Greater than the sum of their parts....

Posted by: Tam on 28 July 2006

When talking recently about a rather wonderful cd of Schubert's 8th and 9th symphonies I observed two things. First, that so well do these musicians play for Mackerras that they seem to punch well above their chamber orchestra weight and second, that Mackerras and the SCO really are an extraordinary combination. In recent years, many, if not most of his Edinburgh festival concerts have been with them (and he comes up twice a year during their season, not to mention they're many recordings) so I've had the chance to sample them extensively first had. This had given me the feeling that the SCO really were one of the finest chamber orchestras I had ever heard. And, for the most part, I still hold to that view.

However, two concerts I attended this last year have caused me to alter this slightly. The first was a largely Bach programme where the playing was merely fine (with the exception of Haydn's clock, played without a concductor, which was excellent). The second was Mozart's requiem (among other things) conducted by Andrew Manze (which I discussed at the time here). Now the latter concert really surprised me because there was some decidedly shoddy playing in places.

Anyway, I think my point is that Mackerras/SCO is one of those combinations were the ensemble is able to achieve far more than it might otherwise. Now doubtless, you might argue that I would apply this to Mackerras/anyone, and you would probably be right, except that I get the feeling this is a conductor and orchestra who both know each other well and love working together, and their game is raised accordingly (no doubt my theory will be put to the test this summer as I compare Mackerras's live Beethoven readings to those on CD with the RLPO).

However, this got me thinking, what other special musical relationships (no need to confine oneself to classical) are there where the combination achieves something really special?

regards, Tam
Posted on: 28 July 2006 by Guido Fawkes
Many rock bands are one star and the rest just made up the numbers - e.g. Scott Walker and the Walker Brothers, Peter Gabriel and Genesis, John Fogerty and Creedence Clearwater Revival - all these bands without their inspirational leader were not worth listening to.

So what of the other end of spectrum: the Beatles (although individual members were well worth listening to) are the biggest case in point - collectively they were as good as it gets. Another combination and an inspiration for the Beatles (according to Macca) were the Incredible String Band: although Heron and Williamson were Ok alone, as ISB they created 500 Spirits and Hangman's Beautiful Daughter and some other albums that were merely excellent. So ISB gets my vote for the sum ezceeding the parts.
Posted on: 28 July 2006 by Tam
Dear ROTF,

I completely agree about the Beatles - and, indeed, there are probably countless more examples in the same vein. Much as I like Brian Wilson's Smile, it doesn't really compete with Pet Sounds (though perhaps others differ) similarly, while I have soft spot for Page and Plant's Walking into Clarkesdale, it isn't Zepp.

regards, Tam
Posted on: 29 July 2006 by Harry
It's a personal thing in many cases ROTF but I disagree (50%)with the Genesis example. I think Peter Gabriel AND Steve Hackett demonstrated retrospectively that Genesis were less than the sum of their parts. After Gabriel's and Hackett's departures they were about equal to the sum of their parts! Tony Banks is boarderline, he did do what IMO were a couple of good solo efforts (and at least one lousy one that I can think of) but Peter and Steve were defenitely giants of tallent and imagination hidden within the Genesis collective, waiting to show that however good they might have been in the context of the band, they were being held back.

IMO of course.

Cheers