This reminds me of a telephone call I received once from someone seeking guitar lessons. He stated that his fondest desire was to play really fast scales, to which I replied "why"? The conversation went downhill from there as it turned out that his favorite genre was 'death-metal' and I said I doubted I could help him. One thing I said that turned him off was that fast scales are just about the most boring thing in music. OK, let's listen to some more of David Garrett. Here he is playing the Air from the Orchestral Suite No. 3 by J. S. Bach:
He doesn't just play the classics, of course. He also plays a little Metallica:
Should we hear one more, just to get the full picture? I can't quite bear to either listen to or post his mugging of Beethoven, so let's hear the inevitable "Kashmir", originally by Led Zeppelin:
David Garrett seems the ideal crossover artist: he is male-model good-looking, he has tremendous facility and he plays all the usual war-horses, including the new warhorses by Metallica and Led Zeppelin. But he also has that other necessity for real commercial success: no musical expression. I talked about musical expression in this post. There is a lot of music that has a purely utilitarian purpose such as work songs, communal music of various kinds, pure dance music and so on. But most of the music we listen to for aesthetic pleasure involves some kind of individual or group human expression. As Beethoven inscribed on a manuscript of his "Missa Solemnis", "from the heart -- may it go to the heart". Even a halting performance by an inexpert amateur can be genuine human expression. Sometimes, however, in the professional world of music, we hear expression being either neglected or faked. I think that is what is happening with David Garrett. To anyone who actually likes Bach, his Bach is agonizing. The Air played too fast with rock drums? Beethoven put through a blender? On the other hand, Metallica with tender expression? This is fakery and tricks. David Garrett is a male version of Vanessa Mae:
A long time ago a friend and I attended a concert by another crossover artist, a young female cellist who specialized in orgasmic expressions. As we were leaving we ran into another friend, a truly great violinist and we said something critical about the concert. He replied, and you have to imagine this with a Czech accent: "you were expecting maybe Rostropovich"?
There is musical expression and there is something else we might call 'anti-musical' expression--a performance that may amuse or something, but is the very antithesis of real human musical expression. As long as you aren't expecting the real thing. Speaking of:
34 comments:
Someone should tell David Garrett that you can buy those cheap recording devices that allow you to record a tune at slow speed and then play it back at any speed with no key change. So you can then hear it at 10 times the speed he's using in this clip. In fact you can play the whole thing in under half a second! Try and beat that, Garrett!
Vanessa Mae's performance would be even better if she stripped, since that's clearly the effect she's trying to achieve. Can she do pole-dancing while playing the Flight of the Bumblebee, that's what I really want to know.
The Bach Suites. The first two notes and my heart started racing. That sound !!! I know the reverb helps but his tone is out of this world.
What strikes me about these clips. Garrett and Mae make it all about themselves. Music is their servant. But there you see this past century's greatest cellist at work and the first thing that strikes you is the humility. Rostropovich is there to serve Bach's muic, not the other way around. If he could talk, he would say "So you think I am the greatest cellist, but I am here to show you something infinitely greater than me. I am here to serve."
I couldn't agree more. And very good point about the sound. The great artists take enormous pains to get exactly the right sound for the particular piece, the particular phrase, even the particular beat within the phrase. The David Garrett kind of artist really doesn't care too much about the sound...
Well, the previous Anonymous said enough mean things to assuage my impulse to the same -- and much more intelligently than I had planned when I clicked on the Comment button.
But re Vanessa Mae. Who is paying to see that? That stage was not cheap. Is it Vegas? Are all the patrons drunk? How could you both want to watch it and not howl like a beast when you see it? (Did I hear the neighbour's dog two doors down barking anxiously when I played the clip?) It makes me glad that I have no aesthetic sense, so that I am able to shut these things off in disgust. It's the source of the money that is the mystery for me. Who would pay?!
RG
I'm not sure where the Vanessa Mae venue is--some British gala by the sound of the announcer. Apparently 'artists' who can make you howl like a beast are commercially valuable!
Heh.
I suspect you of having an aesthetic sense. After all, wasn't that what was just outraged?
WOW Garrett is a really amazing guitarist. When he playing his guitar there is nothing more lovely then his tunes.
I have a feeling that whoever posted this comment didn't actually read the post...
Wow, the level of snobbery on this page is thick and disgusting. Watching David Garrett in person is amazing, and it was this performance that made my child interested in what she had called before "stuffy old music". Shame on you, honestly.
You forgot "accurate", as in "the level of snobbery on this page is thick, disgusting and accurate"!
I am glad that your child got interested in music because of David Garrett; I just hope she doesn't play like him. If you are saying he might be good at giving children's concerts then you could be right. If you are saying he is a violinist like Hilary Hahn or Itzak Perlman, then I have to disagree.
Here at The Music Salon we try to maintain traditional levels of snobbery.
Appalling and unprofessional! This is all I have to say about the Garrett / crossover critics out there.
As a classical violinist of 32 years, I first heard Mr. Garrett's music via an email attachment from an international guitarist (whose name I'll leave out as to not subject their fame & credibility to snobbish scrutiny). Upon listening to a few of Garrett's classical pieces (Bach included), I was instantly enamoured with his unique style and outstanding ability.
Now I understand what other bloggers mean by the snobbery within the classical realm.
Perhaps some should listen to the BRAVO at the end of this particular video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAQdkgwwS4
Such INACCURATE criticism is despicable. Especially since Mr. Perlman has repeatedly voiced praises, with very high regard for Garrett.
I wonder if this is the same "anonymous" that left the previous comment about the snobbery levels here? Actually, I think the critique was quite accurate. But, Señor Anonymous, you are entitled to your opinion. And we would take it a tad more seriously if you gave some specifics instead of mere ad hominums--oh, and if you weren't hiding behind your anonymity! David, is that you?
It's a pity to sully such an informative and elegant blog with mean spirited comments.It's sounding like spiteful neighbors gossiping about the girl who dared cut her hair into a bob!
If I never got nasty comments then I would not be doing a good job. You can judge how you are doing by whom you outrage!
Outraged people stop listening. Defeats your purpose. Set a more respectful tone.
Ah, now I see. The point of your first comment, I assume that Anonymous and Anonymous are the same person, was to complain, not about the boorish comments left by other Anonymous commentators, but to complain about the mean spirited comments I made in the post! Is that correct?
My comments were not "mean spirited", but simply critical. Music criticism is one of the prime activities here at the Music Salon. As for setting a more respectful tone, I give respect where it is earned. And you are earning very little indeed!
You see, you are a tad agressive and it's a pity because it's a lovely blog!
I was referring to all the comments, including yours, which seemed unnecessarily disrespectful. Sorry if you're offended!
Thanks for the compliment, which is appreciated! The Internet can be a rough place sometimes. On the whole I am very pleased with the nearly universal level of courtesy shown in the comments on this blog. It is much higher than is typical on the Internet. But there are occasional commentators who engage in ad hominum personal attacks without actually mentioning any particulars. If someone says they disagree with a particular point or points that I made, I regard that as very fair indeed, especially if they say why. But when someone simply says, " the level of snobbery on this page is thick and disgusting" then they are going to get a sharp rejoinder from me.
But I am not at all offended. I believe very much in the clarifying power of argument. But you do have to be specific. The classic bad comment would be something like, "you sir, are an idiot!"
Thank you for your very respectful reply!
I'm not the 'anonymous' who made the comment about 'snobbery'. I simply think that if criticism is well done it opens dialogue rather than shutting it off. But apparently I'm not very good at it myself since I managed to upset you! But your blog is amazing. I'm just disappointed at the tone of some of the criticism which seems unnecessarily mean. Maybe it can't be done any other way.
Yes, it might well the the case that I am a bit meaner than necessary sometimes. Fun though it is, it is not to everyone's taste. I think that what you get a taste of on this blog is how musicians often talk to one another. If they dislike something, they say so in very uncompromising terms. None of this finds its way into the mainstream media, of course.
Yes, being mean can certainly be cathartic. I've just returned from an amusement park with the grandkids where I actually thought about your blog. There is nothing quite like being trapped in an amusement park for three days for provoking an existential crisis. I confess I felt quite mean spirited much of the time. Since we continue communicating on this blog page why not give us a critique of David Garrett's performance another anonymous posted here that I've just listened to?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnAQdkgwwS4
I quite enjoyed it but maybe I'm an idiot. Let me know!
Manufactured "amusement" is rather hellish, isn't it! An amusement park is an experience rather like a David Garrett or Vanessa Mae concert, perhaps. Everything is all about a frenetic surface.
I will have a listen to the clip you sent and see if it inspires me to a critique!
As Albert Einstein put it so well: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Of course, it is envy what moves criticism on the part of those who are unable to do what he does, as well as he does it!
It is rather easy to dismiss any criticism as being based on envy, isn't it? Of course this means that no criticism is ever possible, right?
But believe me, I really don't envy the way David Garrett plays, not at all.
Hi Bryan
I was just reading this thread about David Garrett and I'm thinking that In fact it would be interesting to have a review, to hear you say exactly why you don't like the way he plays. I can understand that you don't like his classical crossover music, I don't like it either, but he also plays classical. I've heard some of it and it seems fine to me except for the fact that his clothing is a bit peculiar sometimes for the context (ski caps?!!) You did say that you can't just say 'you sir are an idiot' without explaining why, right?
My original post did contain a critique of David Garrett which apparently set off a lot of agreement and even more disagreement. Let me quote some bits:
After the Flight of the Bumblebee clip I said:
"fast scales are just about the most boring thing in music"
After some more clips I said:
"Even a halting performance by an inexpert amateur can be genuine human expression. Sometimes, however, in the professional world of music, we hear expression being either neglected or faked. I think that is what is happening with David Garrett. To anyone who actually likes Bach, his Bach is agonizing. The Air played too fast with rock drums? Beethoven put through a blender? On the other hand, Metallica with tender expression? This is fakery and tricks."
Towards the end I said:
"There is musical expression and there is something else we might call 'anti-musical' expression--a performance that may amuse or something, but is the very antithesis of real human musical expression. As long as you aren't expecting the real thing."
These are all critiques of the way David Garrett plays music.
Hi Bryan
The Flight of the Bumblebee is part of a contest to just play quickly. No pretensions towards real virtuosity there.I think it was clear there wouldn't be any expressive quality.It was just a game.
Then the Bach would qualify as crossover wouldn't it? With the drums?
What I was referring to was criticism of his true classical performances with classical orchestras. Apparently he does a lot of those. Somehow it doesn't seem fair to diss a musician without actually listening to what he does. Maybe he's lousy, I'm not qualified to say. But if you don't listen to his serious classical performances it doesn't seem fair to pass judgement. Unless of course fooling around with classical crossover disqualifies him from serious consideration.
Gosh it does seem that I'm always giving you a hard time about something doesn't it? Sorry about that!
Your comments make valid points, unlike many of the ones above! There is a deeply-rooted tendency in otherwise quite nice people to become enraged if someone questions the aesthetic quality of something. It is a bit like the police and municipal leaders in Jaws wanting to suppress any stories about sharks eating their tourists! Criticism Bad!
I have listened to some of David Garrett playing true classical performances with orchestra, but I didn't choose any for my post and at this point I don't recall any details. Just looking on YouTube now, I see that his pop/crossover stuff hugely outnumbers his classical performances. I also am of the view that an artist's aesthetic stance is of a whole. If you play a rock arrangement of Bach with stiff unmusicality, then you are stiff and unmusical. But perhaps this is simply not true! In order to check it, then what I would need to do is, as you say, do a review of his serious classical performances. But if I do, then it might turn out even worse for poor David Garrett! What do you think? I'm happy to do it; I'm always looking for things to do posts on. And I would even approach it with objectivity as I don't mind being wrong. But, based on experience, I am more likely to be right than wrong.
Well it would certainly add to your credibility if you took the time to seriously review his work as a whole. But it will take some time and might necessitate watching him play in a ski cap which will probably be horrible for you. I've seen some of his performances when he was a small child and teenager and I was impressed, but I'm no judge. Just enter into google, David Garrett young, or something like that. I'm sure there are a lot of clips of him performing classical as an adult too. I look forward to your observations. It's truly educational for me.
I don't actually think my credibility rests on what I think of David Garrett either way! Music criticism is a very minor activity for me, just done as a public service.
The only thing that I might dislike about him playing in a ski cap is if I suspected he was doing it because he thought it added to his cool image.
I'm sure I can easily find a David Garrett classical performance. I think saw one of him doing the Brahms concerto.
And while you're at it why don't you do the same with 2CELLOS? You have already listened to Stjepan Hauser's Kol Nidrei. Along with Luka Sulic, his partner, they have a lot of classical on YouTube too. They don't do any classical crossover. I won't ask you to listen to Lindsey Stirling, that would be cruel! But to be fair before calling her stuff crap crap crap you probably need to listen to more than one piece. Yikes! I'm glad I'm not a music critic!
Oh and one more thing. Fans can be fiercely loyal. I've noticed this in the comments section of YouTube. People defend their favorite musicians the way a mother defends her kid against a bully. If you're going to criticize you'd better do it fairly and even then be prepared for a vendetta!
I just flunked the 'I am not a robot test' twice!
Let me stress that I am not a music critic and only do the occasional piece on music performance as a public service. I have absolutely no intention of devoting any time to going through Lindsey Stirling's clips trying to find something to say. It is simply not worth the effort! I might listen to some more of 2Cellos sometime. But really, there are hosts of crossover and semi-classical artists out there and I make no pretence of covering that field in any way.
I meant the credibility of whatever criticisms you're making, not the credibility of you or your blog.
I do really appreciate the public service of your criticisms. It's educational. And I also appreciate your patience with someone who is clearly not a musician and especially not of your caliber. My point was if you're going to completely diss artists as you did with 2Cellos and David Garrett it seems logical that you'd listen to their work first. I can certainly understand that you wouldn't want to waste your time listening to performers you don't care about. And it's your blog so you can tell me to bugger off!
I guess that my feeling is that if I run across a clip by David Garrett or 2Cellos or Nigel Kennedy (to name another artist I was critical of) then I am free to comment on it. What you are suggesting is that I should listen to a wide selection of their work before making a criticism. As a matter of fact, I have a series of posts usually titled "The Case of ... " in which I discuss composers like Bartók and Hindemith and often make fairly substantive criticisms of them. In those posts I do adopt the policy of becoming familiar with a wider selection of their work.
I haven't really worked out the distinction here, but perhaps it is one of criticism of a performance vs criticism of a body of work. Performers, for better or worse, are criticised based on each individual performance. "You are only as good as your last concert" is one of those depressing things that performers deal with. So, in order to comment on a particular performance, you in fact do not (and should not) listen to other performances of that artist, but confine your remarks to what you heard on the night. If you are familiar with the artist you might say that this concert was better or worse than you heard last year, but that is really irrelevant to your job of the moment which is to comment on what you heard that night. I think this extends to YouTube clips as well as they are simply records of particular performances.
Contrast this with a critique of the music of Bartók that was based solely on an early piano piece like Allegro barbaro. That would be unfair in exactly the way you mention.
Post a Comment