Yannick perfects the art of saying nothing
OrchestrasThe Met and Philadelphia music director is not renowned for profound insights into life and art – or even trivial ones.
Over 15 years he has managed to say next to nothing in media interviews, to the point where most journalists have given up. Or maybe he just has noting to say.
Here’s his latest triumph of nullity on 60 Minutes.
I found the segment excellent and his interview revealing.
At least use spellcheck if you are going to needlessly insult someone
His criticism wasn’t for something as petty as a typo. Everybody makes typos. It was substantive. If Yannick’s persona wasn’t the only thing that was superficial, I doubt Norman would have commented. The problem is his music making is a reflection of that triviality.
He said a lot more than most conductors, wouldn’t you say? Seems like a respectable person.
Yannick must have studied James Levine interviews.
I don’t think so! James Levine, in his earlier years, gave much insight, into understanding, and evaluating, and interpreting, many musical masters, works, in his interviews, and discussions with others!
How so?
I watched the 60 Minutes interview and it was typical Yannick…but with Yannick those “in the know” know it’s not what he “says” but what he “does” that really counts! Montreal? Philly? The Met? All “simultaneously”? He’s not just one person…he’s gotta be one person plus two exact clones!!! And more power to them all!!
‘I’ve become a collection of like 12, 000 cds’… brilliant YNZ, could not have said it better.
Fits his conducting to a T
But seriously, it is not so much YNS than the show itself that is naive, and not more so than similar shows from the times of Melchior, Flagstad, Mitropoulos, Reiner, Szell. . . So the question is how the music making compares, and whether the Blanchard will last as good at all those Mozarts, Verdis and Puccinis.
Hardly a fair observation, Norman. A glossy popular show such as 60 Minutes isn’t looking to present a profound discourse, and Yannick gave them exactly what they were looking for. If you want an interview of intellectual depth, interview him yourself!
At least he’s a great example of a music director being really involved with his community!
Also a small nugget of wisdom that can be posted under every slippedisc article:
‘And if some people are upset, well then, too bad!’
I live a block from Lincoln Center. Yannick has little or no name recognition in the city. He’s almost (almost) as invisible as the more recent music directors (Dudemal will change this) at the Philharmonic. Celebrity-wise, he just doesn’t possess the “it” factor, despite his desperate, non-musical attempts with his fashion and other affectations.
Given Yannick’s personal limitations, he would be better served to put all his energies into music-making, not celebrity-creating. It’s never going to happen.
Incomprehensible. His agents must be really good. And the audiences really deaf. So meaningless, so boring, so superficial.
Norman,
With all due respect, did you even bother to watch the segment?
For all of your ragging on the Met about their ticket sales, a portion of it discussed how their productions of new operas by living composers (including Black composers) are selling out, and that 50 percent of the people in the audience are attending a Met performance for the first time. That’s unequivocally a triumph for the Met.
Further, there was then a discussion with YNS about if all of the new operas will alienate long-time Met patrons who prefer Verdi and Puccini. YNS was candid and pithy saying that if these folks don’t like the new operas, then don’t go to them.
Lastly, in light of the recent Gardiner incident, the segment discussed YNS’s approach with soloists — if a singer asks him to slow the tempo, for example, he does. And then YNS discussed why he believes trying to be an autocratic conductor doesn’t work.
This was in fact one of the better YNS interviews, and it made the case that despite his fluffy public persona, what he’s doing is working for musicians, composers, and audiences.
Norman and his reactionary followers don’t seem to want to, except the fact that they were operas, and socially relevant operas are wildly popular. What’s worse, is that they seem to have this white supremacist idea that including music by women and composers of color will replace their favorites by dead white men. Inclusion means inclusion of all, including the beloved classics. Of course, they write off the diverse music as not having “merit.“ But clearly all those ticket buyers are finding merit. By extension, because Yannick is a champion of something that they hate, then obviously Yannick is lacking. I find that his conducting evokes terrific engagement from his very fine players, and he brings a very wide palette that he uses wonderfully.
Yeah, but let’s not sell Yannick short in the core repertory. His “Lohengrin” at the Met was as good as any other performance I’ve seen/heard. It got a rave review in the NY Times – and completely deserved it. It wasn’t just great singing – the orchestra was tremendous, and it came together magnificently. That doesn’t happen by itself, or on automatic pilot. It leaves me excited to hear more Wagner from Yannick.
I was at one of the Lohengrins and could not agree more! Not only was the orchestra tremendous, but the original double-male choral score was used and it was a triumph. Say what you will about his hair, his clothes, to these ears he presented a definitive rendition of the opera.
So, if we’re less exclusive, we’ll have more excellence? How do you even hobble together a rationale for that conceit. If that’s true, why aren’t we doing more music by say….the Irish. Would the music world be more excellent with less Stravinsky but more of his contemporary, Hamilton Harty? That’s more inclusive. I read somewhere that of late, Florence Price is getting more performances than Copland. Really? That’s excellence? You can’t fashion a reasonable rebuttal to any of the above……but you can call your critics white supremacists. (I’m sure the Met is just a hotbed of grand dragons.) As Jonathan Haidt says….you can tell which side is wrong by which side shoots their dissidents.
You need to understand slashing tickets to $25 doesn’t exactly make a great statement for a (near) sellout. In the theater world we call that “papering the house” (practically giving away seats to invoke a full house). It wasn’t but a mere two decades ago I could barely get a standing room ticket for $25, NOW available for Orchestra seating!?#! While this may be a great deal for us poor people, it is a DEATH KNOLL for an institution like the MET. Even worse if you dive further into todays donor base/dollars! Having new attendees is fantastic- but if they don’t like the actual product (Opera) and don’t become regulars/donors this won’t solve the problems ahead. I fear the ship won’t be turned in time … It will go down with GELB at the helm.
I don’t know if English is your native language, but the expression is death KNELL, not death KNOLL. Maybe it was a typo? I’m surprised auto-correct/ spellcheck didn’t pick it up.
“50 percent of the people in the audience are attending a Met performance for the first time. That’s unequivocally a triumph for the Met.”
How many are coming back the second time?
What did you expect?
I miss the days when both 60 minutes and conductors were great.
He is the personification of utter vacuity but he did manage to make one thing explicit. He wants a cooler, hipper audience at the Met….they just haven’t come before because they didn’t feel welcome, he gushes. No doubt a shallow, narcissistic, self-promoting charlatan on the podium will be just the thing to soothe their unease. Mind you, he already has an audience but it’s pretty clear he doesn’t think much of it. He relishes boasting that he doesn’t care if he pisses off “the traditionalists”. Good luck trying to make those who have never supported you feel welcome. Expanding the audience is great….but you might want to give some care to making your loyal supporters feel like they’re welcome and valued as well. I’ve attended operas at the Met for years and I have no desire to return.
Get over yourself. The Met does plenty of productions of traditional music. They discovered in the course of their data collection that the “traditionalists” don’t come more than a few times a year anyway, so what’s the point in catering to them throughout the entire season?
You’ll have plenty of chances to watch Carmen or Rigoletto. You don’t have to attend the productions that offend you. You don’t have to go when Yannick is on the podium either. Refusing to attend altogether without even looking at the programming is childish and contributes to the inevitable collapse of one of your very few American opera houses.
I can’t even believe I’m defending the contemporary crap, because it’s not my cup of tea either, but if it’s selling tickets then they should keep doing whatever sells. It’s called self-preservation.
It’s all well and good for people like you to claim you’re former supporters and grovel that your opinions ought to be weighted over those of the first-time attendees, but how many shows did you go to, and how much did you donate in the seasons before Yannick took over? I’m willing to bet you’re no more a valued patron than any other schmuck who bought a rush ticket once or twice.
By any measure, the coming Met season is one of the weakest in decades. For those of us who regularly attend and support the Met, it is like watching ice melt.
By any measure? What measure? I’d love to hear how you measure that. Sounds like a matter of opinion to me.
By an *actual* measure, a survey of all their patrons, those who proclaim to be opera lovers and fanatics don’t come more than a few times a year. And unless you’re the unicorn who attends on a weekly basis I suspect there’s more than enough on the calendar to suit your fancy.
There are many informed unicorns in Manhattan. Luckily, I am fortunate enough to travel frequently.
You’re right. They won’t miss me. I did only attend a few performances every year. But still for me it was a big investment because I live 1,500 miles away. And for years, I’ve made 1-3 trips a year to attend the Met. But the one thing I take issue with is that I expect to be groveled to…..such a willful mischaracterization of my post. There is a huge chasm between being devalued and disrespected and being groveled to. Norman’s right. He’s glib and shallow. Broadening the base is important, but he’s too dim witted to do it without making a hash of it. If this works for them, good for them, but I have my doubts. I’ll still support the arts but now closer to home. Btw, you should do PR for him. You can tell all the schmucks how the Met doesn’t need them. That’s the message I’m hearing.
No mischaracterization here. Some old fart from far away wants the Met to produce an entire season that appeals to him because he’s not satisfied with the substantial percentage that remains “traditional”, but he’s only going to come 1-3 times a year anyway.
If you can’t find 3 productions in their entire season that remind you of the “good old” days, you’re obviously not reading the season brochure. Or maybe you’re “old-fashioned” (read: racist) and you mostly just find it unappealing that they’re catering to “that” crowd once in a while.
Sorry, you’re far off base. I traveled annually for decades (40+) – Donated annually as well, even considered having my estate willed to the Met upon my demise. Sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You cannot have success without a (successful) PRODUCT … check the financials if you need proof of this … and NO, my will has been changed. If you think $25 tickets/buyers will be it’s savings grace, think again.
Look at every organization nationwide. Check in with the League of American orchestras. Find me some data that suggests the Met is in a unique position here or that orchestras with adventurous programming do worse in general than those who lean more heavily on the classics. No such data exists. Let’s check in with the LA Phil finances. How are they doing? Pretty darn well. How well are their musicians paid? Just about better than anywhere else in the entire world. How much new music do they play? A ridiculous amount.
When orchestras struggle, mismanagement is often the name of the game, and that’s in the C-suite, not the artistic leadership.
Also there’s not one orchestra in America that expects to turn a profit from ticket sales. Selling $25 single tickets isn’t about paying the bills. It’s about converting a new and curious audience into a consistent and dedicated one. Young people in major cities who earn well are next in line to discover the tax benefits of charitable giving.
“You’ll have plenty of chances to watch Carmen or Rigoletto.”
in Eurotrash productions that keep the public away.
Nein, danke.
That was Gelb’s attitude when he assumed the position of General Manager. Look how that worked out…yet, they continue to blame the audience.
Y’all are about to die.
Nice
Wow, the Met’s PR department is working on weekends now.
100 % agree. And I find it so curious those who tout fifty-percent of their ticket holders are first-timers.. GREAT … but do they really not understand they’ve lost HALF their tickets base!? Don’t even begin to mention their donor loss!
There are very few musicians who have interesting thing to say…Musicians should make unteresting music. I do no understand why they should be required to be profound thinkers or compelling storytellers…
That’s the reason why his career mostly takes place with US orchestras. Europe would be too deep and profound for him.
Europe can keep its “profound” snobs and bullies. We’ve got bigger fish to fry over here.
Rotterdam for ten years? Last time I checked that was Europe.
Not to mention the Chamber Orchestra of Europe.
In fact he dresses on the podium like an immature kid…
He probably sees that as the ultimate egalitarianism; see, I’m no better than anybody else after all!!!
More and more Slipped Disc posts perfect the art of saying nothing. Bashing people and informing people are two very different things.
Totally disagree. In fact, the 60 Minutes segment made me like him even more!
He studied with YoYo Ma, he was always good at saying nothing too
I know which I prefer between a conductor who lets their music making do the talking, and a conductor who spouts drivel and whose music making is barely mediocre (far too many in that category to mention).
The interviewer and network do not let him talk much.
Aboli bibelot d’inanité sonore.
Oh come on now Norman, the last conductor to say anything worth repeating was Sir Thomas Beecham. This Wit and Wisdom of Herbert von Karajan wasn’t top of the bestsellers list.
and so is conducting…much on the outside, shallow on the inside
As a major opera fan since childhood, I’m disgusted and appalled as to the current state of the Met. I no longer attend as all the biggies have either passed on or exited the stage.
I also sense the traditional operas are on their way out. These unmelodious and loud ‘modern operas’, outselling Rigoletto? The writing is on the wall.
That’s what a smart person does. This is a business. You have a product to promote. It is unwise to make strong statements as it can alienate people. Everyone has an opinion and people get offended at the drop of a hat. That’s why members of the royal families worldwide tread carefully, to use a UK friendly example.
Yannick has 30 years of career left. This isn’t like the Chicago MD who has at the end of his (way too long) career so it’s OK to be brash.
In private, YNS is more straightforward.
Why is this site so obsessed with YNS? He seems like a good person and is certainly making classical music more interesting to the average concertgoer (who are tenuous at best) His recordings with Philly are fabulous and they seem to love him. Why all the consternation?
Not sure why the criticism. Seems like a very personable talented man. Does he have to be controversial on a 60 minute puff piece? I’ve seen a great deal of criticism of Yannick. Not justified in my mind. I’m a huge fan of classical music. Have heard and seen some of the greatest over the last 50 years. I have not had the pleasure yet of hearing the Maestro. However will be attending the Requiem this September. He seems genuinely friendly, warm and talented.
Well, I think he is a very gifted and articulated young man. It’s refreshing to see someone not being a snob, Norman.
Nothing to say – that applies to most of his performances as a conductor.
Yannick to me has never been anything but a Routinier. I am never interested in ordinary. Glad to see others are beginning to notice.
Definitely surpassed by the sycophantic drivel of the interviewer.
That could have been a story about The Dude, Bernstein or any conductor in between. A story about how they alone will bring in new audiences to replace the blue hairs, to revitalize the dead art. So what. I don’t think YNS is to blame here. He did his part very well.
Amazing! He also has nothing to say from the podium….
He’s a good conductor. Not great but good.
Okay. Now, the next leader of all those orchestras should be a woman. It’s about time for their interpretations to be heard.
That might pull in even more people to classical music, opera and all the rest of what makes life bearable.
Live and let live, but don’t even think about comparing yourself to Toscanini. Bad move.
Such a blatantly amateur conductor. Focused on styling his little remaining hair, and on picking socks matching those of “Justine” Trudeau, another beauty.
Music be damned.
There’s nothing to age quicker and uglier than momentary trendiness.
“Triumph of nullity” – well put, Norman.
Not sure what YNS has to do with Canadian politics.
Perhaps he wants the music to speak for itself.
If music can be expressed in words, why not just start a blog post?
I think he does exceedingly well. Not impressed by the journalist, though.
Sorry, I completely disagree. What the segment to me conveys is someone who loves music and musicians. I found him profound.
At 5′:38″, James Levine is “The Conductor Who Must Not be Named.”
Thanks Captain Obvious.
Chill, Norman. Be friendly. Do we ask from a music critic to be able to play even one single melody meaningfully?
His answers in this segment were as articulate as the questions warranted. Besides, when facing a choice between a conductor who is eloquent in his/her music making but unremarkable as a speaker and one who is exciting as a speaker but a mediocre musician, I prefer the former every time.
“Nothing comes from nothing” (King Lear).
And yet, he says a lot. A lot of important things about the state of the art today, important things that must be said. When we have ‘profound’ Muti insulting the audience with profanities or ‘profound’ Gardiner (not a Sir at all), assaulting a performer, I will take Yannick any day. You are so off with your assessment of the 60 minutes interview.
He has energy, so in the Us, it’s enough to be a good conductor and get a whoo from audience at the end of a performance… nothing to say, discutable taste… that makes him a star of our time….the only time he surprised me was when he said Giulini was his role model….I am still searching what he took from him. He’s not worse than anyone else… seems a nice guy, maybe better in opera…
“Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.”
“Here’s his latest triumph of nullity on 60 Minutes.”
Hats off, Norman!
Classical music is now a big joke full of poseurs. Looks, celebrity culture, cult of personality, wokism and non-stop bs.
My public radio station just played Yannick’s PO record of Rach’s The Isle of the Dead. Lovely, taught performance. Riveting and brooding sound. Perfection. He’s a gifted orchestra leader and Philly is really good with him.