Re: GG: not in _Time_

[Gayle Woikey <woikey@cei.net>]

I wonder what happened to Jascha Heifetz?  He was not only popular with the
concert going, classical crowd, but with the movie goers of the 30's and 40's,

as was Stoky.
(By the way, my high school junior year English teacher used to be his
secretary,
Eleanor Kleinschmidt.  That was before I knew her as a teacher, so it must
have been
in the 50's or 60's.  Just some more trivia....)
Anyway, why were these two musicians not selected, do you think?  What were
the
criteria the "judges" used?  Who were the judges?
Gayle.

Bradley P Lehman wrote:

> Got the June 8th _Time_ magazine yesterday, the one whose cover features
> "100 Artists and Entertainers of the Century."  I tried a guessing game:
> which classical musicians would be chosen for that category?
>
> I knew they'd pick Stravinsky as #1 because I'd peeked at visual arts
> already and they'd chosen Picasso there, so the parallel was obvious.
> After that, my guess was that Bernstein would be in the top few because of
> his extremely influential work as conductor, composer (sort of a classical
> fusionist), pianist, and educator of the public, the ideal all-around
> popularizing disciple for classical music.  Then the other list choices
> would be up to _Time's_ whims.  Would GG make it?
>
> Sure enough, Stravinsky won "The Classical Musician" for his compositional
> influence, and it mentioned also his exciting conducting.  (Didn't mention
> his huge influence on minimal-interpretation performance styles, which I'm
> sure Taruskin would have brought out if he'd been on the panel.)  Then a
> sidebar has "Prodigious Performers: three virtuosos who inspired cult
> followings and made unforgettable music:" a tiny photo and short paragraph
> each for Maria Callas, Vladimir Horowitz, and Leonard Bernstein.  All
> three are of course the "wow the crowds" type.
>
> What do you think of their choices?
>
> Personally, I would have put Stravinsky first, Bernstein a close second.
> Then I'd put Rachmaninoff: on the evidence of their recordings, he was at
> least as gifted a pianist as Horowitz (better, in my opinion), plus he
> composed and conducted, and his compositions are very popular and
> accessible.  (But he perhaps wasn't rated as "progressive" enough to make
> the list.)  Then GG, as much for his influence on the recording industry
> and for his thoroughly 20th-century musical approach as for his
> performances.  Then if there was a fifth spot, maybe Nikolaus Harnoncourt:
> as conductor, player, and writer he takes historical scholarship
> seriously, fitting it into an especially vital performance style (and
> having a huge discography, both on old instruments and on modern
> instruments).  Horowitz *might* make it into the next five, but I'm not
> sure about that.  I'd have to get Leonhardt and Landowska in there
> somewhere for their immense influences on 20th-century performance styles,
> and maybe get some more composers in there.  If Callas was to be on a list
> at all, I think they should have made a separate opera or vocal category
> instead of sweeping all of "classical music" into one, and I'd put
> Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau ahead of her...but she was before my time and
> outside the areas of my interest, and so I don't know much about her.
>
> Other opinions on how "classical musicians of the century" should be
> ranked?
>
> Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.45716N+78.94565W
> bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/