Pierre-Arnaud Dablemont, pianist » I don’t like

André Rieux Syndrome

Pierre-Arnaud — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:00:33 +0000

We all know the dutch fiddler and his orchestra dressed à la mode of XVIII^th century, but would his name be associated to a psychiatric disorder? Not yet officially, but it won’t be long coming. I noticed that many musicians and artistic directors were subject to the same symptoms that I have been regrouping under the “Andre Rieux syndrome”.

But what is it? To understand, we must first review Rieux’ recipe :

Take a few classic tunes rather light and easy to memorize and some known pop songs. Rearrange the classical tunes to obtain a folk orchestration and mix everything. Rub in a paste of very fat marketing, season with a pinch of self-centeredness and megalomania. Finally, serve while pretending you have good intentions.

That’s the billionaire’s recipe. No jealousy, but a great admiration : lure of money and fame have become more important than professional conscience, and I wouldn’t be able to think this way. I would not sleep any more.

As you certainly noticed, the André Rieux syndrome has spread widely in recent years. Crossovers of all kinds, strange programming mixing film music and classical symphonies, and so on… All motivated by the laudable aim of attracting a new audience and democratizing classical music. Bullshit, it’s just THE André Rieux syndrome.

First symptoms: believing that classical music should be democratized by making it more “accessible”. Shortening a forty minutes symphony to a few poorly orchestrated themes is dreadful. A composer builds a structure, progressions and extracting two or three themes from his work is a non-sense and is tantamount to quoting two sentences from Lost Illusions by Balzac and pretend you’ve read the book: it is not democratization but a lie.

Democratization? There is none required, at least not this way. Explain and convey your passion, I agree, but it requires a bigger effort for each side. The patient with an Andre Rieux syndrome makes you think he helps you understand and love music while he is only simplifying things. So, he takes you for a congenital idiot not able to rise to his “level”.

And it is logical because his ego is overdeveloped. He would do anything to get recognition, fame and money. Even sacrificing the most beautiful pages of the greatest composers on the altar of capitalism. Even playing Michael Jackson with a symphony orchestra. Poor Michael, he would have gone mad if he had heard.

And will it attract a new audience to classical music? No, but it will really become more profitable for the producer. The main aim is not to share a true musical moment with the audience, it is to generate the biggest income. It’s not enough to take you for a fool, the patient with this syndrome has to rip you off: classical concerts are far cheaper than a ticket for a show à la Rieux.

If you recognize a Andre Rieux syndrome, think of me and buy a concert ticket for a classical concert: I’m sure you’ll like it, you will not be taken for a fool, it will cost you less and you will certainly experience a much better quality of performance.

2010 has been declared Chopin year!

Pierre-Arnaud — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:00:51 +0000

Each year represents an opportunity to honor a particular composer, and 2010 has been prepared actively. Indeed, pianist and composer Frédéric Chopin was born in 1810 and next year will be HIS year. We will “discover” the genius of Chopin and his complete works will be played over and over again. Not that it bothers me, Chopin is a composer with whom I have a particular connection, but why would 2010 serve as a pretext to highlight Chopin’s work as it could help to better know less “media-friendly” composers but at least equally interesting ?

Leafing through my history of the twentieth century, I could find at least three significant anniversaries. Perhaps a centennial is any less impressive than a bicentennial, but in 1910 were born Samuel Barber and Pierre Schaeffer, for example, and also died Mily Balakirev. Wouldn’t these people be enough significant in the history of music to celebrate the 100th anniversary of their birth or death? Or is it easier and more mainstream to decree that we should celebrate a composer already known to all and played a lot?

For 2010, I invite you to (re?) discover the work of these three illustrious personages. I already spoke about Pierre Schaeffer in details in an article about the musique concrète, but let me remind you what he basically did. Pierre Schaeffer has deeply changed the perception of sound and influenced all the music of the second half of the twentieth century. Father of concrete music, he used for the first time electronics as an interpreter. His theory of musical objects is a real jewel and his work has fundamentally influenced a whole generation of revolutionary composers: Stockhausen, Nono, Berio among others (let’s thank here Donaueschingen) or more directly Henry or Mâche. Other composers used his approach to move toward areas still unknown: Messiaen and his work Timbres – Durées (First work to implement spatial slicing performed on three tape trays), Varèse and Déserts, the first work combining acoustic instruments (in this case an orchestra) and tape, and even Boulez with his symphonie mécanique in 1955.

Samuel Barber has been considered by many as one of the most important American composers of the twentieth century. You certainly know his famous Adagio for Strings, but if it has somewhat overshadowed the rest of the work, we should go dig a little deeper. As a pianist, I focused on scores for my instrument and I learnt that Barber studied piano at the Curtis Institute, and payed homage to this instrument many times during his career. You should listen to his sonata or Piano Concerto, true masterpieces too little played today. Try also his fabulous excursions.

Finally, the last name of my list, Mily Balakirev, who died in 1910, is a central figure of Russian musical life. Islamey will certainly remind something to pianists… Balakirev extended and developped the thought of Glinka : Glinka had transmitted to Balakirev his strong nationalism and convinced him of the need for Russia to have a school independent from those of Europe. In 1857, after Glinka’s death, he founded one of the most important group of composers during the Romantic period: the Five. Balakirev met 4 other like-minded composers to reach his aim: Cui, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and Mussorgsky. Struggling against academic education of composers, his magnetism and personality inspired his comrades to improbable heights of musical creativity.

I let you gather and listen to tracks and wish you a marvelous time with three composers not as media-friendly as Chopin, but who also could mark the year 2010.

Things that irritate us

Pierre-Arnaud — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:14:07 +0000

I was talking a few days ago with an eminent colleague pianist, expatriate as myself, who, while on holidays in her native country after several years of absence, was asked by friends what she was doing in life. She naturally answered: “I play the piano” . Not satisfied with this answer, they asked her what she was seriously doing in life. Tragic… isn’t it? But all musicians will tell you, it’s typical!

It apparently seems difficult for some to imagine that spending 8 or 10 hours every day at a piano is a serious job. It also apparently seems difficult for some to imagine that there is an aesthetic and intellectual research and that this is not just about pushing the right keys at the right time… I reassure you, being musician is a profession with many facets, taking up 100% of our time and asking a lot of work.

In the same vein, imagine for a moment the situation: you are invited to a dinner where at the back of the host’s living room is standing a piano… and suddenly it’s a drama, someone exclaims: “Are you going to play us something?” No way! The piano is often not tuned or in a so miserable state that it is almost unplayable, and in any case, is it really polite to ask a guest to work? It would not cross my mind to invite a friend surgeon and ask him to remove me an unsightly melanoma immediately with a kitchen knife as only instrument.

These little comments or situations, which have the knack of irritating musicians are legion… If today I (almost?) do not hear them anymore, it’s because I do not have much time to get out of my “jar”, within which everyone knows what I’m doing. A few years ago, I also had to face this fact and this is not always easy. Have mercy on us, simple musicians, think before speaking too much and good luck to you newbies, this will end up tailing off!

Classical music against “undesirables”

Pierre-Arnaud — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:00:07 +0000

The municipality of Trois-Rivières in Québec has found a strange way to secure the local underground parking. The authorities have indeed installed headspeakers, playing around the clock classical music in the stairwells of this big parking lot.

With a high sound level, the municipality intends to disturb and drive anyone seeking refuge in the parking lot away. According to the city’s spokesperson, more and more homeless and drug-addicted individuals settle down there, mostly in winter, causing a feeling of insecurity among the structure’s users.

Of course, the spokesperson admits that this displaces the issue rather than resolving it. But, what seems to be the most comical is to use classical music as a repellent. It’s certainly more peaceful than the “Malodore” used in Argenteuil, but I find it difficult to accept that classical music might be considered as a potential repellent.

Imagine one second the discussion which could follow from this… “I am sure that if we blast on repeat Mahler’s 5th symphony by Karajan, homeless would run away faster rather than with Mozart’s piano concertos by Perahia.” Surrealist, isn’t it? I’m certain in any case that the result the municipality wanted to obtain is the total opposite of what these composers had wished for…

Does all of this seems normal or am I the only one to be offended by this absurdity?

The lying down concert: a new concept?

Pierre-Arnaud — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:00:00 +0000

Some time ago, the famous ice cream brand Häagen-Dazs organized a two days event called “Dolce Heavenly Concert” in Tokyo. The “revolutionary” idea was to replace the hall seats with beds. The guests were therefore stretched out on luxury beds and had as much ice cream as they desired…

“We should relax when we listen to music” commented a young woman, admitting she was deeply sleeping during the concert. Many guests woke up when they heard applause. The organizers’ spokesperson explained the initiative: “One tend to think people should sit down and listen somberly to a classical concert. We think it would be better if people could relax, lying down on a bed and having a tasty ice cream“.

If, of course, these concerts had essentially a commercial purpose for Häagen-Dazs (the promotion of “de-stressing” new flavours) I’m beginning to wonder about the validity of such a concept, which could (unfortunately?) multiply.

After the reading of this news item, I asked myself many questions. Naturally, the first was: what was then the purpose to play music in front of a sleeping audience? I’m still trying to find… Wouldn’t it be to create a sound background enabling people to nod off? I dare to hope I’m wrong, this would be an insult to classical music and treat it as a mere lift music.

But is classical music relaxing? I don’t think so neither. Based on the tension/resolution system (at least in tonal music, ie. the one listened to “relax”), I difficultly see how a series of tensions and resolutions could become relaxing.

On the other hand, where is the respect for the musician, who worked for weeks or months?, when in front of him, a slouch audience, sleeping or eating ice cream, is listening with one ear and is not concentrated on the sound result…

As you’ve understood, I’m not for this kind of initiative. And you, what do you think about it?

Noise in concert halls

Pierre-Arnaud — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:48:51 +0000

Today let’s speak about what occurs in the public during a concert. If certain halls are extraordinary quiet, others are absolutely not. The main problem of a concert hall: it is built to diffuse the sound, ALL sounds, so the noises too.

Among sound pollution of our concert halls, you can of course find the same type of noises as in the everyday life. The noisiest pollution is undoubtedly the cellular phone. It appears all the same unthinkable to me that the owners of these small diabolic machines can let them on during a representation. We saw flowering, a long time ago, (it is now a part of the ritual) the announcements at the beginning of each concert. I can understand that certain jobs require to be reachable 24H a day but there is also the vibrator mode, much more silent. Finally some artists stopped concerts and left stage after hearing a ringing cellular, so now people are paying attention to this and this plague almost disappeared.

Another noise very common: the coughing fit. If it is less controllable than the telephone, you can at least limit its effects. A website advises “to try to control your cough or your sneezes. If someone is prone to cough, to take cough syrup before going to the concert can help to solve the problem. A good way to reduce the noise of a sneeze consists in putting the mouth in the elbow; you can also try to wait till the sound volume is particularly loud”. Without working up to swallow a complete pharmacy before going to a concert, certain English halls lavish illustrated advices in their programs: to cough in a pocket-handkerchief. Sometimes even the handkerchiefs are distributed at the entry of the hall. Indeed, to cough in a handkerchief makes it possible to reduce considerably the sound impact of cough. Yet, certain diabolic music lovers keep on coughing as if they were at home, which led Pierre-Laurent Aimard to stop a concert at the Théâtre des Champs Elysées and to address to public in those words: “Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to remind you that a concert hall is made to play music and not to cough”. Perhaps soon an announcement similar to those used for phone, and a film entitled “how to cough in a handkerchief?” will help us to solve the problem?

Another type of spectators poison the halls: candy eaters. Coughing drops eaters? It is the same for me, they had to anticipate! Who hasn’t been confronted to these cruel beings who unfold their candy papers cautiously? Let’s say it once for all: unfold quickly or, it’s even better: do not eat candies! And afterwards, what to do with the paper? To fold up and put it into your bag? You want to make noise again? Throw it rather on the ground and wait for the interval! If you must absolutely take coughing drops, unpack them before the concert and put them in a box or a handkerchief, for godsake! I won’t speak about zips, velcros, and so on… it’s all the same: do it quickly.

There are plenty of pollutions to quote like the applause at an inappropriate time, crackings of broken armchairs… the list is long! Very often, people attribute to younger these misdeeds, whereas from the stage or room, I noticed that it is seldom them who are involved. I was often very surprised of the extreme attention of young people contrary to other spectators known as “adult” obviously accustomed concert, but not respecting anyone. Of course, I also saw parents sitting their children stirring up and noisy at the first rank, but I would rather show to finger in this case the parents. Could we think that the parents paying the most expensive seats, acquire at the same time the right to sit there their children without any shame for the inconvenience?

In a concert hall, there is in my opinion for the spectator only one rule: attention. Silence is a corollary of attention as well as a mark of respect towards the other spectators and the musicians, and is necessary to a concert. Only one rule, then let us respect it!

The SACEM’s twists and turns

Pierre-Arnaud — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:20:21 +0000

At this end of January, my interest is focused on France and its SACEM. Does the “Society of the Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music” wish to deprive its members of diffusion?

Our team has decided a few weeks ago to put online for free some of my most recent recordings, in streaming and downloading versions. The juridical jungle of internet has considerably slowed down the project of on-lining and changed our plans.

Wishing to introduce to French contemporary repertoire works, we came up against the problem of SACEM’s authors members. Far from criticizing copyrights, I’m opposed here to three things:

- The prohibitory prices charged by the venerable institution

- The authors image resulting from the society’s management

- The complete dispossession of the author’s rights

To put online my recordings, I must of course pay the royalties. That being said, the SACEM does not make any difference between a lucrative and a non-lucrative purpose… If we wanted to lead to the initial project, this website would have probably been a total ruin.

A small example: Let’s suppose that we wanted to put the Henri Dutilleux’s sonata for piano online. This site would have, according to the clauses of the SACEM, to pay a 100€ tax per year + 0,07€ per download for free download as well as a fixed price of 100€ per month for streaming. One single Dutilleux’s sonata would then come to about 1400 € per annum, and this, even if Mister Dutilleux gave us a free license, as he would himself have to pay his own rights, having assigned them to the SACEM.

There remained two possibilities: either to be in breach of the law and not pay anything at all, or put in place a payment system, generating an additional cost of 200€/month for the secured banked system. None of these possibilities have been retained; the first one for obvious reasons to not deprive a composer of his royalties; the second one because it did not square with the initial conditions.
Therefore, the simplest solution seems to not put online the SACEM’s members and to only publish French authors that have fallen in the public domain.

Too bad! Whereas everyone criticize the lack of dissemination of Contemporary Music, which could easily be filled in with a fast and mass medium called the internet, the institutions supposed to defend us, prevent us from doing that “in our own interest”.

The institution also makes wicked artists, stingy and money-grubbing out of its members. However, about this image, the authors would speak for themselves (see this article). As you can see, the SACEM generates comic situations, like when an artist is forced to pay rights on his own works! Fortunately, France does not have the monopoly of good music, and in other countries, such institutions do not possess exclusive rights; it is therefore possible to directly negotiate with composers.

The final word would be: Do not play French music now, wait 70 years after the composer’s death! The French music will always have, at least, a 70 years delay in media, unless one helps to develop the legislation… isn’t it Mister Petitgirard?