more kaplan responses

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, but he’s not a fraud since he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a passionate advocate for one score.

I own something in the neighborhood of 40 recording of Mahler 2, including both Kaplan releases.  I would not rate either of Kaplan’s recordings as among my favorites, but I would rate them closer to the top then the bottom.  I suspect that he has a deep knowledge of the score and some idea of how to put the piece together in a rehearsal (and by extension piece together a recording), but lacks the true understanding of what it takes to make it a valuable performance …

The biggest part of being a conductor is making the performance great, in all that entails. Which is why you have yet to see me refer to him as “Maestro” Kaplan anywhere in this painfully long bloviation. But that in no way defines Kaplan as a fraud. He is a man with a passion, a dedication to supporting artistic endeavors, and the resources to realize those passions and endeavors.

What’s fraudulent about that?

Opera Chic finds major sarcasm and points out the non-irony of a musician disliking a conductor and is generally not happy with the public spanking of Kaplan on the trombonist’s blog:

… Gilbert Kaplan — whom we never met — is neither the greatest conductor ever of Mahler’s Second (that’s Klemperer), nor the greatest conductor of Mahler’s Second of this day and age (that’s either Abbado or Haitink, with Chailly in third place). But “amateur with a baton”? Seriously? Given his monster knowledge of that work? How many “amateurs with a computer” are there at the New York Times, using the same standard?

… It’s obvious that Kaplan is no conductor in the sense that he has no repertoire and has no specific training and his gesture is a mess. But except for point 1, 2 and 3 are common currency for so many HIP conductors (and if you want to discuss point 1, let OC mention Harnoncourt’s appalling Aida).

Having said this — if you don’t like Kaplan, don’t take his cash. And if you let him conduct your orchestra, make sure the players who get paid to play for (with, whatever) the guy are professional enough not to slam him on their blogs …

Kaplan was on Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago, and there are two comments from NYPhil musicians (both violists, natch) that show that Finlayson was not a “lone gunman” in regards to his opinion of Kaplan:

Judith Nelson writes: I played in Monday night’s concert and in the three rehearsals that preceded it, and I can say that in my 25 years in the Philharmonic I have never played under a worse conductor. He is certainly an enthusiast, and has clearly built his life in recent years around this symphony and around studying Mahler’s life and work. This is fine preparation to be a scholar, but it emphatically does NOT prepare him to lead an orchestra. He’s really no more than an extremely ambitious and well-coached amateur with deep pockets and a lot of chutzpah. Philharmonic members are furious that this memorable occasion, the centenary of Mahler conducting the American premiere of the piece, should be observed by this shabby performance. We made it through the piece, even with some style, because we’ve performed it many times with great conductors and we know it inside out. When I compare this to the unforgettable experience of playing it with Lenny, with Jessye Norman, I weep with frustration. If you want to check out a really passionate recording, listen to ours with Lenny and Christa Ludwig. Now THERE was a true Mahlerite.

Kenneth Mirkin writes: I am also a member of the NY Philharmonic, and played the concert Monday night with Mr Gilbert. I can safely say in my 27 years in the orchestra, he is the worst conductor I have ever played under. Mr Kaplan is completely incompetent, and is just on a huge ego trip. If he wants to do justice to Mahler, he should use his philanthropic funds to pay real musicians to do the conducting. That concert was a low point in the careers of all the musicians of the Philharmonic. The concert sounded quite good, but that is because this great orchestra was able to ignore Mr Kaplan and play on our own. It is time for the press to stop lauding Mr Kaplan and call him for what he is: a charlatan. This emperor has no clothes, and it is not a pretty sight.

Rock Town Hall writes from the non-classical music viewpoint, and shows how appealing Kaplan is to the non-cognoscenti:

Kaplan made millions as a young man by publishing some financial magazine I’d never heard of and would surely find baffling. In 1965, a friend took him to watch a rehearsal of Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 in C minor at Carnegie Hall. The next night he attended the concert and had a life-changing reaction. This particular symphony would become his obsession. He took an 18-month break from his business to study the score and learn from famous conductors. In 1982, he actually conducted the symphony, which is supposedly a challenging piece to conduct even for the masters.

As the linked article can better tell you (you may have to register to read The Economist online, but you’ll be happy you do, if only for the obituaries), this dream and driving artistic force has led to Kaplan becoming the world’s expert on this symphony and the honor of conducting the piece tonight (December 8, 2008), at the Lincoln Center’s Avery Fisher Hall, where Mahler himself premiered the piece for US audiences exactly 100 years ago!

This is one cool story, if you ask me.