My colleague and friend Tony Tommasini has a good piece in tomorrow's New York Times in which he applauds the LA Phil for selecting Gustavo Dudamel as its next music director and then turns his attention to the ongoing director search at the NY Phil. He notes that Riccardo Muti is being mentioned as a leading candidate for the post. He says, however, that Alan Gilbert would be a more "refreshing" choice. I agree, but I have a sad sense of déjà vu, for back in January 2001 we faced an eerily similar situation: the Philharmonic was then said to be leaning toward Lorin Maazel, but Tony thought that the orchestra should consider David Robertson. Experience teaches that when those of us in the scribbling classes call for younger, progressive Conductor X to be picked over older, conservative Conductor Y it becomes all the more inevitable that Conductor Y will get the job. (In New York, at least.) Recently I joked to Tony that we might be better off using reverse psychology: "Riccardo Muti would be an audacious, visionary choice! Alan Gilbert would be a tiresome regression into the past!" The Philharmonic may yet surprise us, though. Is Riccardo Chailly remotely possible? Many people in various camps would like that outcome. Or, if the flirtation with Muti once again fizzles out, there's always the "interim conductor" option, at which point Daniel Barenboim might enter the picture. In any case, expect some sort of announcement fairly soon. — Alex
