ACD Test Wordpress

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for November, 2003

A Postmodern Director Speaks

Posted by acdtest on November 24, 2003

A Postmodern Director Speaks

t will come as no revelation to any regular reader of this weblog that I’ve here often expressed my extreme displeasure with — my contempt for — so-called Eurotrash productions of the great Wagner masterpieces and other masterpieces of the stage by other creators, and laid the impetus for such at the feet of self-involved, self-serving directors who thought their “vision” more important and more pertinent than that of the geniuses responsible for the creation of those deathless masterpieces. It never once occurred to me, however, that the motivation for the outrageous vandalism and displays of the grotesque “vision” of those directors could in fact have stemmed from basically well-intentioned if egregiously wrongheaded, self-delusional thinking on their part. Seems I perhaps may have been a bit shortsighted in the matter generally.

Or was I?

The breakthrough in my thinking on Shakespeare [writes stage director Michael Bogdanov] came with a lavish production of Romeo and Juliet in 1974 at the newly opened Haymarket Theatre in Leicester….

[…]

In rehearsal the story had been coming over hard, clear and very exciting.

[…]

When the production moved from the rehearsal room and arrived on to the stage, somehow the clarity and the hardness, the linear quality of the story, had gone. What was more, audiences weren’t responding to either the production or the play. At the last moment, after the very final preview, I cut the whole of the end scene, where the Friar recaps the story for the benefit of Escalus and, after the death of Juliet, I switched to a press conference around the unveiling of the two gold statues that Capulet and Montague erect to the memory of each other’s child.

Rock music built to a climax during a blackout and, when the lights came up, the entire company was assembled in modern dress in front of Romeo and Juliet, now dressed in gold cloaks and masks standing on the erstwhile tomb. Muzak played: “Fly Me to the Moon” . . . Escalus, the Duke, read the prologue as an epilogue from a cue card, as if inaugurating at an unveiling ceremony. The main protagonists were photographed in front of the statues, shaking hands, the Nurse holding up a rope ladder, Escalus attempting to bring about the familial reconciliation with a three-way hand clasp. The smile of Jimmy Carter handing over the presidency to Reagan.

The transformation had an extraordinary effect. People in the audience shouted, people walked out, people cheered, people bravoed, people booed, and I thought: “For three hours they have been bored out of their minds and suddenly something has challenged them. A moment of real theatre.”

The above was taken from a reprint in The Guardian of a discursive, edited extract from Shakespeare: The Director’s Cut, by Michael Bogdanov, published by Capercaillie Books. On reading it, one hardly knows whether to laugh, rail, or weep. “Suddenly something…challenged them. A moment of real theatre”(!)? What is that? Some sort of joke? Is Bogdanov being self-delusional, simpleminded, or just plain lunatic? Or is he simply self-servingly offering up a veiled apologia for his own self-involved, self-serving corruption of a masterwork?

Seems to me that any honest, conscientious director who found that when his production of a work by Shakespeare (Shakespeare, for chrissake!) “moved from the rehearsal room and arrived on to the stage, somehow the clarity and the hardness, the linear quality of the story, had gone…[and] audiences weren’t responding to either the production or the play,” would look for the fault elsewhere rather than come to the astonishing conclusion that Shakespeare or his centuries-acknowledged, timeless and universal masterpiece was somehow at fault for not speaking to a contemporary audience. After all, we’re here talking about a play that in its unadulterated form has captured the imagination and riveted the attention of countless numbers of audiences for more than four centuries now. What strange and anomalous circumstance could possibly account for its sudden failure to do so at the Haymarket Theatre in Leicester in 1974?

Golly. That’s a tough one to suss out. I’ll take a stab at it, though, by suggesting that perhaps the failure was neither Shakespeare’s nor the play’s, but entirely that of the director and his actors. I mean, that doesn’t sound an at all unreasonable suggestion, does it?

Well, perhaps to Mr. Bogdanov it would.

We’re in mortal peril today, boys and girls, of seeing, at the hands of such as Mr. Bogdanov, the disappearance of all that’s important and meaningful in our great legacy of stage masterworks from times past. By the attempts of such auteurs as Mr. Bogdanov to peddle their own piddling and inconsequential “vision” at the expense of those masterworks, and in place of the vision of their creators, and by their resorting to mass-market prole pandering to attract a larger audience for their productions, we’ll not have to wait for Armageddon to bring an end to our great legacy from the past.

Should we be even the least bit concerned about that? I mean, they’re only entertainments, after all.

Uh-huh. And the blood that courses through our veins is merely a salty, liquid reminder of our unimaginably ancient ocean-borning, and nothing more.

Should we be the least bit concerned?

Not exactly.

Afraid is what we should be. Very afraid.

Posted in Cultural Commentary, Theater | Comments Off on A Postmodern Director Speaks

22 November 1963

Posted by acdtest on November 22, 2003

22 November 1963

fter reading through (OK, skimming, mostly) a number of predictable articles remembering that horrific day forty years ago today, I was disappointed but not surprised by the lack of any attempt at an at least capsule assessment of what, beyond the obvious, was so important about JFK and his murder. Typical was the perfectly idiot assessment by William F. Buckley who, after going tediously and irrelevantly on about the failures and lack of political substance of the Kennedy White House years, concluded that “the legacy of John F. Kennedy is his sheer . . . beauty.” That’s it. The whole of Mr. Buckley’s assessment of JFK’s importance and the importance of his murder. But then, what would one expect of a political ideologue, especially of an opposing ideology, other than something that idiot.

For my own thought on the matter, and for the limited purpose of this brief weblog entry marking that terrific event forty years ago, let me say simply that one of its effects of lasting importance to this nation is that it robbed America of that rarest of persons: A politician of more than merely political substance; one who by his intelligence, vision, character, demeanor, and force of personality raised the perception of that corrupt and squalid profession to the level of one worthy of the best and brightest of men and women. By his example JFK made politics seem not only a respectable profession, but a desirable, worthy, even noble one; a profession to which to aspire; one capable of achieving great and enduring things.

Which is not to say JFK was above slick, even underhanded, political maneuvering whenever necessary in order to secure and sustain his position. But that’s a built-in part of the American political system even when engaged in for the most noble of motivations and purposes. What was different about JFK was that one always sensed that he engaged (and engaged expertly) in all the less noble aspects of politics not because they were the most expedient way to his goals, but solely because they were things inescapably part and parcel of the game as it’s played in this country. Absolutely necessary things. Sine qua non things impossible to avoid or give short shrift without imperiling mortally the entire enterprise.

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that had JFK served a full two terms as president of this country, whatever else his tenure of that office may have accomplished (or not accomplished), it would have changed, at every level, the face and substance of American politics forever and to this country’s huge and enduring benefit, and have made a political horror such as, say, the Nixon White House a thing absolutely inconceivable.

On 22 November 1963 a lone gunman, acting on a lunatic impulse, robbed this nation of that legacy and that future.

Such is the indifference of Providence.

UPDATE (1 December at 1:10 AM Eastern): Weblogger Greg Hlatky of A Dog’s Life takes exception.

Posted in Special | Comments Off on 22 November 1963

Hierarchal Sobriety

Posted by acdtest on November 18, 2003

Hierarchal Sobriety

K. I confess it. My repeated references on this weblog to pop trash are but a rhetorical gesture; a raw, slap-in-the-face device intended to get one’s attention in the spirit of that seemingly deathless exhortation urging one to “Wake up and smell the coffee!” Confronted on a daily basis with the pervasive, ubiquitous, and enthusiastic acceptance of the artifacts of contemporary popular culture as embodying the normative aesthetic of our age, not only by the masses but by the cultural elite as well, one can perhaps be forgiven for resorting to such desperate measures. Desperate measures for desperate times, after all.

While by and large I’m hardly fond of the artifacts of contemporary popular culture — most of them empty of substantive content, and aesthetically vulgar or vapid beyond tolerance — I’m not in the least prevented thereby from recognizing the aesthetic value inherent in the best of them, even though not to my tastes. While I’ve, for instance, a hearty appetite for classic (New Orleans) jazz, I’ve little taste for the contemporary sort. Strange to tell for a trained musician, I don’t really understand it, can’t get my mind around it. But neither my distaste nor my lack of real understanding prevents me from recognizing instantly that the best of contemporary jazz possesses genuine aesthetic and musical value. Ditto, mutatis mutandis, and for another instance, the best of contemporary art (painting).

Truth be told, my real objection is not to the artifacts of contemporary popular culture per se, but to the growing absence of a fundamental aesthetic distinction and hierarchy of aesthetic value between such artifacts and the artifacts of high culture (typically so-called to distinguish it from the popular sort). In my view, and contrary to contemporary thinking, there is such a distinction, a very real one, and no meaningful aesthetic continuum connecting the two can be erected except on the merest technical and taxonomic grounds.

There is no aesthetic continuum connecting a Warhol and a Rembrandt although both are technically and taxonomically works of art (paintings). There is no aesthetic continuum connecting the haunting “Eleanor Rigby” and Schubert’s “Death and the Maiden” although both are technically and taxonomically songs. There doesn’t even exist an aesthetic continuum connecting so excellent an example of popular music as Bernstein’s overture to the Broadway musical West Side Story and, say, the overture to Der Freischütz although both are technically and taxonomically introductory music to a largely sung stage work. (I’ve here, on the popular culture side, adduced popular culture “classics” as examples even though strictly speaking none belong to contemporary popular culture.)

In each case, although technically and taxonomically the same, the contemporary popular culture and high culture artifacts inhabit two separate realms, and can no more be compared on the same aesthetic continuum than can the proverbial apples and oranges be compared on the continuum of things-that-one-can-eat-that-grow-on-trees.

So what is it that constitutes the separation between the artifacts of the realms of contemporary popular culture and high culture; a separation so marked as to preclude any meaningful aesthetic continuum connecting them? I suspect the full answer to that question would require a book-length treatise to define and argue convincingly, and I’m neither inclined nor competent to even attempt such a thing. Instead I’ll merely risk the suggestion that what separates the artifacts of the two realms is embodied in the matter of transcendence, an admittedly highfalutin, high culture term, and one referring to what is itself an aesthetically and philosophically slippery concept.

But we won’t let that little consideration stop us from plunging ahead.

The singular hallmark of all artifacts of high culture is their aspiration to transcendence; transcendence of the quotidian world of experience, of the culture which produced them, and even of their very selves as works of Art. And that singular hallmark is what’s singularly lacking in all the artifacts of contemporary popular culture, their singular hallmark being an aspiration to the here-and-now popularly entertaining.

Please note, I did not say all the artifacts of high culture lack entertainment value, nor that all such are transcendent. Clearly, only the greatest are. Rather, I said that, in themselves (as distinct from the intentions of their creators), their distinguishing characteristic is that they have the quality of aspiring to transcendence. That quality is unmistakable, and can be sensed almost palpably even in, say, the simplest cassation of Mozart’s even though Mozart himself intended such merely as an entertainment. Or, say, the sketchiest sketch of Michelangelo’s even though the artist himself may have just been idly doodling. There can be no meaningful aesthetic comparison of works that occupy such a realm with works that occupy a realm where their just as unmistakable and almost palpably sensed quality is their aspiration to the here-and-now popularly entertaining. The former seem to be saying, “I am what I will be. Take me or leave me”; the latter, “I’ll be whatever you want me to be. Love me.”

Well, there’s surely nothing wrong about a work whose principal signal is that it merely wants to be popularly entertaining, and I don’t mean to suggest there is. What I’m suggesting is that, as there can be no meaningful aesthetic continuum connecting such works with works whose principal signal is their aspiration to transcendence, we drop the currently fashionable postmodern fiction that the works of both classes are fundamentally equals in the hierarchy of aesthetic value, and differ only in their details. Seems to me no more revolutionary or reactionary a suggestion than suggesting, say, that we drop the currently fashionable and comforting if manifestly false multicultural notion that all cultures differ only in their details, but are otherwise of fundamentally equal value.

In short, all I’m suggesting is a return to hierarchal sobriety.

And now that I’ve outted myself on this matter of contemporary popular culture, it seems I’ve also cleverly managed to dispossess myself of a useful rhetorical locution.

How very careless of me.

Posted in Aesthetic Commentary, Cultural Commentary | Comments Off on Hierarchal Sobriety

Ross Does Disney

Posted by acdtest on November 13, 2003

Ross Does Disney

hoa!

The New Yorker‘s Alex Ross does Disney Hall.

But the exterior is only the beginning of the wonder of the place. Disney is not simply a piece of prize-worthy architecture; it is also a sensational place to hear music and an enchanting place to spend an evening. In richness of sound, it has few rivals on the international scene, and in terms of visual drama it may have no rival at all. Wherever you sit in the hall, from the front center rows to the high back balcony, the gracefully curving, Spanish-galleon lines of the interior arrange themselves in hypnotic perspectives, and the music seizes you from all sides. The painting-on-a-wall illusion shatters; the orchestra throngs the air.

With each passing day, I’m getting closer and closer to hopping a plane for that hated city.

Posted in Architecture, Music | Comments Off on Ross Does Disney

The Enemy Within

Posted by acdtest on November 12, 2003

The Enemy Within

propos two recent entries on this weblog (here and here) concerning the sorry state of classical music in our present culture, and a suggestion as to how it might be righted, I found this piece by print classical music critic and weblogger Greg Sandow of the ArtsJournal weblog Sandow commenting on this editorial in the Boston Globe on the recent bequest of $200 million to NPR by the estate of Joan Kroc, wife of McDonald’s founder, Ray Kroc.

Wrote the Globe:

Bring back music and culture programming. NPR’s news reports are thoughtful and compelling. Its talk shows are topical and a nice way to bring listeners into conversations. And “Car Talk” is great entertainment. But occasionally all this talk is wearying. Balance could be provided by music shows and radio documentaries.

Concerning which Mr. Sandow had this to say:

But as anyone who’s actually studied this subject knows, public radio listeners overwhelmingly don’t want music. They want talk. The Globe’s editors are free to have their own desires, but it’s just silly for them to lecture public radio, as if their own opinion had to be right.

The Globe editorial continued,

What’s going on outside the often overwhelmingly adolescent world of popular music? Who are the up-and-comers in jazz and classical music? NPR should take more time and programming space to offer answers.

To which Mr. Sandow replied,

Sure, why not? But “the often overwhelmingly adolescent world of popular music” — serious people just have to stop talking like that. As anyone who knows anything about popular music will tell you, there’s a lot of serious work that may well have even more trouble getting on the radio than classical music does. Think about it. Classical radio stations still exist. But how many stations — apart from college radio — play the kind of pop music that doesn’t get on any pop charts?

What’s wrong with this picture?

That’s right. Just about everything that could be wrong. Mr. Sandow, astonishingly, seems oblivious of the plain fact that NPR is not there to give listeners what they want. It’s there to give listeners what they can’t get on commercial radio, which exists solely to give, and for the express purpose of giving, listeners exactly what they want. If that were not the case NPR’s very raison d’être would be nothing short of a total sham, and its funding an act of outright larceny.

And Mr. Sandow’s comments on popular music? Totally outrageous and thoroughly inappropriate coming from a professional classical music critic whose weblog is billed as, “Greg Sandow on the future of classical music.” And his above quoted comments on pop music are not merely a one-time aberration. Mr. Sandow not infrequently makes a case on his weblog, directly or by indirection, for pop trash (yes, I know that’s a bit of a tautology). See his recent weblog entry on Vanity Fair‘s annual music issue for egregious example.

I’ve never read Mr. Sandow in print, and in fact didn’t even know of his existence before he began his weblog, but I’m willing to bet, giving odds, that the man is a (stereotypic) product of the ’60s; one who probably began his career interning at journals such as Rolling Stone Magazine or some such.

Is it any wonder classical music is in such direful straits in this country?

Not a bit of it.

Posted in Cultural Commentary, Music | Comments Off on The Enemy Within

Clarification

Posted by acdtest on November 9, 2003

Clarification

y focus in this piece on the importance of TV shows in particular in selling classical music seems to have spawned widespread misunderstanding of my central idea. I was not suggesting TV be used to educate the young about classical music in the same way as, for instance, the famous Leonard Bernstein CBS Omnibus series did in the mid-’50s, although that would certainly be a part of it. What I was suggesting was something much more subtle, much more pervasive, much more, well, sneaky.

What I was suggesting was that classical music mention — by word, image, or example — become part of as many TV hours of as many TV shows as possible into which the marketing geniuses can manage, by hook or crook, to have inserted within the shows’ very scripts (news shows included) classical music mention much in the same way they now, in almost subliminal fashion, stealthily have inserted mention of, or reference to, or images of, whatever it is they’ve been hired to sell. In other words, make classical music mention — by word, image, or example — part of the very fabric of TV, and of other commercial media as well. This would act as the broad ground for classical music programming of the more conventional sort, both “educational” and straight performance, whenever possible.

In short, what I was suggesting was a saturation assault, or as close as that could be managed, on the American consciousness.

Posted in Cultural Commentary, Music | Comments Off on Clarification

An Audience For Classical Music

Posted by acdtest on November 9, 2003

Creating An Audience For Classical Music

hroughout the past decade or so, one has read often of the attempts made by various classical (or “serious”, or “art”) music entities — symphony orchestras, chamber groups, recital organizers, even opera companies — to gain a larger audience for their “product”, and it’s nothing short of depressing to observe that, virtually without exception, they’ve all pursued a model that’s not merely wrongheaded, but positively suicidal. That model, in keeping with the rabidly populist and promiscuously equalitarian Zeitgeist of our era, and using promotional techniques employed in the world of mass entertainment, has at its core the concept of reaching out to The People. Or using less euphemistic and less charitable terminology, the concept of pandering to the proles. While such a concept is perfectly appropriate and spot-on right in the world of mass entertainment, it’s an ultimate kiss of death in the world of classical music for the very simple and should-be (but astonishingly, largely isn’t) obvious reason that, much as one wishes it were not the case, classical music is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever even marginally be, an object of mass or even widespread appeal no matter how vigorously and assiduously it may be promoted. Classical music is, by its very nature, a fundamentally elitist enterprise, and should never be viewed or promoted as anything other.

One of the pernicious aims of the current leveling Zeitgeist is the dissolution of all hierarchies, both natural and culturally determined without distinction. And while that aim is doomed ultimately to abject failure, the casualties it will produce, and has already produced, along its doomed way will take whole generations to restore to good health, provided, that is, they’ve not been entirely destroyed by the murderous onslaught.

And why is the aim of the current leveling Zeitgeist doomed ultimately to abject failure? Because hierarchies are essential to the well-being of Homo sapiens. There’s just no getting around it. It’s in our DNA as it’s in the DNA of all living things. And in the hierarchy of music, classical music, by every meaningful aesthetic measure, occupies the very highest level; one distinct from all other levels, platitudinous and pernicious equalitarian pap such as the following from a professional classical music critic who more than most ought to know better, notwithstanding.

Said this classical music critic (who, as an act of charity, shall remain nameless):

Music is a very broad river, into which many streams flow. Classical is only one of those streams. It has particular virtues other kinds of music don’t have, but then they have virtues of their own.

Bypassing the paltry imagery of the metaphor which has music as a river rather than the vast, life-nourishing ocean it is, classical music is not merely “one of [music’s] streams,” but its very apotheosis; the one instantiation of music that alone is capable of subsuming and transfiguring all of music’s other instantiations. And so classical music promoted as just another “stream” flowing into the “river” of music will ultimately be met, by those at which the promotion is aimed, with the same sort of contempt afforded the person who attempts to present himself as what he manifestly is not, and by the attempt makes himself appear thoroughly ridiculous as he cannot help but do. Think of a redneck attempting to pass himself off as a genuine aristocrat, or, much more to the point, vice versa.

So, if pandering to the proles is not the answer, what, then, is? I’ll risk a tentative answer, but in fundamental principle only, as I’ve neither the foggiest notion how, nor the professional expertise necessary, to put the thing into actual practice.

The alpha and omega of it is that a hardcore audience for classical music can, in huge part, be created only by targeting the very young. If you fail to get ’em very young, you mostly don’t get ’em at all.

And that targeting must begin with the pre-kindergarten young, and continue at least through early adolescence. Schools, both public and private, cannot do the job, although they have their place in the campaign. Neither, strange to tell, can parents, although they, too, have their place. In today’s world, the single most important — overwhelmingly important — entity in the promotion of classical music is none other than the commercial media, cable and broadcast TV most especially. If classical music is not sold there, it will remain largely unsold no matter what else is done. Classical music must be made a part of the very air children breathe, and only the commercial media can accomplish that.

And it’s important how it’s sold, too. If it’s sold as merely another “stream” flowing into the “river” of music the campaign will fail — abjectly. It must be sold as the elite enterprise it in truth and in fact is; something to aspire to. And that means the purveyors and performers of classical music must never succumb to the temptation to ape the outward trappings of the world of mass entertainment, or dumb down classical music’s content or presentation, in the false and doomed hope of thereby attracting a greater following. There must never be permitted a disconnect between projected image and the true reality of the thing itself (i.e., classical music’s fundamental elite nature). In marketing terms, classical music must be sold honestly as a vintage Chateau Latour, not a sexily packaged, reasonably priced Napa Valley Merlot.

A tough sell, and a long row to hoe, certainly, but the only effective way to go.

As I said, a tentative answer in fundamental principle only, but an on-the-right-track — the only right track — beginning.

UPDATE See this entry for an important clarification.

Posted in Cultural Commentary, Music | Comments Off on An Audience For Classical Music

Piece On Ground Zero

Posted by acdtest on November 8, 2003

Interesting Piece On Ground Zero

ew York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp has an interesting piece on Ground Zero up today. It concerns the draft of new design guidelines for building on the site drawn up by overseeing project architect Daniel Libeskind, the winner of the Ground Zero design competition held by the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. last year. Although I’ve not seen the draft of these new design guidelines, and therefore can make no comment concerning them, I’m in wholehearted agreement with Mr. Muschamp when he writes,

Any design guidelines that insist on restrictiveness and homogeneity should be rejected. There is not just one way to respond to 9/11. The exclusion of other architectural visions is an assault on the idea of the city as a place where every voice counts.

Design guidelines in general are problematic for ground zero. Commonly used in suburban residential neighborhoods, they are now most often associated with the followers of the New Urbanism, developers of suburban communities known for their “traditional” period pastiche styles. Plans originally prepared for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation by the New York firms Peterson/Littenberg and Beyer Blinder Belle adhered to this retro design philosophy. That is one reason for which these plans were rejected by the public at town hall meetings held at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in July of last year.

Good on Herbert Muschamp! He gets it right again, as he most often does.

Posted in Architecture | Comments Off on Piece On Ground Zero

New Trend

Posted by acdtest on November 7, 2003

New Trend

reg Sandow, of the ArtsJournal weblog, Sandow, reports on comments by some professional orchestra musicians concerning advice to young conductors. Among the comments were such useful and commonsensical suggestions as, “Speak up”; “Don’t mumble”; “Speak loudly enough so the players in the back can hear you”; “When you stop the music to say something, don’t talk before we stop playing.” And useful and sensible musical suggestions such as, “Admit your mistakes, if you make any”; “Hold postmortems, after performances”; “[T]alk about what went right and what went wrong”; “CONDUCT us! Actually conduct the performance going on in front of you. Don’t just wave your arms as if you’re following along with a CD.”

Excellent advice, all of it, and advice every conductor should take to heart.

But then, there’s this: “Use the resources of the orchestra. Ask our advice about how to conduct or play tricky passages.” “Ask the musicians how to fix things that aren’t going well.”

Excuse me? What sort of equalitarian lunacy is that? Any conductor who truly needs to take such advice to heart (as opposed to playing at following it as a courtesy tactic, and one which is perceived by the experienced orchestra members as only a courtesy) is a conductor who has no right stepping up on the podium in the first place. Such an inept conductor will justly earn only the professional contempt of his musicians by his asking for such advice, not their trust and affection. A conductor having to ask for such advice in earnest is much the same as a military commander in the midst of a firefight having to ask his troops how best to fight the battle instead of authoritatively telling them. The very idea is manifestly — and dangerously — absurd.

Mr. Sandow, whose profession it is to keep abreast of new musical trends and developments, comments by remarking,

I sense a new trend in the classical music business — the empowerment of orchestral musicians (not just from these [suggestions], but from many other straws in a new, fresh wind). And I think this empowerment is an important part of classical music’s future.

If I take Mr. Sandow’s “is” as a “will be,” he may well be right about that (it fits perfectly within the contemporary Zeitgeist), but for classical music’s sake, I sure do hope he’s dead wrong.

Posted in Music | Comments Off on New Trend

Disney Hall Documentary

Posted by acdtest on November 2, 2003

Disney Hall Documentary

ere’s a first-rate, four-part audio documentary on Disney Hall produced by KCRW of Santa Monica, CA. Part II, From The Inside Out: The Art Of Construction, is particularly fascinating, as are the comments of several LA Philharmonic orchestra members in Parts III and IV. (Requires RealOne Player.)

Posted in Architecture | Comments Off on Disney Hall Documentary