Carlo Boszhard as a gnome: 3 reasons why 'Maestro' does suck

Tonight (Thursday 18 December), the second season of TV programme 'Maestro' will have its finale. Dutch celebrities such as schlager singer Frans Duijts and presenter Sylvana Simons try to conduct a symphony orchestra under supervision. They will be judged by conductor Otto Tausk, violinist Isabelle van Keulen and double bassist Dominic Seldis. Letter writers and columnists tumble over each other in condemning the programme. 'Maestro' would be a knee-jerk reaction to commercialism and portray the complicated profession of conducting as 'we'll do it in a minute'. In doing so, the writers do injustice not only to the programme, but also to the music and musicians of the Netherlands.

1. Not the person behind the music, but the music in the person

'Shoemaker, stick to your last'. That is the trend of a column by Jan Kuitenbrouwer in NRC, and he seems to have a point there. Why does a quiz presenter or lingerie designer have to conduct an orchestra if necessary? According to him, the Ballet Orchestra and the judges demean themselves by participating in it. They have to, according to Kuitenbrouwer; in these times of austerity, saying no to a commercial offering is suicide.

But are they really the 'pet musicians' Kuitenbrouwer calls them? I think that, as ambassadors, they have a huge passion to bring their baby to a wider audience. Isabelle van Keulen is not for nothing also the face of Aangenaam Klassiek, Dominic Seldis also shared his love for the symphony orchestra in the TV series 'Blood, sweat and strings'. That series, about the Concertgebouw Orchestra, mainly showed the person behind the music. And sure, it is nice to start recognising faces in an orchestra. It adds something to the 'face' of the music and gives a sense of commitment to the orchestra.

But 'Maestro' is about the music in people: even BN'ers who were initially sceptical of classical music discover their musicality and become enchanted - as Carlo Boszhard, who thought classical music was boring but very enthusiastically and convincingly stepped into the skin of Mussorgsky's Gnomus, proves.

2. Classical music is not difficult

And this brings us to the importance of the first encounter with classical music. In Trouw, Anna Enquist expresses her unease about the modern desire for easy, quick solutions and experiences. In music, in psychotherapy and in literature. And that while the "difficult" classical music could only be appreciated by understanding it, through thorough music education at school and studying on an instrument yourself at home. If anything at all is to be televised, then please figure out scores with a conductor.

Nonsense! That approach reduces classical music to technique or an object of scientific study. Classical music is not only for an upper caste of insiders, classical music is not difficult at all. A proportion of aficionados allow themselves to be moved without further knowledge. And those who do seek that knowledge may first learn Schubert's Unvollendete as a child as a beautiful tune. Later, he then discovers rhythmic and harmonic structures, sees through the construction of instruments and places the piece in the context of the work of composer and time.

You can also make that journey of discovery later in life. If that requires TV programmes like 'Maestro', 'De Tiende van Tijl' or 'Matthäus Masterclass', then those programmes are useful. Whether you listen to classical music does not depend on money and class, as in the past, but on whether you get in touch with it. Far too many people don't start it for fear that it would be too difficult. If enthusiasts confirm that image, they will keep classical reserved for a very limited, rapidly ageing group. A short-sighted position.

3. Conducting is indeed difficult

In her sense of unease about superficiality, Enquist also fears that the profession of conducting is portrayed as a trick that can be learned in a few weeks, while the true conductor studies for decades and acquires endless musical skills. But if 'Maestro' makes anything clear, it is that conducting is doggedly difficult. That there are great challenges in conducting orchestras, as well as soloists, choirs and accompanying bands - although the episode in which one went on to conduct Aretha Franklin fell a little outside the box for me.

'Maestro' shows that it takes not only those years of technical training, but also tremendous musicality. A Boszhard, who bluffs his way through the first two episodes, quickly falls through and only starts to grow when he starts making the effort to master technique and practise. Oscar Hammerstein loves classical music a lot, but fails to transfer his musical idea to the orchestra. And in the end, it's all about those two things: musicality and persuasiveness. You can't teach those, only develop them.

Spike or Marlies Dekkers did not become conductors in six weeks. Without coaching and help from the orchestra, they can't do much yet. But they do appear to have quite a musical sense and ability to learn. Were they 12, you'd send them to the conservatory. And wouldn't it be nice if a 12-year-old fan of Di-rect, who hears classical music for the first time through 'Maestro', were standing in front of the Residentie Orkest in ten years' time?

I am looking forward to the final.