors or in dramas.
What changed in the life of the world was the definitive dominance of the internet in cultural discourse. In 2013 came the case of Trayvon Martin vs. George Zimmerman, and with it the dominance of Twitter as the ultimate motivator of American discourse: resulting both in the new focus upon identity over class, and our current level of ideological polarization - perhaps ironically, those who believe social class is still the #1 issue are now of the Right, and are fed their daily reminders by Fox News to keep feeling humiliated by upper class liberals.
To be sure, there were always comic fat black men, comic fat women, comic fat persons of LGBTQ identity, but they were cult figures, who articulated today's concerns to a previous era inconvenient to their hearing, and therefore whatever their current level of production, comedians like Cedric the Entertainer, Margaret Cho and Monique (and it says something for how out of whack beauty standards were in the 90s that Margaret Cho could even be viewed as plus sized...) are far more widely appreciated in our epoch than in the Era of John Candy.
The one exception to this is Roseanne Barr, who was very much a comedienne of class rather than identity, and proved it by her utter insuitability to understand the dynamics of race when she was so acute in understanding the dynamics of class. Her place in pre-2013 society was both unique to her determination to carve out a place for herself in Hollywood, and unique to exceedingly vast gifts. She therefore deserves a highly merited honorable mention.
Further thoughts:
Will Sasso is one of the most underrated Hollywood performers of all time who simply can't catch a break. He does everything - writes brilliantly, acts, sings, plays piano, mimes, he is a sleeping giant in Hollywood.
The idea of leaving out Wayne Knight is unthinkable. This would have been one of the greatest shows ever made....
Frank Caliendo is the bargain basement Comic Fat Man - a comic who made almost his entire reputation on his impression of John Madden, and cannot create a show of his own in which he does anything but mediocre impersonations.
Jeff Garlin, whatever the current news about him, is a very talented comedian, but he is ultimately small potatoes compared to the giants above him, and therefore a rather marginal and late-coming figure in the history of the modern Comic Fat Man.
Artie Lange's drug struggles have long since become more sad than funny - it's awful to watch as we can barely remember the period when he was funny, and his sadness is made almost more awful that he's now outlived both Bob Saget and Norm MacDonald.
The Comic Fat Man before 1968, still within living memory of 19th century notions, was another breed entirely; as excess weight was in some instances a circumstance in which people would take great pride, because it indicated material prosperity. Oliver Hardy, Lou Costello and Curly Howard were all perfect exemplars of the earlier Comic Fat Man, the part of their comic teams to which we always extended our greatest sympathy. They were the ultimate stars of their comedy teams who had the best lines and the best schtik - the reason being that because they were fat, their nosethumbing at people of higher social class had more heft. They were given the best lines, had the most screen time, and because of the humor inherent in their courting women, they were given more romantic situations.
Therefore, here is a new ranking of Comic Fat Men:
John Candy > John Belushi > Will Sasso > Chris Farley > John Goodman > Louie Anderson > Wayne Knight > Zach Galifianaikis > Jack Black > Jeff Garlin > Artie Lange > Kevin James > Frank Caliendo
HM: Rosanne Barr
...every time I try to lose weight I think about fat comedians.

The Affirming Flame - An Extremely Esoteric Rosh Hashana Sermon

 

I have writing, I have music, I have the books on tape I listen to rather than read the thousand books in my apartment (does anybody want them?); I have the thousands of stories I tell, funny and sad - hopefully both together, and such is my life. That, so I tell myself at least, is the purpose for which I was put upon this earth; where others have love, children, tangible things to work at, responsibilities for walking their outline of this planet upon the days of their lives. For all the too much I unwisely write on myself to a public of acquaintances whom by all rights should be nauseated by my pomposity and self-conceit in thinking the world wants to read about me, I was put here not to tell my story: I was put here to tell yours, and tell myself I will that one day wean this brain from the narcissism of continual self-exploration through words to a public that either bores of it or keeps reading, compelled by voyeuristic curiosity.
My selfish prayer, every High Holy Day, is to be allotted the time to tell a story other than my own, and through endless observation and speculation, leave a fair and loving record of what life was like for everyone I've watched, everyone I remember, everyone I've ever read about. I don't doubt it will suck. Whether anyone of the future reads it is their own affair, but I will know that I tried to leave some stenograph of what it means for others than me to live in the world, and for that egotistical act to serve as my repentance. My poor gut tells me the time for it grows shorter, my brain tells me that no matter what the body feels, war may cause wholesale locations of us to live past others. But by those of us capable of it telling a larger story, we all might live on, and future generations will understand how mightily we struggled, how terribly hard we tried, how good was our unconscious faith even when our faith was lost or bad.
It is that overwhelming, egotistical compulsion to create something you all can recognize yourselves in rather than me, that keeps me going day by day, and feels eternally to my mania like a promise handed down by divine mandate. Surely He did not cause the imbalanced to see so much darkness, and then leave no record of how their compensatory abilities might benefit others.
Long term irrationality is its own sort of blessing, because it forms you into an advance scout for those convinced they are rational to hold a mirror to their irrationalities, so that others of the future just might learn how to suffer less - even if they don't, we'll have tried. Just as the mentally balanced watch the atypical and realize their irrational reactions to rational situations are irrational, the mentally imbalanced watch the neurotypical and realize that their rational reactions to the irrational are irrational - a negative times a positive is still a negative, the root of negativity is imaginary, and yet the imaginary number still exists.
Humans are so astonishingly predictable in their unpredictability, history is so rational in its predisposition to irrationality; the most rational response to the world is to expect that a full half the world is irrational in all its manifestations. The only rational response to life is to believe that all things we experience happen entirely by accident, and believe even so that a Divine Hand guides things.
Whether or not we all live on through whatever comes next in this world, the world continues, life is born even as life dies, every solution creates its own new problems; and even the deaths hold out promise that this world is not the real world. I believe we pass through to another world that may at least be realer than this artificial simulation where so much seems made of dirty plastic. We will be reunited with those who love us, and even as we explore the divine mysteries of the universe together, we, family and friends, will yell at each other and simmer in our resentments as though we were on any other vacation, and for all eternity as we live through the same infinity of regrettable words and apologies that comprise all life.

We are all here on earth to live our lives together, but those of us who live our lives alone still do not live to be islands. We all have a purpose here, and even at 40, I can't let go of the thought that I already know my purpose, and intend to live many more years to achieve something resembling its fulfillment. Writing is how I live, how I pray, the way I know that life is not an accident and worth enduring the slings and piles of outrageous bullshit that make us all stink. Every adult of the world is both guilty and innocent of crime, deserving of both love and hatred, justice and retribution, prisoners in a world not of their choosing and presidents powerful enough to create it.
All this bullshit is my selfish creed, the divine electricity that gets me up every day, and when it's time to write your story, may it read more coherently than all this.
Amen.

Elektra: Kleiber vs. Tennstedt

 

The two worst sounding versions of Elektra are arguably its best recordings - from the two conductors people would probably dream about hearing conduct it most often - Carlos Kleiber, whose '77 Covent Garden version has been paraded on all sorts of labels in spite of the fact that the sound is nearly unlistenable, and Klaus Tennstedt, whose Kiel performance is so close to unlistenable that so far as I know, it's never been released on CD. I'll link to it below.
Nobody's broadcast sounds that bad, no matter what the vintage. Not Beecham in 47, not Reiner in 52, and Jochum's studio recording from 1944 sounds pretty close to magnificent. But in spite of the fact that both of them get great singers on off nights, they're two completely opposite performances of a work that does better than just about anybody to convince those of us skeptics that Elektra is a work that's greater than... well... I find Elektra problematic.
It's not problematic as a musical achievement, in that way it's obviously towering. or 'problematic' in the contemporary American parlance which means people find its content offensive, it's just... well... it's stupid. I cannot possibly listen with surtitles on or a libretto next to me, I just start laughing. Every time I see Elektra dance, I start laughing. To think that this is the same composer who would write Rosenkavalier next and move us all to tears (except the modernists...) is almost unthinkable.
I've long since stopped listening to Elektra as anything but background music, and as that, it's great, because the music is perhaps the most inventive ever written by one of the most inventive composers to pick up a pen, and inevitably brings out the best in musicians, who always treat it like Ahab approaching his white whale - the score is so difficult that everybody's at extra pains to get everything right.
The fact that Solti's recording is the most famous makes it worse. He and Culshaw make it into a Vincent Price creeper of an opera - a cinema for the ears that inevitably makes you want to put a movie on more than keep listening. Is it entertaining? Of course. Is it a serious artistic endeavor? Just listen to Birgit Nilsson cackling maniacally (or is it Resnik? At this point I can never remember which character does it and I kinda don't care...) through endless reverb until the most thrilling orchestral interlude Strauss ever wrote is completely subsumed by non-stop deafening laughing. That recording is the best possible evidence that Strauss created this opera with complete cynicism.
I get the sense that's what Kleiber thinks too, but that's what he loves about it. No matter how awful the sound on the Kleiber recording, you still hear every detail, and they come at you at light speed. Hewing closer to Strauss's impossible tempi than most musicians would ever dare, Kleiber built what might have been the greatest thrillride in opera history. Some people comment about how secretly tonal Elektra is. Sure, by the standards of Schoenberg it's plenty tonal, but remember Strauss's injunction to conduct Salome and Elektra like Mendelssohn. The quicksilver way the textures whiz by in Elektra is pure Mendelssohn, but atop all this very traditional counterpoint is a lot of very 20th century harmony and voiceleading. One can make the argument, correctly, that the dissonant harmonies are used for effect, but Elektra is pure effect, the difference is that the effects are not what we think they are. Elektra is not nearly so noisy an opera as we sometimes think it is, but it is much more frenetic. The whole point of Elektra is its concision - it's an opera in constant motion, hurtling us to an inevitable conclusion. It's almost literally written to be the exciting bits of the Ring condensed to an hour and a half (and there are subtle quotes from Der Ring all over Elektra, the least subtle of which is in Elektra's first dance - it's almost Walkurenritt note for note...). You hear Kleiber and you realize, Elektra is not noise, it's energy.
But when listening to Tennstedt, Elektra does not sound done for effect at all - rather a work of pure substance. However awful the sound, this is an Elektra completely unlike any other; slower than all but perhaps Jochum and Maazel, but of a character all its own. I'm sure real Straussians will find fault, not just with the sound or singing, but with Tennstedt's conception, which is truly Mahlerian in a way you'll immediately understand when you hear it. For all Strauss's avant-garde irony, there is no sense in Tennstedt that Strauss meant the work in anything but complete seriousness - a great tragic work in the tradition of Beethoven op. 131 and the Pathetique Sonata. It's a grand tragic prayer, like the sacred rite Aeschylus intended in which we are told truths too important to convey through any medium but the stage. Through the bad sound is ecstatic forebodding, a terrifying prediction of 20th century doom.
This is ultimately the difference between Kleiber and Tennstedt, and why I think Tennstedt's the superior artist. Kleiber made everything look joyful, but everybody knew that Kleiber was going through agony trying to convince us. Tennstedt laid bare his suffering and thereby found deeper things to tell us. Every practitioner since Kleiber has gotten a whole bag of tricks from him. The concert hall is practically populated with
dozens of mini-Kleibers who mime his arms and faces. But nobody's learned anything from Tennstedt, because what Tennstedt did cannot be learned.

A Ranking of Comic Fat Men

John Candy > John Belushi > Chris Farley > John Goodman > Louie Anderson > Zach Galifianaikis > Jack Black > Kevin James

Fat comic actors is something I think about a lot. Further commentary:

John Belushi is such a Boomer icon no other generation knows about that it's difficult to appreciate how funny he was unless you actively go on youtube and watch old clips. The persona of the modern comedic fat man comes from him (though he wasn't that fat), and in many ways he's never been bettered.
John Candy bettered him. He is the gold standard fat man in comedy - versatility of characters played, physical grace, delivery of lines, responsiveness to other actors onscreen, selection of projects, general work ethic, he is truly comedy's fat man among comic fat men.
This list is purely of fat white males because, for better or worse, fat men of color and fat women are not considered for the same roles as fat white men. This is a systemic imbalance that I hope we redress with all due haste.
John Goodman is mostly a serious actor who performed no standup and wrote no skits. He would place much higher if complete performing talent were factored in. This is also why Nathan Lane does not belong on this list at all - he is much more stage performer than even screen actor, let alone comedic fat actor. One can include John Goodman for being one degree of separation, one cannot include Nathan Lane when he is two or three.
Whether or not one finds Jack Black funny, Jack Black will always be Jack Black in whatever role he plays. One either finds his persona as comedic fat man funny, or one doesn't, and once one determines whether you do, there is nothing he does that will make you change your mind.
Chris Farley is, to this day, an underrated performer who was so much smarter and more versatile than he gets credit for being. We never saw the full height of what Chris Farley was capable of giving us. Nevertheless, this is a list of comedic fat men's achievements, not comedic fat men's talents.
John Pinette deserves to be on this list, but he was sadly not well known enough to merit inclusion.
Kevin James should just feel honored to be on this list.
Beginning with Zach Galfianakis, the quality of comic fat men precipitously drops. It is not only because Zach Galfianakis lost weight and kept it off, it is because Zach Galfianakis's brand of avant-garde Andy Kaufmann-esque comedy is inconsistent. Whether on Between Two Ferns or The Hangover or Live at the Purple Onion, his awkwardness is sometimes very very funny, it is sometimes just dull, and both in completely objective, measurable ways.
Louie Anderson is one of the funniest and bravest standup comedians who's ever lived, regardless of weight, but nevertheless, he is always Louie Anderson, even when in cartoon form or playing a woman, and therefore his entire appeal as a performer is tied to his extremely specific persona.
Jonah Hill is a new generation of comedic fat man who does not play by quite the same persona as his forebearers. Whether thin or fat, he must be further evaluated by study of future performances.