Harsh reception for Nathalie Stutzmann in Atlanta
OrchestrasThe French conductor got a rude awakening at her season opener from Atlanta critic Mark Gresham:
In Mahler’s first symphony, he writes, ‘we got a performance that was mostly serviceable, but not did not rise to an occasion of greatness. The opening movement should be a continuously unfolding journey with fresh sonic perspectives around every bend in the road, but often it felt like it did not go anywhere in terms of forward motion or architectural development. Lead-ups to climaxes, in both this and the final movement, didn’t seem to grow at a pace to reach their goals in time, but seemed to disjunctively leap into them at the last moment.’
There’s more, much more, here.
Interesting article. As someone who has worked with NS as conductor, there is no doubting her musical ability. She is an extremely likeable personality which spawns loyalty; on that point I understand her Atlanta fanboys. Another colleague expressed concerns that, while she may make a good impression with familiar repertoire, she is found wanting in pieces with which the orchestra may not be familiar. This is part of the process of becoming an able conductor and I, for one, hope she has sufficient opportunity to continue on this path. In this age of post-pubescent, tousle-haired conservatoire ‘maestri’ the presence on the scene of an immense international vocal artist with nothing to prove making her way on the podium can only be welcomed. Good luck, Nathalie.
Before the inevitable pushback, here’s another excerpt from the article :
“While Stutzmann has many legitimately criticizable shortcomings as a conductor (as do almost all conductors), there exists a clutch of Acolytes who believe Stutzmann is the second coming of sliced bread and that she can do no wrong. To criticize her finds many deaf ears among them (so to speak) or at times births an emotional response as if a truck had just run over their favorite poodle. They will be happy only with nothing short of total adulation; some have made that clear.”
lol
To go after the audience is always an odd move by a music critic; to go after the audience in an entire paragraph in such charged terms is uncharitable. So defensive. It’s not as if an audience cheering a conductor is booing the critic, but this critic sure takes it as a personal affront.
That said, every orchestra has a guy in the audience who is the first to jump up and whoop and holler BRAVO the second the music stops. But let neurodiversity be, some people are naturally more enthusiastic and vocal, accept that their joy is genuine and that music touches people differently. Not everyone has to listen to music analytically, not everyone wants to, not even the composer.
The critic is himself a composer.
He would be thrilled if he had such a “clutch of Acolytes”, advocating for him to be played every season by every orchestra, cheering with “total adulation” after every performance, even if his fan base didn’t intellectually understand a single thing about his work, but responded to it entirely emotionally.
So why begrudge it against another artist?
Appears hypocritical and small.
Maybe that is the inside dirt, that Stutzman refused to program any of his works for her entire tenure in Atlanta.
Well, she certainly won’t after this, lol.
“Much of the audience loved it”
He’s having a go at the audience now.
Brings to mind David Hurwitz (whether you like him or not) on why he doesn’t believe in live performance criticism (as opposed to records criticism): am I going to tell the audience that this thing they liked actually sucked? That their enthusiastic reaction was misguided? Or that they shouldn’t have liked it or are stupid for having liked it?
Tramonto: Is DH going to tell his viewers/readers that this *recording* they liked actually sucked? That their enthusiastic reaction was misguided? Or that they shouldn’t have liked it or are stupid for having liked it?
I think the answer is “Yes” every time!
Not thát much more, really. It just wasn’t great, from what I read. The outer movements of Mahler 1 are quite difficult to pull off for a less than great conductor, as was shown this week in Amsterdam, where Klaus Mäkelä meandered his way through both with the Concertgebouw. Luckily for him and her, Mahler wrote in some big climaxes to get the audience going no matter what.
Nice review, pity having to read again that b*s* about Schumann the orchestrator
Never having much cared for the Schumann symphonies, I found them much more appealing in the Mahler edition. Instead of mud, young Beethoven.
“One can’t rehearse Schumann’s orchestral music without recalling all the many clichés about his problems as an orchestrator. To me, Schumann has one of the great ears for color of any composer. Think of the brass writing in the 4th movement of the 3rd symphony, or the slow movement of the cello concerto where the soloist and the principal cellist of the orchestra link hands for one of the most miraculously beautiful passages in any piece.”
https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2008/06/27/schumann-orchestration-and-mozart-tempi/
i heard the concert, well written and well justified
I happened to be there.
Yeah, the Mahler wasn’t great.
Stutzmann added in a lot of rubato, pauses, and sudden diminuendos that all got in the way of how the music naturally unfolds.
It felt like trying to say something new by throwing spaghetti at the wall.
The orchestra’s playing was quite good. Incisive and sharp.
I read the whole review and noted the comment that Schumann was not a great orchestrator. That is an old old calumny and indeed I wondered just how much of this “ review “ represented a bygone and unmissed era of music criticism.
It’s a rather pompous article sadly and accordingly I am reluctant to give his comments credence.
Whenever I want to comment on this conductor, I am being accused of anti-woke plus other not so honorable things.
Basically, people are telling me that my eyes, my ears, my intelligence, my senses are all deceiving, worthless and fake.
I have reached my daily quota on expressing my view. . Thank you.
It is entirely possible to critique an artist or a performance intelligently, even harshly, without resorting to “anti-woke” nonsense. Go ahead — try it. I’ll certainly read with an open mind.
Mark Gresham writes of this one (or two — did he attend both?) recent performance by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra of Mahler’s 1st Symphony under the baton of music director Nathalie Stutzmann:
“… we got a performance that was mostly serviceable, but not did not rise to an occasion of greatness.”
Such are the wages of a critic: is every performance supposed to somehow achieve “greatness?” That is impossible. Nor should it be expected. On any consistent basis — whatsoever. Even by the music director. And most especially a relatively new one.
“Mostly serviceable.”
Is that another word for merely a “good” performance? It looks like that may indeed be the case.
Then that more understandable word should be used, rather than the word “serviceable,” which some critics like, since it strongly implies some sort of deeply considered judgement superior to all others. It is almost as if one’s car has been repaired and met sufficient standards for such repairs.
I understand what Mr. Gresham is attempting to convey by such writing, but his other comments on the performance(s) of Mahler 1 hint that your “average” intermittent concertgoer would be mostly or even entirely satisfied with the performance.
There is nothing untoward about that sort of audience reaction.
Then we have the following:
“Much of the audience loved it, but the eruptions of applause after the first movement and subsequent smatterings of attempts between movements felt a bit artificial, as if some “fanboys” were behind it.”
Critics should almost always refrain from somehow attempting to “interpret” the response of the audience to a particular movement or composition, especially if such commentary implies that the applause is mere “adulation.”
Such turns of phrase exude that good old fashion elitist attitude.
On the role of the music director of a major US orchestras today, he writes:
“It also means investing deeply in the larger community, which includes residing in the city (something that’s de rigueur with American orchestras) and investing deeply in the community, not flying in and staying at temporary digs when in town.”
The notion that a music director must reside in the city (year round?) where the orchestra is located is not exactly heaven storming sentiment. Would such a step — or does such a step — somehow lead to more consistently superior performances? That is extremely doubtful.
Like most living and long gone music directors of major orchestras, Nathalie Stutzmann is likely merely good, rather than “great.”
What a surprise.
“Mostly serviceable” isn’t exactly a pan. But the paragraph about the “fanboys” cheering between movements is odd. Atlanta must be a livelier place than I thought.
So somebody had the nerve, the gall to criticize a female conductor? How appalling! If this critic was displeased, perhaps he can stay home and listen to Cate Blanchett’s complete Mahler recordings.
I attended this concert on Saturday and sadly must largely agree with Mr. Gresham. The balance issues in the Schumann really hampered an otherwise great performance (the soloist and the acting principle cellist both played beautifully). The inner movements of Mahler were both well done, but the finale was a let down (an accomplishment of sorts given the piece). It is the second concert in a row with Stutzmann that I have left dissappointed.
What was more striking to me is the mention of a toxic culture. There were several prominent musicians missing in the orchestra, which seemed odd for an opening weekend, but maybe folks were just ill.
He must be a very important critic to write like that.
Read the whole review. This is what music criticism has come to in this country…..see for yourself. And now are we going to get an SD post after every “review” by these “reviewers?” There are plenty of this ilk (try the NYT or New York Classical Review. No more Allan Kozinns thats for sure.
I’ve found Stutzmann’s pacing to be stunning. Could it be that the writer had a grumpy night? He didn’t like the Schumann either, and complained that Stutzmann achieved a really soft pianissimo. Really?
Do people in Atlanta no anything about music ?
Nathalie is great.
Know, they don’t.
Funny!
Peopool who don’t no the difference between no and know are such loosers. I can’t weight until they stop righting.
Hey Coup, thanks for embellishing my comment.
Dumbest of dumb
The same article also reads:
“Much of the audience loved it, but the eruptions of applause after the first movement and subsequent smatterings of attempts between movements felt a bit artificial, as if some “fanboys” were behind it. While Stutzmann has many legitimately criticizable shortcomings as a conductor (as do almost all conductors), there exists a clutch of Acolytes who believe Stutzmann is the second coming of sliced bread and that she can do no wrong. To criticize her finds many deaf ears among them (so to speak) or at times births an emotional response as if a truck had just run over their favorite poodle. They will be happy only with nothing short of total adulation; some have made that clear. But that is not what this publication is about.”
To attribute applause between movements to a “clutch of Acolytes,” especially at a season opener, is just plain odd. Wouldn’t die-hard fans of a conductor know NOT to clap between movements and especially not want to disturb their “second coming”? The logic is not adding up here. The case is more likely that attendees are excited and there’s an influx of those who are unaware of concert etiquette due to the hype of a season opening concert. Hardly a crime, we should thank them for buying a ticket. Lots of other parts of the review, especially strictly musical critiques, were valid but this feels like confirmation bias.
P.S: “That’s not what this publication is about.” Then why are you writing about it?
Yeah, he’s probably working on a new piece for handbell choir, six violas, and seven starving cats.
That piece might work, but maybe not in Springfield, Ohio.
A good, possible solution, would be to substitute seven banjos. But honestly, if I heard seven banjos, six violas, and a handbell choir, I’d have to start paddling faster. It’s Ohio.
Reviewing a concert is so pointless… it’s not like it’s going to happen again… and even bad concert performances are still enjoyable…
Oh I am not so sure having heard Teddy Abrams. Ouch that was a bad one.
Reminds me of the allegedly true story that goes something like this: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau runs into Klemperer, asks whether he’ll be attending his next conducting gig (forget now what DFD was conducting). Klemperer responds, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry Herr Fieskau but that day I’m going to go hear Solti sing “Winterreise”.
In the version I heard, Klemperer claimed it was he who was singing Winterreise that night.
So, downvoter, what’s your version?
Moron.
Same here. That’s the version I’ve heard.
It’s true that Robert Schumann was a bad orchestrator; however, we must remember that the oboe had not yet been invented when he was alive.
I assume that’s a joke, but not a very funny one. My introduction to Schumann was Leonard Bernstein’s recording of the Rhenish, and I was carried away. Perhaps the orchestration was the way the composer intended it to sound?
He was also a poor conductor (“I can’t seem to get them to play on time”). So how come I still adore Schumann!?
It’s true that Robert Schumann was a bad conductor; however, we must remember that conducting had not yet been invented when he was alive.
Actually it had, but only just. Hans von Bülow was the first pro, I think.
It’s true that Hans von Bülow was a pro; however, we must remember that being a pro had not yet been invented when he was alive.
Wasn’t Mendelssohn a conductor too?
It’s true that Mendelssohn was; however, we must remember that Mendelssohn hadn’t been invented when he was alive.
I like to hear sliding strings in Mahler like the 1920’s Mengelberg recording but coductors today don’t do that.
Well the ‘problem’ with the Mengelberg slidings is, is that it was the style of playing of that era (not always) and particulary that of Mengelberg with the Concertgebouw orchestra (when you hear his immediate successor, van Beinum, the slidings are minimal). When you try to recreate it, it sounds mostly studied, unnatural, artificial and mannered like the recent Mahler Academy recording of his 9th shows. It’s like: lets hear us do a sliding, it doesnt come from the music itself and it becomes tiresome to the ear.
Mahler himself conducted with sliding strings. MTT did some with L.A. Phil in the 9th symphony first movement and it sounded natural, old fashioned yes but authentic.
You mean Portamento?
A portamento is mostly written in the score, a sliding is more a unwritten way of playing when there is a change in position on the violin. Old school then.
I thought Portamento was a style of the period. Big in the 20s and 30s. Listen to the original soundtrack Gone With The Wind particularly the Overture and Intermission music.
He is absolutely entitled to his opinion regarding the musical performance. However, this review sounds, at moments, a little too personal…
With a comment that lacked clarification, he insinuates a potentially toxic work environment?
Where the Maestra lives is not relative to the music performed.
He is inferring a lot! He even goes after the audience and how he thinks the audience felt
Just stick to the music
I didn’t know Corky St. Clair had branched out into music criticism. Makes sense though.
The review sounds very spot on. She conducted Mozart operas at the Met last season and it was totally underwhelming. “Serviceable” is too polite for what she did at the Met.
When is this compulsive exposure to a disgruntled professional’s winter of discontenterish rants going to be stopped? No one, including the individual who just prepared and conducted a concert, should be subjected to a list of insults for probably the reasons which have nothing to do with the actual event. First, there has got to be a censorship of the music critics writings and they have to be held accountable for the harm they gratuitously impose on musicians, in other words on individuals who for some reason are not supposed to speak back. Second, the music critics’ ideas of how others should do their bidding should be presented in a form of their own! prepared and recorded performance of the piece in question. This public abuse damages professional lives and health of the people involved. The form of music reviews needs to be decisively reviewed.
Your public rant is harmful to this critic and freedom of speech. “There has got to be a censorship; they have to be held accountable; the form…needs to be decisively reviewed.” Gosh, Elle, are you on a school board in Florida?
lol Larry, you are in a hurry to use someone’s intellectual property in order to threaten them in your free time? I am not even interested which board you are not on.
Sorry, Elle, it was hardly intellectual.
I would like to clarify my view.
I am all for the intelligent, constructive professional reviews. Our music critics are supposed to be professionals of national and international caliber. I am not talking here in defence of this particular performance by this particular conductor, I am just appalled that the dynamics of the performance in this article are described and analysed on such an inappropriate to the occasion way. I am sure that every high quality musical critic is able to practically demonstrate their musical ideas and will use their freedom to express their thoughts with care and responsibility. Indeed music is our treasure and it affords respect for every musician who commits themselves to its values.
He should be glad that anybody goes to a concert that doesn’t feature Taylor Swift
Mark Gresham does not impress me. He never seems to have anything positive to say about Stutzmann. And referring to her fans as “Acolytes” is becoming a running theme. Green is not his color.
I feel like his review was written before the down beat.
I find it somewhat misleading to base your critique solely on one source of information—particularly when that source is Mark Gresham, who has held a long-standing bias against Nathalie Stutzmann. And it’s hard not to notice a similar sentiment in your own writings. This latest post feels like another attempt to take aim at her, which comes across as rather unfair.
Had you looked beyond Gresham’s perspective, you might have seen the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s positive review of the same concert, which praised the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra’s performance, calling it a dazzling start to their 80th season. Similarly, the latest issue of Atlanta Magazine highlights Stutzmann as one of Atlanta’s key arts leaders, noting that attendance at her ASO concerts is at an impressive 90%, with subscriptions also seeing a 30% rise since her arrival.
Instead of focusing on a narrow, negative viewpoint, perhaps it would be more productive to acknowledge the positive developments she has brought to the ASO. After all, her tenure has been marked by growing audiences and critical acclaim from a variety of sources, which suggests a much more nuanced picture than what you’ve portrayed.
Well, she IS French. Atlanta: that’s on you.
Anything I hate, it’s a Disjunctive Leap.
WTF?
She’s a singer- should have stuck to what she’s good at. Conductor- no- & particularly so with so many better conductors currently out of work.
One would hopew the symphony was forced on her. A season opener should be something a conductor has in their wheelhouse and while she has sung Mahler it does not mean it is in her best repertory as a conductor. She should have stuck to something much more popular and something she really knows well. Serviceable is not a great start.