I’ll bet Joshua Kosman is just tickled by Michael Tilson Thomas’ deliciously alliterative name, because every time the opportunity arises his prose becomes chock full of wily word play.
Leave it to Michael Tilson Thomas to inject a few welcome shadows into the bubbly breathlessness of the San Francisco Symphony's opening gala.
And...
...subversive stealth...
And...
...ribbons and bonbons...
And, heck, why not pour it on, since Lang Lang is in the house?
...giddy triviality...
And this one, which may or may not have been intentional...
... fondness for garish display largely under control, producing an athletic yet sensitive account of the concerto...
10/7/09
Wednesday Wink-Winkery (read: another gushy post about how cool Kosman is)
Posted by Empiricus at 11:00 AM 3 comments
Labels: alliteration, Joshua Kosman, Lang Lang, Michael Tilson Thomas, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Symphony
9/15/09
Twitter is Destroying Classical Music...
Are critics really allowed to do this...attack the soloist? Don't they know that it's their job to heap excessive amounts of hyperbolic praise upon every soloist who ever plays with an orchestra? Guess not. Anyways, good, it's nice see critics turn that scornful ear towards something other than new music. figure 2: Lang Lang auditioning for remake of Thriller video.
So I was a bit curious when I came across this article in the New York Times, by Michael Kimmelman, that seemed to be a pretty scathing review of renowned pianist Lang Lang after a performance in Lucerne, Switzerland.
However, hell if I know what Lang Lang did wrong.
The other night Lang Lang twittered his way through Chopin’s F minor Piano Concerto.
Twittered? Tweeted? Anyways, Lang Lang posted 140 character messages online throughout his performance of Chopin? Really? That's pretty amazing.
How better to describe it?
Good question. Well, you chose the verb "twitter" which basically means (as our good friends at dictionary.com can attest): to utter a succession of small, tremulous sounds, as a bird; to talk lightly and rapidly.
You were there, does that sound about right to you? And if so, what kind of first line of a review is that?
The other night Lang Lang lightly and rapidly played his way through Chopin’s F minor Piano Concerto.
That may be true, but it's hardly a compelling first line. Are we preparing for a negative review...of a soloist?!? Wait, is "rapidly played" even an insult?
I'm not sure what to make of it. Although, my high school creative writing teacher would not have approved of that bland "the other night" introduction. That doesn't set much of a stage now does it -- I mean, you're in Lucerne, Switzerland. Not exactly just another night to most of us. Set the mood, use a little pizazz. May I suggest:
"The night was dry, yet it was raining", or
"The night was sultry"...no, too parochial...how about...
The sultry moonlight beamed stealthily down between the sprawling peaks of Mount Pilatus and Rigi upon the intertwined corpses of twin artisan dairymaids from Olten-Zofingen, and Lang Lang lightly and rapidly played his way through Chopin's F minor Piano Concerto.
Nailed it. Moving on...
He played with the Dresden Staatskapelle under Fabio Luisi at the KKL concert hall here. I can’t recall a more galling soloist. [italics mine]
Ouch.
Another interesting word choice, but I think we can forget any uncertainty over the meaning of "twittered" -- galling doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Offending, vexing, irritating, and grievous are all synonyms.
So, Lang Lang gave an offensive, irritating performance through his rapid, perhaps even frivolous playing. Nice introduction, how to you plan to support this thesis...
Lang Lang, the 27-year-old Chinese virtuoso, is by various measures the most popular pianist around, a kinetic superstar thanks to his outsize charm and gymnastic technique that earns him the nickname Bang Bang. He can play with grace too. He didn’t here.
Graceless. Check.
He splits opinion.
Others have criticized his playing as well. Got it. But do continue...
He splits opinion. Contemporary culture in general is polarized, but the poles keep shifting in ways that can help tell us where we are.
Huh? The poles of polarized contemporary culture (or is that opinions) move in ways that help us tell where we are?
I've read that sentence probably a dozen times now, and I'm still not sure what it says. How about an illustration...
By way of illustration, the night before Mr. Lang made mincemeat of the Chopin concerto, a sizeable, rapt crowd listened in the same hall to Pierre Boulez conducting works by Janacek, Varèse and Berg.
There have been Lang Langs for as long as there have been keyboard players. Showmen in different eras touch different chords for different generations.
So true. Many a wonderful showman have graced the stage with a piano, like this guy...
This is the age of instant messaging, sound bites, of atomized culture, with information packaged for our convenience in morsels, and Mr. Lang is embraced for more than his winning smile and playing very, very fast.
O-kay...? This is the age of instant messaging.... Um, good point?
Instant messaging = liking people for their smiles?
The way he took apart Chopin’s score made it into a jumble of hyped-up anecdotes.
So, inspired by modern culture, he jumbled up the score? Or "atomized" the music into "morsels"? Did he leave something out? Play only the major themes and the rest is just treacle?
I must say, Mr. Kimmelman, you have me very confused. Moving poles, twittered playing, atomized culture...I'm beginning to think that you didn't like his performance.So what exactly didn't you like about it?
Here he played super quietly, there super slowly, there like Wile E. Coyote in his Acme rocket shoes.
figure ∞: Lang Lang playing Chopin's f minor Piano Concerto, just before he smashed into the side of a cliff.Occasionally he came to a near standstill, forcing the orchestra to crawl with him, so he could ravish a rubato. He swooned and swayed as if possessed by the music (feeling the music “at you,” to borrow the New Yorker magazine critic Alex Ross’s phrase), as if the audience needed little parcels of exaggerated emotion and virtuosity to stay interested.
To recap, you don't like too much gerrymandering with the tempo. Yes, that can be distracting.
So, what about those moving polarized poles, and the reference to an atomized culture?
It brought to mind what Anne Applebaum, the Washington Post columnist, wrote about interpreting history these days.
Wait, what? You were listening to Lang Lang play Chopin, and Anne Applebaum and her comments about interpreting history came to mind?
Yes, non sequiturs are fun.
Writing for The New Republic, she reviewed a book by Nicholson Baker, “Human Smoke,” about the lead-up to World War II, which stitched together, without comment, hundreds of nuggets culled from newspapers, memoirs and other (often secondary) sources to suggest a case for pacifism.
Interesting. Okay, the connection is slowly becoming less incoherent. "Hundreds of nuggets" = "atomized culture...packaged for our convenience in morsels"? Am I close?
“A series of pretentious, Gawker-like vignettes,” Ms. Applebaum called these orchestrated tidbits. “Ripped from their respective contexts each item has the same weight as the next. There is no hierarchy, no sense that one enigmatic anecdote might be more important than the next equally enigmatic anecdote.” That’s not a bad description of what Mr. Lang did with the Chopin concerto.
No wonder Lang ruined Chopin, his out-of-context arguments gave false pretext to World War II. Wait a minute, is that true? You're going to have to bring this one all together for me, Mr. Kimmelman.
What Ms. Applebaum added is also true about music: “There are many legitimate ways to write history, even many avant-garde, nonlinear, novelistic ways to write history, as the historiography of World War II itself well illustrates.” But history persuasively told, like music interpreted, comes down to cogent arguments.
Is "history persuasively told" really the same thing as "music interpreted"? Okay, I think we made need an example.
The pianist Glenn Gould was an eccentric interpreter, but his interpretations, whether you liked them or not, had their own internal, neurotic logic. They made an elaborate case for themselves. The same could be said about playing by Vladimir Horowitz or Sviatoslav Richter.
How is one interpretation cogent, and another not? I suppose you're suggesting that Lang Lang's interpretation is not logical?
Flashy passages strung together don’t make an argument.
Right, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
They make an assortment of fetishes.
figure 6: Figure 6 has been removed due to "legal advice".
Flashy passages are not an argument, but they are an interpretation? So, a performer should not interpret, but argue? Or is it that they should first interpret and then argue using their interpretation?
“Perhaps,” Ms. Applebaum wondered at one point about “Human Smoke,” “the whole book is a gigantic practical joke, a stunt intended to provoke.” I wondered the same thing during the concerto.
Perhaps you should have started this review off with, "You had to be there," because I don't get it.
You thought that this performance may have been a joke? Because it made a bad argument? Actually a non-argument because he interpreted the music in small Twitter-sized capsules?
I decided it was a stunt. But it wasn’t a joke. Whatever else he may be, Mr. Lang is sincere. He has peddled his sincerity all the way to the bank.
That doesn't sound sincere at all. In fact, that sounds like you're suggesting he's faking sincerity for financial gain.
That and his virtuosity, so his fans say, have made him classical music’s latest matinee idol.
The question is what does his playing say about us.
So many questions unanswered. I am loathe to try and summarize this mess, but here's the short short version:
Lang Lang plays too fast. And he writes bad history because he plays music in random, unconnected, yet enigmatic tidbits with no hierarchical structure.
----------------------------------
Seriously? I love a good evisceration, and I don't necessarily doubt the validity of the critique I think that Kimmelman is trying to make, but wow, could he have found a more convoluted analogy to make?
Posted by Gustav at 4:16 PM 8 comments
Labels: Chopin, Incoherent arguments, Lang Lang, Liberace, Michael Kimmelman, New York Times, Twitter, Wile E. Coyote
5/1/08
Apt Alliteration's Artful Aid: It's Almost Summer
The quote goes, “Who often, but without success, have prayed for apt Alliteration’s artful aid.” (Charles Churchill)
Well, it surely isn’t the clever journalist and critic Joshua Kosman, with:
Tuesday was such a beautiful night for Beethoven, Lang Lang decided to play two.
Congrats! Sort of a sonata thing going on in there, with “Lang Lang” as the development. I especially liked the dental Ds and the plosives.
Whoa, it’s slow out there.
-
Posted by Empiricus at 12:19 PM 8 comments
Labels: Beethoven, Charles Churchill, Joshua Kosman, Lang Lang, San Francisco Chronicle
3/10/08
Metaphors like Giant Bouncing Balls
Thanks for the title Mr. Kosman. But alas, I am not poking fun at you. Instead, I would like to turn to Mark Swed, who has chronic metaphor and coherence spasms, a perfectly common neurological disorder (see here).
Mark reviewed a solo concert by Lang Lang, at L.A.’s Disney Hall.
The audience was antsy, wanting fireworks, and Lang Lang eventually delivered. First, though, he had to prove he was a poet.
By reciting, in Greek, an original poem on the subject of nuclear love.
He is a poet.
See.
But he is an immature poet with a nuclear arsenal, and that makes him a very dangerous poet.
...
Would you care to clear this one up for us, Mark?
The nuclear part of the weaponry is a killer technique.
Uh, and...?
The threat is in the delivery system.
...?...
He has the charisma to hold an audience in his power.
This is still part of the same paragraph, and he is still qualifying “immature poet,” I think.
Responsibility, though, is another matter.
Yes. Yes, I suppose it is.
Yeah! New paragraph!
The first half of Tuesday's recital was refined, elegant and verged on the eloquent. It began with Mozart's B-flat Sonata, K. 333, played with delicacy. Then Schumann's large Fantasy in C brought out ardor. In both pieces, Lang Lang skimmed the surface. But the surfaces he created were flawless.
I think Swed is insinuating that Lang lacked depth. Fine.
Not every lake is best appreciated by jumping in.
...?:”!@&^...?...
But it’s okay Lang doesn’t have depth, because he’s a nuclear threat, which trumps charisma and responsibility, at least for poet-pianists.
I have no idea what he’s saying. In fact, I have no idea what I’m saying anymore. So, I give up. I’m done.
-
I lied. I would like to point out that this was printed in the L.A. Times. Thank you.
No, really. Thank you. I mean it. Thank you. Thank you so much. I am a better person, now. Because of the article. And how good it was. Seriously. It was good. Thanks. Poets. Wow. I'm amazed at how much I learned. Really. It was good. Very good. So good I am a better person. Thanks a lot. I super-really mean it, tools.
No. Big rubber balls.
-
Posted by Empiricus at 7:45 PM 5 comments
Labels: Giant Bouncing Balls, Joshua Kosman, LA Times, Lang Lang, Mark Swed, Nuclear Poet


