I’ve been (in between watching marathon stretches of House MD on dvd) thinking a bit more about the flap over Gilbert Kaplan conducting the New York Philharmonic. It seems that there are two diverging views of the situation, both of which are misguided, or at least misappropriated. Kaplan #1 is an earnest amateur, passionate about
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Steve Smith, music editor for Time Out New York and a freelance reviewer who often writes classical music reviews for the New York Times, writes about his review of the Gilbert Kaplan led performance of Mahler 2 with the New York Philharmonic here. Interesting reading, and it shows how critical a missing sentence can be
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
More responses are coming in to the original blog post that started the online bickering over whether or not Gilbert Kaplan is a charlatan or a conductor – sometimes I ask myself, what’s the difference? – here’s a sampling: At A Musical Rampage we get the opinion that Kaplan might not be a real conductor,
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Norman Lebrecht has weighed in with his opinion of the blog post by the New York Philharmonic’s bass second trombonist David Finlayson which expressed in no uncertain terms Finlayson’s low regard for the conducting prowess and musical fitness of amateur conductor Gilbert Kaplan. Read the Lebrecht posting and digest your initial reaction for a bit
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
UPDATE: Sam Bergman weighs in with his take on the situation, along with some helpful facts to clear up some misconceptions about the hiring of conductors. He also notes that the NY Phil did not attempt (it seems) to muzzle one of its musicians breaking silence on his blog – which, for me as a
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
