Mandle Chung and Mahler 2

Along comes another rich guy with Mahlerian dreams of grandeur who lives out his fantasies by paying a princely sum to conduct a leading orchestra.  We've seen this before with Gilbert Kaplan.  Now it's Mandle Chung "hiring" the Toronto Symphony Orchestra for his own personal vanity project.  Are we supposed to care? 

OK, enough with the cynicism.  Like Kaplan, Chung is a patron of the arts whose goal is to promote classical music to the widest possible audience.  In this case, Chung is paying for the orchestra, the concert hall, and for the promotion of the concert.  It's true that one could argue that he could do all that and also hire a professional conductor instead of placing himself at the centre of the performance.  However, Mahler performances these days are all too common.  This performance is different because the conductor is the outsider, he's the draw just as much as the music.  

I love Mahler 2 just as much as the next classical music fan, I saw Bradley Cooper whip up a sweat soaked frenzy in "Maestro", but I know I have no business conducting this work no matter how much I might dream about it.   People have the right to be skeptical and to make jokes.  But why smirk about a supposed loss of artistic credibility?   "It must be about the money" ... of course it's about the money!  No orchestra can survive without arts grants and philanthropy.  There's a place for upholding authenticity and also a place for shameless moneymaking strictly for entertainment purposes.  I don't think there's any shame in aspiring to the former while also proudly admitting to the latter.  Modern orchestras are both supremely talented and enviably versatile, they can manage both.   

Would modern arts critics scoff at Haydn for working most of his career as the personal composer of a Hungarian noble?  Would the music have been better if he had not done it all "for the money" he received from wealthy patrons?  Would a modern day Haydn have to be a struggling and starving artist to remain authentic?  

I searched online for reviews of Chung's performance last night.  As of this posting, I couldn't find any major media outlets who covered the concert.  I could only find a few message board posts.  Chung was well practiced and energetic, but didn't succeed in leading the orchestra to the highs that the music demands.  Hey, that's what they said about Kaplan too.  This type of thing isn't unique to classical music either.  Sometimes celebrities dabble in pro wrestling, and the expectations are on a parallel scale compared to two pros having a match.  If it draws a crowd, then it works.  If celebrity involvement becomes a weekly thing, then the audience will likely get bored and turn away from the product.    There's also place for this alternate form of classical music entertainment.  

Brian Wilson RIP

Here is the first line of Brian Wilson's obit in the NYT: 

Brian Wilson, who as the leader and chief songwriter of the Beach Boys became rock’s poet laureate of surf-and-sun innocence, but also an embodiment of damaged genius through his struggles with mental illness and drugs, has died.

Continuing on, the article presents a balanced picture of his considerable fame and talents, as well as repeated references to his personal struggles and failings.  In contrast, in their obit for Sly Stone, published just three days earlier, the star is depicted as a trailblazer who also happened to be a little bit eccentric.  The dysfunction of his final five decades is largely brushed off as merely unusual behavior from a man who was also a recluse.  I have nothing against Sly Stone.  Both Wilson and Stone are legends.  But let's be un-PC for a moment.  Wilson went crazy, but reconstituted his life and had a remarkable final act from the 90's onward.  Stone went crazy and remained crazy, becoming at best considered to be half-myth, half-punchline from the early 80's until the end of his life.  Why then, in this pair of obits, are Brian Wilson's drug use and psychological problems placed front and centre in defining him as a person, whereas the same issues are nearly buried in the case of Sly Stone?  

CNN's obituary is just as bad: 

Wilson’s life was marked just as much by struggles with substance abuse and mental illness as it was by repeated comebacks, remarkable talent and timeless songs that still echo across the country, decades after their release.  [emphasis mine]

The Guardian doesn't even wait for the main text, they lay it out in the subheader:   

Musician, who suffered from mental health problems, wrote and produced the 1966 album Pet Sounds – seen by many as the greatest album of all time. 

Apparently none of these "trusted" news sources has a problem with stigmatizing mental illness when a rich white person is involved.  

I'm actually not trying to make a point about race.  My main point concerns the extraordinary inflexibility of the mainstream media and their tendency to cling to entrenched narratives.  For nearly two decades, the story of Brian Wilson was that of a guy who burned himself out and fell under the spell of a corrupt psychotherapist.  It wasn't a secret.  People joked about it.  Barenaked Ladies wrote a song about it.  But gradually, Wilson wrote himself a new reality.  The release of "Pet Sounds" on CD was essential in introducing the album to a new generation of fans who mainly knew the Beach Boys for their surfing songs.  I was one of those fans.  "Pet Sounds" rejoined the discussions of the greatest albums ever made.  Wilson broke free of Dr. Landy, released new music, got married.  Then he took things up a level when he completed "Smile" in 2004.  

It's easy to forget what a huge deal the release of "Smile" was, especially since it isn't really listened to much anymore and has already become something of a forgotten classic.  It was nothing less than a rite of passage for Beach Boys devotees (i.e. nearly everyone), and if you weren't there at the time, it may be hard to fully grasp the collective, unrestrained excitement of multiple generations of fans and critics finally getting to experience his album -- in some approximate form reflective of the original concept from 1967.   The most mythical uncompleted album of the rock era was finally here.  And then, having finally heard "Smile" following the decades of hype, it was reshelved.  Think about a wedding, graduation, or some other big life event.  You look forward to it for what feels like forever, documenting every moment as it unfolds. But once it's over, there's such a sense of relief that you tuck the photo album away on a high shelf and rarely feel the urge to revisit it.  That's life.  But when "Smile" was on top, it was glorious.  The album and the subsequent world tour were fitting victory laps for Wilson -- redemption at last for the past and current boy genius.  

That should be the Brian Wilson story -- those remarkable final acts.  Not the drugs, the obesity, the abuse he took from his father, the estrangement from his friends, family, and bandmates.  Getting back to entrenched narratives and the incompetence of the press -- it wasn't always this way.  When Ray Charles died, I don't recall obits that emphasized his drug use and promiscuity (twelve children with ten different women).  The focus was on the music, and post-recovery, post-80's persona (soul music legend, soft drink pitchman, TV staple).  When Miles Davis died in 1991, the NYT wrote that he "defined cool" and made no mention of his very seedy past.  Whether that was a fair take or not is besides the point.  The media used to know how to focus on the art, to look past the turmoil and emphasize the happy ending.  That was the narrative of every episode of "VH1: Behind the Music" , it's a story they used to know how to tell, when they wanted to tell it.  

Brian Wilson lived an incredible life.  He wrote some of the most memorable, yet complex pop songs ever.  In the words of Timothy White in "The Nearest, Faraway Place", Wilson invented California.  He'll be sorely missed by three (four?) generations of fans and musical peers.  His legacy will continue to inspire for years to come.