Talk:Gilbert Kaplan

Untitled

Gilbert Kaplan is NOT a conductor. He doesn't have sufficient musical training, and conductors unbeholden to him do not accept him as a conductor. It is also absurd to count a man who refuses to conduct anything else as a conductor alongside Leonard Bernstein and Herbert Von Karajan, who mastered something called the "repetoire".

I would speculate that based on his fortune, Gilbert Kaplan has held a sequence of orchestras to ransom to let him wave his arms in front of them.

I realize than in a wikipedia in which the stink of tax fraud grows daily, where Ayn Rand is accounted a philosopher, I might be spitting in the wind. However, the truth remains. You don't fucking buy membership n a learned profession, and you don't become a "philosopher" by publishing beach trash and then telling a talk show host you're a philosopher.

I have therefore changed this article to reflect Gilbert Kaplan's amateur standing.

Edward G. Nilges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.33.202 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 December 2008

PS: Amazon, with a NNPOV interest in selling Kaplan's book, identifies him as an amateur conductor. I conclude that from the NPOV view he is amateur if his publisher does not identify him as a "conductor", by implication professional.

AFAIK Mr. Kaplan did in fact study conducting for the sole purpose of performing Mahler's 2nd. Amateur conductor is still the proper wording, as he does not conduct professionally. Yet being invited by orchestras like the Vienna Philharmonic, the New York Philharmonic or the London Symphony Orchestra to conduct and recording the symphony for Deutsche Grammophon shows that his conducting abilities should be far beyond just "waving his arms in front of the orchestra". --FordPrefect42 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; unfortunately, the money factor sounds pretty prominent in those recordings and performances. Finlayson's blog entry, as harsh as it is, has the ring of truth throughout. When more articles on Kaplan appear, I will restore the term 'amateur conductor' to the header passage. In the meantime, condolences to his family. DJRafe (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Economist article

This article has some good information.--droptone (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It failed to mention what the musicians thought, and for this reason it was scooped by the 18 Dec New York Times article. The Economist tells its readers what they want to hear, and what your typical financial drone worker wants to hear is that while he might seem merely to be the guy who messes up the data base every week, he is "rilly" a poet or musician who's about to be Culled Out and finally achieve Recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.169 (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New section

I think that the publication of this article, which has already been added to the External links section, and this blog post, which has not, give rise to the idea that a "Criticism" section could be created, while still remaining NPOV. While most of the criticism in the New York Times article does come from members of one particular orchestra - specifically, the New York Philharmonic - there are quotes at the end from a Pittsburgh violinist and a National Symphony Orchestra trombonist, as well as quotes from Kaplan himself and an New York Philharmonic spokesman. The blog post, which is by New York Philharmonic trombonist David Finlayson, appears very balanced and even-handed to me, and worthy of inclusion.

Moreover, I think that the creation of this section is imperative now that these sources exist, because they show that Kaplan is indeed controversial within the classical music community. To leave out any mention of this controversy would violate NPOV. Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 14:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Radio

No mention is made of Mr. Kaplan's excellent public radio program, "Mad About Music." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.142.95 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)