NY Times chief joins the Mäkelä sceptics
OrchestrasZachary Woolfe, chief music critic of the New York Times, has written a detailed, damning review of Klaus Mäkelä’s Carnegie Hall concerts with the Concertgebouw orchestra. Mäkelä is 28. He is head of major orchestras in Oslo and Paris, and soon to take over in Amsterdam and Chicago. This is a preposterous burden for any conductor of such limited experience, as we have frequently observed.
Woolfe has additional thoughts on the young Finn’s multiple shortcomings:
... in some passages of the Schoenberg that were overstated, almost halting, you got a sense of Mäkelä’s shortcomings. He can be so deliberate, so obviously intent on creating precise rhythms and textures bar by bar, that some of the air can come out of the music. It all seems like it should be intense — he certainly looks intense — but you don’t always feel building energy or distinctive character over long spans. It’s a matter of moments over momentum.
Take the Prokofiev concerto, in which Batiashvili’s tone was ample yet agile, as easily assertive as it was mysterious. Mäkelä’s conducting felt a shade too controlled. Nothing was wrong, exactly. The orchestra sounded terrific, the tempos reasonable.
But that same measure-by-measure management resulted in a certain dullness. This should be propulsive music, with vivid flavors, the first movement mournfully spectral, the second liltingly charming, the third zestily Spanish. Yet the performance on Friday tended bland: lovely and unexciting.
Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony was even more glamorously played, but also felt like something of a warm bath…
Read the full review here.
This is the most incisive, clinical concert review to have appeared in the Times all year. It’s reassuring to know the Times can still hit the straps in its patchy coverage of New York concerts.
CORRECTION: Mr Woolfe is titled at the foot of the article ‘the classical music critic of The New York Times.’ What does that make others – chopped liver?
The media quote prominently displayed on Mr. Mäkelä’s own website reads as follows:
“Here was something truly special: a conductor who revelled in freshly imagining each sound.”
…which basically indicates nothing about the quality of the maestro’s musicianship, attesting only to the fact that he appears to be enjoying himself while conducting. If this is the best media quote Mäkelä can find to promote himself, he must be in poor shape.
“freshly imagining each sound”
What does that mean? How does a conductor do that?
It’s only imagining the sounds, not invoking it from the players. In this way, the image remains safely inside the brain.
My PA has also that habit, and then nothing comes-out.
You can be certain Mäkelä won’t have chosen the quote nor posted it to his website!
Reminds me of Samuel Johnson’s comment: “He was dull in a new way, and that made many people think him great.”
I didn’t change of mind for the RCO I would have prefered Fischer or Chung. I didnt see KM yet with the RCO in concert. Next month Fischer will do few concerts wit the RCO I have chance to have a ticket.
Fischer (and this in fact applies to both of them) is consistently incredible.
I have seen him in concert two days ago with Bupadest. it was Brahms. Fantastic. For me the best also without doubts today for Beethoven.
The boy Makela has considerable talent- but he’s far too overstretched in a current Classical Music business which is sick to the core & obsessed with youth, merely as a desperate measure to ensure its immediate survival. There are literally hundreds of conductors out there who are just as good as KM- but are not getting the opportunities & probably, almost tragically, never will. I would encourage you to read the FB posts of Andrei Gavrilov (arguably the world’s living greatest pianist)- where he talks damningly about the business from the perspective of an insider.
Gavrilov’s playing has been embarrassing for some years now, he’s really lost it. There is ample recorded evidence of his long road to perdition. It sad and frightening to behold, really. His soliloquies on the state of Classical music are by turn laughable, funny or deranged, at least in Russian. As a pianist, he was never one of the true greats, but he certainly used to be wonderful and “up there”, when at his best. By now his credibility (as well as his sanity) have been shattered and while, despite the above, his cynicism is not unfounded and some of his observations may even be true, it all comes from a place of personal delusion and psychiatric issues that befell him….not good.
Thank you for your observations on AG Constantine- interesting to note. Personally- I disagree- Andrei is still a very ‘great’ pianist & I find his views on the business mostly spot on- if a little eccentric in expression at times!
I am glad you find something to enjoy there. Scroll through inane Russian commentary to hear the “rediscovered” Bach Well-Tempered Clavier. Christ have Mercy…totally ruinous. He is the laughing stock of anyone and everyone “in the profession”, and I feel very much victim to herd mentality when I join literally every other competent pianist in declaring AG a deluded/delusional clown. He can’t, like, actually get through most pieces at this point, like the actual notes of the pieces, it’s that bad–sorry.
https://youtu.be/eMEiRW9TOv0?si=gf_RRSDrbk7UR698&fbclid=IwY2xjawGxwUFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWymruOlp0OsyfDe85IuFPRgAtMLjcWfyGFoIrT8bMU0elOH-2b3iDhEzQ_aem_oKUypHoCHHi1gF8rImSvDA
Haitink was 27 when he first conducted the Concertgebouw; five years later he was chief conductor of that orchestra.
And it wasn’t a smooth ride and a happy end.
Chailly in the late 80’s was 35 when he was asked to be MD at the RCO. But there’s a difference in the past they have to make records now if they do one every two years it’s OK.
and what he does at La Scala is among the poorest ever – so overrated
Tristan no! Have you seen him in concert with la Scala? me 7 or 8 times. You can ‘t write it if you didn’t have seen him. Too easy.
What he does at La Scala is Russian politics in the steps of the other Riccardo
Concerning Haitink he didn’t have all the power in the first time he had to share the power with Jochum and there was no way for him like for Chailly to record any Beethoven cycle before 50. I think also that there were few composers he had to avoid because he was too young like Mozart also. This kind of thing was for Szell and Krips at the time.
Funny saying a young man cannot play/conduct Mozart – you do know he was dead at 34, Schubert at 31? Neither of them experienced their own music (or anyone else’s) at the age you seem to think is needed to perform it!
Certainly but that’s the way it was… Ravel wrote some pices too diffuct to play for him…. Miss Long has to do it.
Yes it’s hard for composers. I cannot myself play my orchestral pieces, time and again it appears that I really do need an orchestra. Pretty annoying.
It’s an appalling fact that before the last 100 years people were lucky to survive into their 40s. Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn. Absolute tragedies. Alban Berg died from an insect bite at 50. That was 90 years ago.
I was going to make that example as well, but situations were different in European orchestras then as opposed to now. The orchestras were still recovering from the loss of musicians from the War, requiring a lot of rebuilding; Haitink’s reputation as a recording superstar didn’t really take off until he had had more experience with the orchestra, as European labels didn’t distribute widely then (and Philips was arguably smaller and newer than Decca or Deutsche Gramophon); and orchestras were only rarely starting to tour frequently. Haitink had much more time to ripen. Makela has already been propelled by massive publicity and a lot of exposure. Colin Davis once noted that “overnight success” doesn’t allow artists to learn and to develop their craft, and to make the mistakes and missteps that are inevitable; and Makela is so young and so much more exposed to be called an overnight success. I would counsel that we should give him more time but the dual appointments at two of the greatest orchestras in the world rather obviate that
The fact is that there’s something about KM. All his concerts in Paris are sold out very quickly. And he don’t speak at all french…
Haitink was ten times the conductor Makela will ever be. I will gladly put money behind that bet.
Klaus is the real deal!!! Why would world renown orchestras, including the CSO, hire him as their music director? He’s the most exciting young conductor to come along since Dudamel. Klaus is lighting up the classical stage and will generate new audiences in Amsterdam and Chicago. He is a breath of fresh air in Oslo and Paris also. Bravo maestro!
So.is it always good that all the mice like the cat? Fritz Reiner nd George Szell wouldn’t think so…
“He’s the most exciting young conductor to come along since Dudamel.”
All I can say is, if you set the bar that low the comparison doesn’t mean much.
so true and way more talented than overrated Dudamel
Klaus is among the greatest talents and aren’t we surrounded by mediocrity praised only by the woke press
Tristan one more time you are wrong the press was very kindly with KM especially in France. And he don’t speak at all french like Harding who had the same post before and who was not alaways seen kindly.
Daniel Harding is actually a long-term resident of France, was married to a French woman and has bilingual children. He works at a high level in a large French company (Air France), and his French is immaculate. So I think you’ll have to find another reason why he wasn’t always seen kindly (although everything I read about his tenure in Paris was actually very positive)
I know that he speaks very well french and that it’s a good guy I have big respect for this artist. But when he was at Paris orchestra and I have seen several concerts (some were very good some were not fantastic) he left the orshestra very quickly and the critics were not always very good. For KM it was sudenly the euphoria. I have the feeling that KM was not treated the same way.
This is because those with euphoria are watching and not necessarily listening….
KM conducted the LSO a couple of weeks ago at the Barbican. It was electric. He’s definitely the next big thing. Like the old days of Solti, Abbado, Davis,Haitink.
More than one orchestral player I know used to refer to Solti as “Sh!tster Solti”. He doesn’t need a second coming, thank you very much. I am surprised you can even mention his name alongside Abbado and Haitink. This is where having no ears or appreciation for decent music-making gets you…
Steve,
I take it you’re not a player at this level? For many years I may add.
Actually I would love a second coming of Solti. You name 3 conductors all excellent all very different. Solti was very demanding. As you see from my comment about mice liking their cat, the mice didn’t like Solti. Just like every Senator in the US thinks they’d be better at being president than whoever is president, orchestral players invariably think they’d be better than the Maestro du jour. They all have a metaphorical baton in their music case………..
Like Neville Marriner!
It should be noted that there was also praise for the young conductor’s work as well in the review. It certainly wasn’t all “negative”. The comments also show that not everyone felt as “negative” about the concert…far from it.
I heard the concert last night here in DC. It would be difficult to achieve the correct feeling in the Prokofiev when the violinist has such a tiny tone, so Mäkelä opted to reduce strings by half, leaving a very questionable balance and lack of depth when needed. The second movement sounded timid and I was disappointed that the violinist couldn’t seem to sustain even one tone in this most beautiful of melodies. The Rachmaninoff was sharp and edgy, without the depth required, from the first notes, barely audible, lacking any sense of musical core or depth of emotion to the sharp, hard brass tones. It was difficult to listen to this orchestra and it’s amazing string body that was totally overpowered to no good effect. The first piece should never have been included at all. I concur, Mäkelä is oversold and lacking in the most critical ways. I heard the orchestra several months ago with Jaap Van Sweden and it was glorious in its richness, color and balance.
For me the procblem is that he didn’t make enough records also. Think of all the records Chailly did in the 80’s before to be MD of the RCO in th late 80’s.
I was there as well. Problem is that I don’t like any of the music that was played (yes, the first piece was particularly ridiculous), so I am not going to judge the interpretation.
So why did I go if I don’t like the music? Simple: to hear a great orchestra and that’s what I got. Otherwise, I could have gone to NY for the Mahler / Schoenberg concert, but that was not an option for this day. Or I could wait until next time the Concertgebouw Orchestra comes back to DC (if I will still be in DC by that time, big if). So I just decided to still hear this great orchestra while I still can, regardless of the repertoire played.
I understand you. I can see every year the RCO once or twice. I’am lucky. In your situation I would have liked to have Mahler and Richard Strauss
Spot on. Your crit is better than the original.
But certainly not accurate based on the Carnegie performance.
Why break down a promising conductor? I was there Saturday night. The Mahler Symphony was an absolutely energizing experience and my hometown concertgebouw orchestra was so beautifully pulled together that it was a sound to remember. And granted, we were sitting all the way, in the nosebleed seats and yet we heard and saw every nuance. It is easy to break down a young and upcoming conductor. Have some heart and soul, New York Times, and help build him to the levels of Dudamel and van Zweden who have twice the years of experience. Thanks.
Sorry, but how is this review ‘breaking down’ KM? It’s not even that harsh, in fact most other musicians and conductors get treated and commented on vastly more harshly in the industry on a regular basis without even necessarily warranting it. He is also not ‘up and coming’ if he is the MD of major orchestras such as Chicago and Concertgebouw – pointing out his musical shortcomings is a fair thing to say, as it is for any musician his age and stage – and I hope that KM takes it to heart and starts searching for more inside himself musically and artistically, than simply trying to be popular and likeable, which is unfortunately the dull wave he is currently riding to success
Exactly. He must be quite talented to have gotten this far so fast.
It’s up to him to decide how to mature as an artist. I hope he has time to contemplate and grow.
But many great conductors emerged in their 20s including the Dude, Bernstein, Mehta, Essa Pekka.
If you’re good, you’re good. Age is irrelevant. Just ask Michael Jordan.
It is not at all clear to me why a critic’s opinion is regarded as newsworthy. I have yet to hear of any critic winning an audition. Those of us who are looking at his face and not his posterior, and are relying on him for information required to do our jobs have a rather different take.
I always hoped for the development of reviews of reviews, so that the reader who was not there, could have a different perspective on critics. Also it would be a good experience for critics to be criticised themselves, to install some respect and caution in their writings, and to stimulate some musical professionalism. But alas, the whole profession of music criticism seems to be eroding.
Bring back Olga Samaroff.
Oh come on. So Makela is 28 years old? Why is that such a big deal? He’s a fine conductor. We saw him last night with the Concertgebouw at the Kennedy Center in Washington DC. I was stunned not just by the quality of the performances, but by the esprit de corps of the musicians. They clearly like him and they played accordingly. Is Makela up there with Fritz Reiner or Serge Koussevitzky? Maybe not. But he’s doing a great job. Give him a little credit for a change. John Howes
It’s not that he’s 28. He’s wildly talented and his age is no problem. It’s that he muggs and poses so unbearably on the podium and the musical results are unexcitingly thin
Sorry, but wtf are you talking about? Mäkelä has not one wasted gesture. And he never makes it about himself. Always stands with the musicians for bows. At Carnegie on Saturday he didn’t take a solo bow until the RCO musicians stomped their feet in appreciation.
You sound extremely jealous and bitter.
Joshua Barone of the NYT is also a sophisticated reviewer, clear and on point in his assessments.
Joke of the day
The best choice for the Concertgebouw would have been Andrey Boreyko. He is hugely underrated.
Check out his Mahler on YouTube. Fantastic
Maybe they will call him to be guest. They try every year some new conductors but 3/4 they are not coming back after.
You’ve got to be joking. I’ve followed Boreyko since the 90s. Absolutely solid craftsmanship, but nothing special. His Mahler on youtube is more on the academic side. No risks taken. A fair bit of work still left to be done on balancing and phrasing.
Two key passages:
“It all seems like it should be intense — he certainly looks intense” – right on, he creates a *visual* perception that something is happening when it’s not. If you’re only watching, not listening, you’ll be fooled.
“Nothing was wrong, exactly. The orchestra sounded terrific, the tempos reasonable.” Of course it can all work out despite the shortcomings – this is the Concertgebouw! They can play the music without paying attention to him. That’s the trick of his success!
Couldn’t agree more – KM has perfected the art of ‘looking’ to be doing a lot, while actually not affecting anything at all. The sound rarely matches his gestures, he barely rehearses or uses all his rehearsal time, he seems to not look after basic musical questions such as ensemble, musical narrative, tempi, or balance, or even expressing a personal musical voice, but has had the fortune of looking good and working with some top ensembles, and winning them over precisely because he does not actually bother them or conduct them — instead he strokes them — and that’s the great secret to his success.
how often do seasoned orchestras, playing the standard repertoire, need a conductor? Is/was it the Orpheus orchestra that plays/played without a conductor?
Yes but Orpheus isn’t trying to play Tod und Verklarung….
Mäkelä is yet another example of a young musician who was pushed too far, too soon. If you compare his career thus far to let’s say, a MTT, he did not allow himself to grow as a conductor and instead was thrust out into the spotlight based upon guest conducting experiences. MTT conversely spent 1969-1971 as an assistant conductor with the BSO, going on to Buffalo, a provincial orchestra in 1971 for 6 years building the orchestra before he went on to the majors as a Music Director. He was also trained and supported by the best in the business, Bernstein, Copeland, Steinberg, Kerstein etc. etc. Mäkelä conversely did not really cut his chops anywhere and his support has been the managers and promoters. He’s now in way over his head, the Ken Doll of the conductor world and while he does do some good, he’s essentially an empty suit. Yuja hooked up for awhile, until she saw he was hollow.
I finally agree with Woolfe on something. Shocking, ‘ as he’s another empty vessel.
Yuja kicked him into touch but I don’t think it was because of his musicianship.
MTT famously couldn’t get arrested by “a major” after assisting in Boston, and had to settle for (LSO and then) SFO. Which worked out great eventually, obviously.
Glad to know you are such an expert on KM’s love life. Perhaps you should write to Entertainment Tonight.
You could also point to the career of Myung Whun Chung whom one poster above suggested would have been a better choice for the RCO. A fine pianist, after coming second in the Tchaikovsky Competition and chose to concentrate on conducting, he took the relatively unknown orchestra in Saarbrucken where he could spend some years learning and refining his talent. After a few years he added the Teatro Communale in Florence before being picked to take over the yet to be opened Bastille Opera at the age of 36 after Barenboim was fired. During his career he has conducted virtually every major orchestra and was the first–ever Principal Guest appointed by the glorious Staatskapelle Dresden. He emerged gradually as a major conductor whereas some in the younger generation are propelled into top posts far more quickly.
His conducting and the playing of the Concertgebouw provided this attendee with the single greatest and most illuminating musical experience of a lifetime. Stop reading reviews. Listen. Listen.
Exactly! One would also wish folks would stop reading bios and obsessing about musicians’ age and love lives or whatever and would just use their ears a tad more.
Funny how this site posts the NY Times review but conveniently ignores the multitude of extremely positive reviews from Mäkelä’s London Symphony Orchestra debut two weeks ago. Except for one outlier, the other nine I could find (yes a total of ten reviews from one concert – bravo London!) were as glowing as I have ever seen for a debut conductor. Extremely thoughtful, positive and complimentary. Take a look!
The fact is that theere’s something about him. In Paris for exemple all his concerts are sold out very quickly and people start to understand that he wil not stay a long time.
KM is no doubt talented, but critics and audiences are so caught up in the narrative of him being a wunderkind that they’re ignoring the objective evidence of his shortcomings. It’s ludicrous that so many major orchestras pursued him as music director, ignoring much more talented conductors simply because of their age.
And look, it’s ok to be young, talented, but not quite ready for the major leagues. There’s great interview with George Szell where he talks about being hailed as the “new Mozart” when he was a teenager, and looking back in his 60s, he understood that he was kinda of mediocre back then and still had a lot to learn.
The KM unconditional love fest really jumped the shark with his performances of the Brahms Double Concerto playing the cello part. He may hit all of the notes, but his style is second rate.
At 28 you are not anymore a young conductor. You are big before 30 or you are not…
One thing is particularly feared by classical music audiences worldwide: dullness. This is the one word used by the NYT to describe Maestro Makela’s performance. Across all the wide world, the ominous review by ZW has the power to strike terror into the hearts of audiences in one place above all: Chicago.
Why? Because Dullness has been the sad companion of concertgoers in the Windy City, under the much too prolonged reign of the ever frowning Italian Stallion, for the best portion of 15 years. If some of the subscribers’ and readers’ posts on the Chicago Classical Review -writing on the subject of another very unremarkable Muti performance a couple of weeks ago – are to be taken at face value, it surely feels like the Chicago crowds are on the verge of a revolution. “Lack of intensity”, “dull”, coupled with genuine outrage at the old man’s antics as well as at the ousting of David Cooper and the hasted subpar replacement hiring done by Muti (which did unrecoverable damage to the orchestra) are some of the common themes. The rage is palpable – here are some experts from readers’ posts:
“It’s astonishing they’ve already given tenure to the newish principal horn. Why? The previous one was brilliant but sent packing.”
“Have to agree with everything written here. Performance just lacked intensity and even though I’m not the most familiar with Beethoven’s Emperor concerto, I could hear the missed notes.”
“As for the “Eroica,” this is the third time Muti has performed LvB’s 3rd in the past few years. This one along with the first RM presented sounded more like Haydn’s 105th or Mozart’s 42nd. Lacked drama.”
“As a longtime subscriber, … I renewed my 2024-2025 subscription looking forward to hearing him [Muti] performing Berlioz’s “The Damnation of Faust.” Sadly, another Verdi’s Requiem has replaced the Berlioz. … this will be the fourth one I will have heard it in RM’s 12-year directorship. ”
“There were many missed notes in the Sunday matinee. I love the characterization of Muti’s performance here as “implacable.” Exactly. And the horn section needs immediate attention! Problems galore.”
“Why does Muti kiss Uchida’s hand? He did the same to the woman concertmaster at Sunday’s performance. He shakes hands with the men but kisses the women’s hands. Why not just shake their hands instead – use both hands if he wants – but stop with raising their hands to his lips for a kiss. It’s creepy and paternalistic.”
“Shame on the CSO management to allow Music Director Emeritus to shove yet another Verdi Requiem down our throats in place of the Damnation of Faust. He has nothing new to offer other than the most jaw-droppingly slow and dull versions of warhorse symphonies in the history of music.”
“I agree with Dave and John re the horns. Nothing negative about any individual musician intended. However, for the board to allow an outgoing music director to make the type of decision re Cooper that he did, and to allow the rapid selection and granting of tenure to a successor is a great mistake of board leadership. In corporate governance, this is not acceptable behavior.”
Read for yourself here https://chicagoclassicalreview.com/2024/11/muti-returns-with-uchida-in-csos-beethoven-bash/
And, mind you, this is not Chicago being too picky. Critics have reported precisely the same ghastly reactions after an exhausting Verdi Requiem conducted by Muti in Philly this last October. Here are excerpts of a review of his Philadelphia Verdi Requiem concert, published on Backtrack and titled “Requiem for a heavyweight: Riccardo Muti in Philadelphia”, a performance that was rated two stars out of five
(https://bachtrack.com/de_DE/review-philadelphia-orchestra-riccardo-muti-verdi-requiem-october-2024)
“Don’t meet your heroes, Flaubert once cautioned – they often have feet made of clay. […]
.. although Muti has lived with this work for decades and has a thorough pedigree as an opera conductor, the performance lacked a sense of musical variation and narrative drive ..
… The orchestral musicians played consistently well for Muti, though he seemed intent on goading them to keep things loud and fast…
… Muti’s preferred dynamics sacrificed the emotional core of the work for a few thrilling moments …
…With the orchestra and chorus essentially operating at one speed throughout the performance, the progression of the work lacked a total impact …
…As a performance […] it felt as if we were laying flowers at feet of clay…”
But now, Chicago has to fear that even the incoming young Maestro Makela is another dull horse on top of the decrepit Stallion?
Yet quite at the depth of this dull despair lies the undaunted Chicago silver lining: Muti has set the bar so low, that Maestro Makela has the odds in his favor, and will succeed. Because everyone knows this truth: you just can’t drop below the bottom floor.
“Muti has set the bar so low, ”
I’ve only been a CSO subscriber for past 3 years. To my (very much untrained) ears, concerts lead by Muti are among the best and very consistent in quality.
“Makela has the odds in his favor, and will succeed”
In years, maybe. I don’t have the luxury to compare current performances to those under Haitink/Barenboim/Boulez (let alone Solti or Reiner). But judging from Makela’s last 2 performances here (which are solid but not really standing out among a handful of other guest conductors), I don’t think he could simply step in now and start leading concerts of the quality Muti is giving at CSO right now.
“the ousting of David Cooper and the hasted subpar replacement hiring done by Muti”
Unfortunately I have I agree with Mr Rat here. The dismissal of David Cooper was a baffling one at the time. But the replacement is just showing this whole thing being a mistake. Last Thursday’s concert under Lintu was a another nightmare from the new principle. And the negative reviews you saw on ChicagoClassicalReview are probably a mere portion of what’s actually being posted. I left a negative comment on the horn’s performance on CCR (simply echoing the several ‘lapses’ already mentioned in the original review) and the comment never got approved.
https://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2024/11/makela-concertgebouw-deliver-impassioned-schoenberg-remarkable-mahler-at-carnegie/
Bang on!
These critics need to go home. On the one hand they incessantly complain that young audiences aren’t coming to concerts and that there are too many conducts who don’t know the craft. Then you get a star conductor who fills halls everywhere he goes and whom every orchestra musician wants to work with, and then the critics just can’t handle that and pounce on him with incessant hate. It’s like when someone is too popular and beloved the critics need to show their intellectual independence by going against the strain, no matter the evidence.
I was at this concert. Woolfe writes BS. Verklärte Nacht is one of my favorite works. I have analyzed this piece backwards and forwards. This was the finest performance I have heard (and I have heard many good ones over the years). It flowed naturally, it was nuanced, full of atmosphere, and God were the RCO strings ever so perfectly balanced! Which idiot would write such nonsense after such a glorious performance?
The Mahler left the audience giddy with excitement, ecstatic and elated to have witnessed such great music making. Why would a critic poop on such a great experience, effectively telling the audience: “you rubes don’t know how you are being bamboozled. I know better. This guy sucks!”
How do they at the same time complain that “classical music is dying”, and then immediately nip any audience excitement in the bud? Do any of them realize how all the “greats” of the past were treated when they were younger and how ridiculously stupid those old reviews of e.g. Bernstein and others look when read today? Do they have the slightest sense of self-awareness?
So many things can be true at the same time:
1) Klaus Mäkelä is talented
2) He is only 28, and obviously lacks the experience of someone 30 years older. That’s just math. It’s also not his fault that he has less experience because he can’t choose when he was born
3) He has unbelievable privilege, as his rise has been fueled in no small part by an obsession in the field with young conductors from Finland
4) He may do at CSO what he has done for all of his other ensembles so far, which is fly in and out, conduct his repertoire, then leave after that’s been exhausted to go do the same thing somewhere else.
It’s a business, after all! Congrats to him for making it to the top. Now what will he do with it? Will the ensembles who have put their faith in him as a leader reap rewards, or regret it in the long run? Only time will tell.
An able critic can write negatively about any aspect of any performance and still come across as an impartial authority. There is nothing “reassuring” in this. We learn only that Mäkelä did not persuade Woolfe.
But dozens and dozens of mediocre conductors roam the globe nowadays, many of them pretty or elegant. There is precious little consensus to check their careers, with the collapse of criticism as a profession.
This weekend I heard an 88-year-old master, but a “cancelled” one: Charles Dutoit, in Stravinsky, Schumann and Bizet. Not for a second was there doubt that he knew what the music needed, or in the Schumann how to accompany his 83-year-old soloist.
Dutoit and Argerich in the Schumann yet again???
It’s still dancing around my head — she allows no slack — but most fun was the Bizet symphony.
“Rachmaninoff’s Second Symphony was even more glamorously played, but also felt like something of a warm bath…”
Isn’t that precisely how Rachmaninoff’s music is supposed to feel, and feels like all the time?
How do you play something ‘glamorously’? Is there a specific technique? I think we deserve to be told.
Not when Vasily Petrenko conducts it…
Greetings, Slipped Disc !
Is this really “the most incisive, clinical concert review to have appeared in the Times all year”, to cite your reference to the NY Times reviewer? If so, it must be asked how capable he – maybe she? – is of forming and publishing credible critical opinion, badly needed in the event.
I went to both programs. I think ZW is largely on the money. Makela is handsome and commanding. He absolutely looks the part. I listened with eyes closed so that I was listening not watching. I do that often. Excellent execution but I found some pieces much better than others. The Schoenberg was very good. The Rachmaninoff seemed endless and this too long symphony is never helped by taking the first movement exposition repeat, making it a much too long symphony. Back in the day conductors cut it for heavens sake. The Mahler was certainly nothing special though it was better than Dudamel last season. I remain unconvinced that Makela can shape a piece with a firm sense of where everything is going. He is technically accomplished and the band sounded superb. My socks are still on however.
It’s perfectly normal for a young conductor to need and take time to grow up musically. But should they be given multiple directorships with premier orchestras during their musical Wonder Years?
There is so much personal bias and personal taste in opinions about anything or anyone, that I’m never sure who’s being mainly too critical or too easygoing.
Also, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Rashomon Effect, folks.
All you have to do is listen to the atrocious “Petrushka” Maekele recorded with the Orchestre de Paris on Decca. It’s so comparatively bad that I consider it an insult to those who have recorded “Petrushka” previously on Decca: Ansermet, Monteux, Dutoit, Chailly, etc. Even the Solti one is quite a bit better. With the Orchestre de Paris, the Bychkov one on Philips is also much better. His recent set of Shostakovich symphonies 4-6 from Oslo are beautifully recorded (a bit overbalanced in the strings), but are interpretively very ‘middle of the road’, at best. His Sibelius cycle wasn’t much to write home about either.
Having attended his LSO debut a fortnight ago, I agree with the sentiment of the reviewer – much overhyped and creating an almost hysterical response from the audience, I think because of the athleticism displayed. The actual music lacked depth, drive, and structural unity, like a faded watercolour rather than a thick oil painting. I literally fell asleep during the Prokofiev Concerto and Le Sacre was so sterile – where’s the jazz baby???!!!
I was at the Kennedy Center concert last night and could not disagree more with the NYT. It was a beautifully performed concert and Mäkelä’ conducted it with great control and finesse. He is superb in this repertoire. Now if I wanted to hear a Bruckner 8, Mahler 9 or a Beethoven 3 would I prefer Blomsted, Theilmann, or Metha? Of course. But the guy is preternaturally talented and will mature over time. Should he be concurrently in charge of two of the greatest orchestras in the world at this stage? Debatable, Nonetheless a wonderful concert. The RCO can give the BPO a run for their money. For me the sound of the RCO is warmer and more blended. But the wind soloists of the BPO are supreme.
Point/Counerpoint:
https://newyorkclassicalreview.com/2024/11/makela-concertgebouw-deliver-impassioned-schoenberg-remarkable-mahler-at-carnegie/
Somebody cares about what the NYT prints? When was this and why weren’t we told?
If I were Makela’s PR agent I would have quoted the NY Times as follows —
“Intense!”
“Terrific!”
“Glamorously played!
“Deliberate!” ‘Precise!” “Intense!” “Glamorous!”
Pull quotes from Zachary Woolfe’s review used in KM posters (with pics of floppy hair flying).
It is so reassuring to know that the NYT, at least for the first time in my lifetime, has chief critic one can respect. The paper has been an unfunny joke in this respect for decades… Schonberg, Henahan, Tomasini… I don’t mean that he is good simply because I happen to agree with many of his (re)views.
Rather, that one can tell by the no-nonsense tone and the knowledge/insight he displays, that he is not concerned with fitting into the general, overall ‘tone’ the paper has favored. Over the years, re the Met, for example, everything has been acceptable, even great, according to the NYT. This has been downright provincial. Imagine provincial in NYC?! I believe Peter Gelb thought he would get this same free ride. I look forward to hie this continues to unfold.
I did not find the complete review to be as unfailingly negative as your out of context quotation, and your comments, led me to believe it would be. Yes, it was an extraordinarily articulate and convincing piece of analytical commentary, both in its negative and positive elements, but not nearly as damning as you apparently choose, perhaps viewing though the lens of your own prior judgements, to make it sound.
I attended both of KM’s Carnegie concerts, and heard some spectacular music making! Of course one worries that his 2 upcoming assignments might be too heavy a burden for a 28 year old, but KM is no ordinary 28 year old! Give him a chance and have faith – I think he’s going to have the last laugh over the smug critics.
…of course he is gifted…but at what level…not CSO level!
how then do you respond to the majority of cso players, as well as those of the concertgebuow, who had nothing but the highest level of respect for his ability at the very first rehearsal?
Well, Gustavo can breathe a sigh of relief. All of the naysayers are obsessed with someone else now.
I would understand major orchestras trying to engage someone like Mäkelä while they’re young, promising and photogenic despite the shortcomings listed in the review, but what I don’t get is his soon to be Generalmusikdirektor der Welt status resulting from ensembles like the CSO and RCO willing to share him. It’s not like they wouldn’t be able to get a fantastic full time chief conductor either from among established or up-and-coming names, what happened to their self-respect?
At 28 years of age I can’t help but wonder what he can possibly impart to some of the seasoned members of the Chicago Symphony who performed under some of the golden era batons of our time? NOTHING! That they offered , OK, but that he accepted is what’s wrong with today’s artists. They have no sense of need to study, learn, apprentice. NONE of it necessary for these wunderkinds! I pity them for their ignorance, and I pity us for the devastation of classical music.
As clear from this thread:
It’s all about The Performer and never about the music.
This demonstrates the state of the art form in modern times.
The music is mere basic production stuff for the performers’ ego, nothing more. That’s why the ‘core repertoire’ has petrified. Whatever musical energy there is going-around, it’s going into the wrapping paper.
re: Correction– it makes them stringers
All this bullshit about KM age, let me remind people that Edson Arantes do Nascimento played for Brazil in a football world cup final at the age of 17………..if you are good enough, you are old enough!
The point is that comparative listening displays that he isn’t the former.
Of course he is over hyped but that’s nothing new in the music scene now. Orchestras are desperate to get new audiences and if this is the only way you can’t blame them. There are better young conductors out there (from my experience anyway) however give him time to develop and then we can judge his true talent.
The point is that in the process of that ‘development’, they shouldn’t be handed the keys to the world’s top orchestras right off the bat.
Yes. Karajan said you have to be able to conduct Meistersinger with an orchestra of 45 players (involves a lot of transcription!) to learn the craft. Rattle learned on the CBSO and Bournemouth orchestras. Who is Makela learning his repertoire on? Of course his performances are “young man’s performances” that’s fine but that’s what they are.
Meh. Woolfe is a critic of whom the same questions may be asked as he poses about KM. He has yet to write a review that is a finished, compelling piece of music journalism. Here is an example of a young, dubiously qualified critic attempting to justify his place in the ecosystem with a puffed up “hot take.” New York Classical Review and CadenzaNYC.com had very different, more positive, reviews that bear as much weight.
Name the item that doesn’t belong with the rest of the set. I’ll start with Amsterdam: Mengelberg, Van Beinum, Jochum, Giulini, Haitink, Chailly, M. Jansons, Makela? . . . Now I’ll do Chicago: Thomas, F. Stock, DeFauw (sp?), Kubelik, Martinon, Solti, Barenboim, Muti, Makela? . . . what’s wrong that picture?
Well I get it. Counterpoint of view – Toscanini and Stokowski got going very young. Talent will out but as I said in my comments having heard Makela live 4 times my socks are still on. His Sibelius and Shostakovitch recordings are nothing special at all. Muti and Abbado were way more exciting in their younger years. He certainly looks the part but he doesn’t sound it for me. I was sitting in the first row of the balcony at Carnegie Hall during the Rach 2 and into my mind came the thought “bring back Eugene Ormandy for heaven’s sake!”
I certainly wouldn’t label this review as damning, nor did I think it was intended as such with descriptions of “precision” and “the orchestra sounded terrific,” and many more. It was well in line with so many past reviews of even the most seasoned conductors, criticizing performances where expectations of a reviewer had not been completely met.
I’ll never understand why musical journalists, and particularly articles such as this, take the low road of discouraging successful youth instead of celebrating their achievements, their brilliance and their potential. I can’t help but feel that a resentment or a phobia of youth is behind this negativity.
I’m thrilled looking forward to Mäkekä’s continued growth as he matures into an even greater conductor, skillfully and sensitively embracing the deepest insights into the masterpieces he is charged to conduct.
This is a cryptic opinion of a critique. A ‘cryptique’. Good luck!
Mäkelä is a clown who has yet to master the basics of music.
Marketing, marketing, marketing!
His problem is not age but musical and general knowledge and common sense!