WAGNER TO DEPART ON A SOUR NOTE

Exit Roger Wagner, grumbling--with Saturday’s Los Angeles Master Chorale performance of Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis.”

The founder of the group and its music director for the last 21 years--known to speak whatever was on his mind to singers, administrators and media alike--is even less enthused about the prospect of becoming music director laureate than he was last November, when his successor, John Currie of Scotland, was introduced to Los Angeles amid much fanfare.

Wagner insists, however, that he has resigned himself to what he calls “the political coup” at the Master Chorale and intends to give his Dorothy Chandler Pavilion audience some serious Beethoven as an adieu.

“To me, the Missa Solemnis represents the most monumental work in the orchestral/choral repertoire,” says the 71-year-old Wagner. “Vocally, it’s the most taxing thing I can think of. I think the Credo is an exercise in survival. So when I go, I’m going to see to it L.A. gets my best shot.”

But Wagner, sitting comfortably in his Woodland Hills home with his feet up, finds the manner of his parting a rankling--even insulting--thing.

“The stupidity of the administration is something I will not miss,” he growls, referring to a rehearsal schedule that has the chorale practicing twice within the 48 hours prior to Saturday night’s concert. “That’s why I’m so relieved that after September I won’t have to deal with all that garbage. It’s like (East German guest conductor Kurt) Sanderling said when we chatted during his visit: ‘It’s better to be free (of music directorial contracts) when you finally grow up’.”

When questioned about his prior reluctance to fight his ouster, Wagner pauses, then becomes philosophical.

“It’s all a political situation, you know what I’m saying?” he asks rhetorically, relighting his pipe. “And I really think that I have too much talent to screw around with politics. The thing is, you just can’t fight this kind of thing, because by the time you tell people the real story, it’s time to go.”

The “real” story, according to Wagner, is that he was “maneuvered” out of the music directorship by members of the Chorale’s board of directors and by other Music Center powers, including Los Angeles Philharmonic executive director Ernest Fleischmann, and that his opinion regarding his successor was not sought or heeded.

“The whole way they hired Currie was shameless,” Wagner says. “It says in my contract that no one but Roger Wagner can conduct the chorale unless the board and I approve a music director ahead of time, who will then serve as associate music director for one year. And so of course they’ve violated that contract.

“I tried to talk to Currie. I said to the board, ‘I’d like to have a few minutes to talk to him.’ Because there should be a little communication between the outgoing music director and the incoming one. But they had fooled around for 18 months of my last two-year contract instead of looking for my replacement, and they said there wasn’t time. I kept recommending Paul (Salamunovich of Loyola Marymount University), but they didn’t want to hear that. Everyone on the board thinks they’re music critics. You get these people because they’re successful in business, but once they get on the board you go bankrupt because everyone’s becoming a critic.”

Chorale board president Marshall Rutter, however, contends that Wagner was kept “constantly informed” of the board’s choices. “When we started considering possible successors, Roger seemed to find fault arbitrarily with everyone we suggested--he considered no one really suitable except for his closer friends or former pupils,” says Rutter, a Los Angeles attorney. “I must admit we only kept him generally aware after that, but it isn’t as if we locked him out of the process. And he in fact spoke with Currie twice, and recommended him highly.”

Wagner regards Fleischmann as the main instigator of his removal. The two have had their differences in the past regarding joint Philharmonic-Master Chorale programming and the kind of work the chorale would do in the Hollywood Bowl, of which Fleischmann is general director. “(Fleischmann) wanted to turn the Bowl into a picnic ground with Muzak,” says Wagner, “and I just didn’t want to work there anymore.”

“It’s nice to see that Roger hasn’t lost his feistiness,” replies Fleischmann, with a chuckle. “We wish him well, because he really has done a good job. He hasn’t been without controversy, of course, but then I hope he never stays out of the public eye. That outspokenness is just part of his quality, and it’s obviously kept him vital.” The Philharmonic’s chief administrator preferred not to comment on Wagner’s allegations, adding, “I just wish him the best, whatever he does.”

However, Wagner insists that the chorale board had to toe the Philharmonic line during the Currie negotiations.

“It has come to the point where (the board of the Master Chorale) has to rely on the Philharmonic for enough income and enough status to remain in the Performing Arts Council,” he says. “During the Currie business, (Chorale executive director Robert Willoughby) Jones said to me, ‘You know we just can’t follow our own way, we have to go the way of the Philharmonic; otherwise, we’ll not stay in the Performing Arts Council.’ The funds, you know.

“As if I had that much trouble, had to do that kind of fanny-kissing to raise funds. I administered that chorale at the beginning, when nobody knew us, and raised--and spent--enough money to get us started. And now to hear my executive director talking about playing up to Ernest Fleischmann, and not even getting a thank-you from either of them or being consulted about my successor--it makes me wonder, you know?”

Jones strongly denies having admitted the chorale’s subservience to any organization. “I never said any such thing,” he avers. “It is important that we keep good relations with the Philharmonic, of course, but it’s not true that we retired Roger because of the Philharmonic’s wishes--or anybody else’s, save for the board’s,” he says. “It was the board that agreed to it, and any pressure that any other organization brought to bear simply wasn’t an issue.”

Adds Rutter: “Ernest never communicated to us his insistence that Roger be replaced as music director; the only thing that happened that made Roger feel persecuted was that the Philharmonic people felt Roger wasn’t giving enough attention toward preparing those programs where the two ensembles worked together, so they asked that Roger not prepare the chorale for those performances in the future.”

Whichever way Wagner sees himself leaving the Master Chorale’s helm--”with thunder,” he calls it--the conductor will still have plenty of things to keep him occupied: Teaching at Cal State L.A., continuing to tour with his own Roger Wagner Chorale, and a five-year contract as music director laureate (providing him with the opportunity to conduct a few performances per year) of the chorale, of which he says dryly: “As laureate, they put a wreath around my head like Nero and tell me to stop by again real soon.”

He’ll also have more time for thinking, Wagner adds. “That includes looking into the future,” he jokes. “Like this: I’m very worried about the Music Center’s future. Orange County’s already started the ball rolling. The future is theirs, not Ernest Fleischmann’s.”