Accepting authentic music

Since the emergence of historically informed music practises, in the early 1950s, the camps between the traditionalist and the new ‘rebelious’ or ‘alternative’ performers were somewhat polarised. For some odd reasons, a large group did not want to give in, and the other few would sometimes have the feeling they were the lonely voice calling in the desert. It was as if neither were to meet.

Throughout the years, many new ensembles sprung up all over the world, following the example of Concentus Musicus Wien, the English Consort, the Academy of Ancient Music, and the like, with astonishing results. A whole range of genres were lifted out from the neo-romantic gravy and newly re-performed, with a fresh new sound, giving credit to the authentic vocabulary of the composers. Followed after the early baroque, even renaissance, then classicism, came even up to the romantic period, to be musically scrutinised and reatailored to the ears of the modern audiences, as if you restore an old forgotten painting.

And although, as said, the realm of ‘authentic performers’ seemed a long time to be exclusively for a fanatical few, there is a slow trend, that even the grand masters of the mainstream, are beginning to accept the fact, that perhaps these authentic performances do have justification. Recently, the famous conductor Kent Nagano has begun performing with the Canadian ensemble Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra. And another highlight; the grand Maestro Bernhard Haitink, year-long chief director of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, known for his Mahler performances.

As he has celebrated his 80th birthday a few days ago, he belongs to the era of the great Maestros of the romantic repertoir. Yet, the perfomance of the Mozart’s Haffner Symphony in Amsterdam was without any neo-romantic elements, as even the (smaller) timpany were from the classical period. A wonderful experience as it is a proof, that autheticity has slowly found its way to the regular concert stream performers and audience. Well, why not? If you want to see the Mona Lisa, you also do not expect a Picasso. Both are equally valuable, yet diverse. And both should be appreciated in their respective “Zeitgeist”. The same with music; the molestation of early music composers’ works with unrealistic style-elements should be banned finally. Professional musicians are grown up people to be able to accept these facts and audiences should demand this quality. Anyway, they pay for their tickets.

MS

Long live the internet... or...

A few days ago, I came across an article in one of the newspapers, which aired a critical outlook on Wikipedia. In short it was criticising the fact, that - although the basic idea is excellent - because of unlimited access to data (and therefore being fully editable by anyone who wishes to do so), the quality of information is at risk. True. While an incomplete article can be completed by someone, who happens to know additional details, the danger is there that an ignorant person could equally alter the contents in such a way, that the article will be incorrect, to say the least, or even manipulate facts on purpose (for whatever purpose, willingly or unwillingly). I must add, that this was referring to a certain language-branch of the Wikipedia, where such abuse was spotted.

The quality check, is therefore up to the reader in general, to cross check (never a bad thing anyway), but in the event you have not a specific know-how of the subject, you might take it too easily for the truth and simply assume you are well-informed.

This morning, I gooogled a bit and stumbled upon a clip, which was published by a recording company on YouTube. It was promoting a young soloist playing some Vivaldi's concerto's (I shall not reveal the name of the soloist, for it is not relevant). The presentation is juicy and illustrates the recording, an interview with the instrumentalist, and of course the usual excerpts of the said recording.

Needless to say: Vivaldi belongs to a certain period, and for about 40 years we already know how badly we have performed these compositions and we are attempting to put them back into their (more realistic) sound context, by means of research and new practices. What shocks me here, is that despite an arch-lute and a cembalo, nobody in the orchestra plays a period instrument, and neither does the soloist, and - of course - the full vibrato romantic sound....

If it was just like that, I wouldn't have bothered perhaps, only then during the interview, the soloist is making such statements as if this recording is finally the summit of totally understanding Vivaldi's music and his time. This is pure pretension and disinformation: none of it what and how it is played has anything to do with Vivaldi, and the soloist looks like almost like a silly text-reader, revealing little knowledge of her profession. When browsing through the comments, it is saddening to see shouts like "music as it should be" (really???), "better than any other recordings" (that's maybe subjective, but definitively not historically correct, and thus questionable).

Such promotional materials are maldeforming the image of music to the audience. And here is the risk again; the information, simply because someone bothered to put it online, is taken for valid, without being questioned. Our sense of being critical to information provided has shallowed over time. I admit, that the internet is a great tool for finding data, and perhaps I couldn't live without it anylonger. But such trends make me extremely wary. When reading, I sometimes cannot help but concluding that we have become very superficial and lazy. If we want to be entertained by Greek-mythology characters on TV in a Sci-Fi kind of setting and listening to a pseudo-Vivaldi like this.... it is too sad for words. It is presumably the Age of Information, but we have become almost void of knowledge. And yes, there are also very high quality performances, but take the effort to look for them.

MS

Good governance (II) - Ministry of Cultural Destruction

After a short introduction on good governance, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister of Culture of the Slovak Republic:

You hold office because of a political consequence, where the public have elected you (albeit your party) into a position to form a coalition-government, which in numbers has a majority in Parliament, BUT it still implies there is political responsibility for the whole society.

You hold office at a Department, which is supervising among others a varied and interesting area in your nation's life: Culture, as we could all agree, is a substantial, unique and inseparable part of people's lifes. Although it happens today and now, some of the cultural strings go far back into history. Next to a specific national character it has also international connections, as culture has always gone over national borders, forming a symbiosis of colourful flavours to re-emerge as a innovated artistic expression elsewhere.

Our societies have changed over the years; while in the old days, governing was a purely "imperious" matter, our internet age has brought information closer to the public. Government decisions are hardly kept locked behind dusty cabinet-walls, but are sooner published and known to people than in the past. Not just because of unwanted information leaks, also because the governments' press departments publish decisions, which were officially not even made yet.

Concurrently, for the past few years we see an alarming mismanagement in public organisations like the National Opera, Radio Symphony Orchestra, even the Slovak Philharmonic. Nevertheless, non of the involved competent parties (as would be your Ministry for instance, as the highest organ) ever visibly implemented a change in order to come to a solution. Still the responsible people are held accountable. Rumours are spreading, discussions occur on different web-forums, and none of them are being seriously addressed (at least to clarify and take away the unrest).

You hold office, because you are entrusted with good governance. Indeed, it could be argued that governments should not interfere in cultural matters. This is true, up to the point, when cultural institutions are undergoing severe abuse from its managers. It is your responsibility to interfere in such a situation. Although Slovakia is a member of the EU, even within the Schengen-Area, yet one gets almost the feeling of living in an African country, where politicians do as they please. This is not the mandate of your society and it is not a behaviour which fits in the EU-setting.

As I set forth in my previous article, good governance needs a set of minimal requirements. Only then, the credibility of management and leadership can be restored. The media and verified sources unfortunately tell another reality. Good leadership requires adequate decisions. Or else, your Department might start considering a new name; Ministry of Cultural Destruction. I think, none of us would appreciate that.

MS

Good governance (I) - Introduction

Go-ver-nance: decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes.

In societies, and foremost in developed ones, a public post holds the responsibility for the area for which it is appointed to. A responsibility implies that such a governing body and its decision-makers are accountable for all the decisions and that those decisions should be for the benefit of general interest. Never to the interest of a few individual key-role players. In the "developed countries", where there is a long tradition of democratic political mechanisms, the term "good governance" is further defines the required (and acceptable!) aspects of the roles and responsibilities of such a public decision making organ.

Good governance, next to its implied management and leadership roles, adds a few specifics. In short one could put forward that the basis of good governance consists of participation, regulation, transparency, responsiveness, consensus, inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency. One could justly argue, that "leadership" itself implies these qualities, yet applying certain tools and therefore executing (even bad) leading functions at the exploit of others could also be regarded as leadership. This aside, however.

As we face a financial crisis (at least, at the time when I am typing this article), many public decisions are requiring some change and many organisations and governments are - sometimes somewhat startled and panic-struck - have halted some decision-making activities altogether. From a human point of view, understandably, up to a certain extent.

Yet, for the past few years, I have unfortunately observed a few trends (so even way before the crisis started) which cast deep doubts, whether the involved parties would have faintest notion of what good governance indeed is. Instead, there is visibly a high occurrence in indifference, favouritism, bureaucratic incompetence, even corruption. Whereas the public office is expected to act in the general interest, party politics and personal ties supercede any logical, visionary or strategic conduct. This is therefore completely detached from any crisis, global or regional. In the end, all benevolence of the public and credibility of yourself turns into a sour atmosphere of suspicion. In case of true interest to (in case the suspicion is not founded) reveal openess to assure the public of the right objectives. Yet, none of this happens, and the suspicion therefore is ... indeed: affirmed - at least to the appearance.

Such a state, is harming all involved, especially those whom the public organ is to serve.

MS