Classical Music Forum banner

Is George Szell one of your favorite conductors?

26K views 273 replies 48 participants last post by  FrankinUsa 
#1 ·
If yes, why do you like him.
I find him kind of cold and unyielding.
Tell me about Szell.
:tiphat:
 
#160 ·
This is one of those things where even Furtwangler detractors will agree that he was very subjective and in the moment, to the point that his various performances varied widely, even those made in back to back days. I mean that was the whole point. He left things for the inspiration of the moment. Whereas with Szell everything sounds pre-scripted and doesn't vary much from performance to performance. Aside from decisions over tempo, I don't hear Szell doing very much interpretively.

Now, if you are going to say that the things Furtwangler did sounded intuitively "correct" - a sentiment I agree with - and that it therefore sounded obvious and predictable, that would be an interesting way of putting it. I guess the question becomes what are you looking for when you listen? Furtwangler himself said that he saw his interpretations as "honest." He was not trying to mangle the music in any way. Maybe that's boring to some.
 
#161 · (Edited)
To all who say they prefer Furtwängler over other options, who can argue with that? I won't. I just don't share that preference.

What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.

I also object to not-Furtwängler being labelled derisively as "pre-scripted," because in general it's all decided in advance. Everything! That's how professionals do it.

For professionals, it is always about very minute, careful, thoughtful, and repetitive preparation. Szell, Reiner, Karajan, Haitink, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Klemperer, Muti, Jansons, Berglund, MTT, Abbado, Bernstein, Alsop, Maazel: all of them. Some of their choices work for me, other don't. Furtwängler's mostly don't. YMMV. But leaving too much to chance (unless you're John Cage) or actual, in fact spontaneity is a recipe for disaster. Furtwängler admittedly flirted with the edge of this, which is why so much of what he did to my ears sounds really, unlistenably sloppy. But his interpetive choices over the years are actually far too consistent to not have been studied. Relying on the moment means you lean most heavily on old, well-established habits, whether good or bad.

"From the heart," "intuitive," "spontaneous": that's all an illusion. You will never really know from a performance or recording whether the conductor adored the work they're performing, or detested it. That's called being a professional. But everything is prepared in advance; that's why we have rehearsals. In general Furtwängler created a myth at odds with the reality.

Mostly what the musicians are doing in performance in their head is counting a lot and hoping they don't screw it up. How much emotion do you bring to the table, when you're focused and concentrating on simple counting? Here's the rub: if you're not sure what the conductor is going to do, because you haven't rehearsed enough, you have to concentrate and count more. Musicians play more confidentally and boldly when they're well rehearsed, and play it safe and spend even more time counting when they're not.

In short, the Furtwängler myth of getting more spontaneous performances from fewer rehearsals is total, abject nonsense on multiple levels. Far more was studied and clearly pre-arranged than the myth allows.

You know what spontaneous (i.e. under-rehearsed) performances sound like, even of standard repertoire? Timid, under-played, careful, boring, sloppy crapola.
 
#168 ·
To all who say they prefer Furtwängler over other options, who can argue with that? I won't. I just don't share that preference.

What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.
If there's something I object to, it's along the lines of this. What Furtwangler is doing is providing Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven. He is expressing the emotional affect he feels in the music through his interpretive options. To an extent all conductors do this.

The point of protest is that somehow what Furtwangler is doing is not expressing his personal interpretation of the music, but is instead doing some sort of ego death and expressing "the truth" of the music. As if Furtwangler, through his interpretive choices, and his expression of how he believes the music should affect the listener, is somehow actually less interventionist because he is letting the "truth" of the music shine through. This is silly. Furtwangler is expressing his truth, not the truth.
 
#162 ·
Never said and have never read that Furtwängler performances were under-rehearsed. But it is well-known he took liberties in the moment and by his own admission left things for live inspiration. He didn’t care if this led to occasional ensemble inaccuracies. Whereas with Szell it sounds to my ear like he is putting a great amount of emphasis on precision and clarity, to the detriment of a feeling of inspiration and spontaneity. To each their own. Just compare video of the two men conducting, and it’s obvious that one valued clarity and one was seeking something else.

I’m sure members of community orchestras are thinking mainly if not exclusively about counting and being together. The members of the Berlin Philharmonic, at least in Furtwängler’s day, were interested in something more.
 
#163 · (Edited)
Just compare video of the two men conducting, and it's obvious that one valued clarity and one was seeking something else.
That's fair.

I'm sure members of community orchestras are thinking mainly if not exclusively about counting and being together. The members of the Berlin Philharmonic, at least in Furtwängler's day, were interested in something more.
Nope. This is false. You have to count like crazy; the other option is screwing up.

There is literature about the importance of counting in the performance of music going back to the Baroque period, if not earlier. All professional musicians are counting more or less all the time, I guarantee it.

And the Berliner Philharmoniker was never, ever any different, because they're all just humans, too. Furtwängler wasn't some magical fairy who could make people play together with nothing more than his vague twirling gestures. It's just a fact that the more uncertain you are about what's happening on the podium, the more carefully you must count. It's true now and it was undoubtedly true then.

Learn to separate myth from reality.
 
#164 · (Edited)
I bigly enjoy the Furtwängler discussions, especially when they are so well-argued as the posts on this thread are.

I have no dog in this fight, but I will say that I have had two road to Damascus moments in my journey through classical music and they both concern WF.

I had a huge 'Wagner moment' when Tristan finally snapped into focus and I realised it to to be the incredible experience that the work can be (listening to the 1952 London studio performance); and secondly, I experienced a total Zen-like transcendental out of body experience during a listen the 1954 Lucern Festival performance of Beethoven 9.

As I said, I have no dog in this fight and I rarely talk about Furtwängler or even own many recordings, but there is something spooky about his art ..............
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josquin13
#167 · (Edited)
It's not a myth. By definition the tempo fluctuations required feeling the changes together in the moment, and they weren't done the same way every performance.
You still have to count. And in fact you have to count more when things aren't consistent or are under-rehearsed. That's just a fact.

And...I can't believe I let myself get sucked into another Furtwängler debate. Ugh.
 
#166 · (Edited)
I don't know if Szell's a 'favourite conductor' for me, but I will say that he holds an important place in my journey through classical music. Principally GS was my introduction to Mahler 4 & 6 and his Cleveland recordings were my gotos for many years.

I adore his Beethoven overtures and his Walton symphony #2 and Partita are unsurpassable.

His Wagner orchestral excerpts were almost as important to me down the years as Klemperer's.

I revel in his Brahms and his Egmont, PC 3 & symphony 5 on Orfeo is to die for!

 
  • Like
Reactions: Knorf
#172 ·
Other than the polemical characterization deriding his Beethoven, I largely agree with you about Toscanini.

True objectivity is as much an illusion in music (or in anything humans do) as the idea that conductors are expressing emotions via their conducting.

The scientific method is necessary because humans cannot be objective.
 
#173 ·
Other than the polemical characterization deriding his Beethoven, I largely agree with you about Toscanini.

True objectivity is as much an illusion in music (or in anything humans do) as the idea that conductors are expressing emotions via their conducting.

The scientific method is necessary because humans cannot be objective.
I think Human beings can be 'truly objective'.

When I say "I enjoyed that meal" that is a completely objective statement (eg "that was a good meal" is not an objective statement).

Thinking about Popper, falsification is the key.
 
#180 ·
On the discussion of spontaneity, Charles Munch was well known for the spontaneity in concert. Beethoven's 5th has lost all of its spontaneity for me over the years, but Munch's version made it fresh for me and is the only version I listen to from time to time now.

"When you played a concert with Charles Munch or attended one of his performances as a listener, it was not just a concert - It was an event. He never used the same palette twice. As a player, you had to give 110% of yourself, or be left out of the music."

-Vic Firth, percussionist, Boston Symphony Orchestra
 
#182 ·
Yes, Munch probably takes the prize for spontaneity in concert....He loved to do it, and deliberately would do things differently in performance...this could be very exciting at a live concert, on recording, the imprecision and inaccuracies can be annoying on repeated listening...
the former bass trombone player of BSO told me that Munch loved to pull fast ones in Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"...the closing bars of mvt V, with the descending trombone roulades were a favorite place - he would speed up, or slow down, always different....always with a twinkle in his eye...he knew exactly what he was doing....the trombones rarely got it together, it was most always sloppy and imprecise....
 
#184 ·
Heck,
Do you have any impressions/stories about Koussevitzky?
His concert recording of the original Bartok Concerto for Orchestra with the BSO is the most exciting I've heard. He gave a lot of premieres. He also left a great Prokofiev 5.
I've never been a big fan of Koussie...he was a great champion of new music, and his contribution was very substantial....as was his creation of the Tanglewood Music Festival...
As a conductor, I'm not so impressed - apparently he was not a "natural" conductor - the mechanics were difficult for him, and he had difficulty addressing problems clearly - he knew what he wanted, but had difficulty communicating it to the orchestra....
Personally, he was quite insecure, always needed praise and adulation, could get very testy and sensitive if it was not forthcoming. I heard many stories about Koussie and BSO from Willem Valkenier, former principal horn, who lived right down the road from me in retirement - really cool guy!! he loved to tell stories and had tapes of performances....he lived to be 99yo!!

Also - Koussie made some very odd appointments to the BSO over the years, so that section unity and unanimity of tone and style were not consistent -
when he became BSO conductor, Monteux had left him a very solid French-sounding orchestra - many section principals were former Garde Republicaine members who emigrated to America - his woodwinds were all French, and played in a similar style....then he fires the clarinet player [Hamelin], and hires a Viennese player [Polatschek] from VPO/VSOO!!...in the bassoons, he had a French principal - R. Allard - then hired a 2nd bassoonist from the Vienna VolksOpera [Panenka]!! now we have musicians playing different instruments in the same section [French (Buffet) and German (Heckel) systems are very different - different instruments. With the Horns, he had a German/Dutch principal [Valkenier]- a very refined, polished style, small sound but very precise...he brings in Stagliano, from the LA movie studios, as co-principal, with a much brasher, louder approach
Unfortunately for the BSO, Munch did not seem interested in correcting these discrepancies...

the disparity in section sound and style I always found rather distracting...
At this time, keep in mind, that other orchestras - NYPO, Philadelphia, Chicago, NBC were all building very tight, balanced sections known for unanimity of tone, phrasing articulation...
 
#187 ·
Returning to Szell (again! ) I played his Tchaikovsky 4 this afternoon. Its been a recommended performance of mine for what seems like centuries (I had it on LP) but it's never been my favourite 4th. However, It still has marvellous energy and I love the detail and clean lines of the finale, even if the constricted sound quality hasn't worn so well. Few conductors could get the LSO to play with such skill, precision, fire and unity though.

Liquid Publication Art Font Wood
 
#188 ·
Returning to Szell (again! ) I played his Tchaikovsky 4 this afternoon. Its been a recommended performance of mine for what seems like centuries (I had it on LP) but it's never been my favourite 4th. However, It still has marvellous energy and I love the detail and clean lines of the finale, even if the constricted sound quality hasn't worn so well. Few conductors could get the LSO to play with such skill, precision, fire and unity though.

View attachment 161806
When was this Szell/LSO Tchaik 4 recorded??
 
#193 ·
From John Culshaw, Szell's English Decca producer:
"Szell had a notorious tongue and a reputation for eating anyone alive who crossed his path. With very few exceptions, orchestral musicians loathed him, although no musician worthy of the name could fault him artistically. On the podium he was incapable of generating warmth. When he died almost all the obituaries could not resist the comment that he did not suffer fools gladly, but it would be nearer the truth to say that he did not suffer fools at all".
https://slippedisc.com/2018/08/was-georg-szell-as-horrid-as-described/
 
#195 · (Edited)
Columbia wanted Szell to record Strauss's Burleske with André Previn, but the two had never met before, so a meeting was arranged while Szell was in LA:

The Cleveland Orchestra Story by Donald Rosenberg said:
Previn arrived at Szell's room at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel and engaged in small talk. Then Szell said, "Well, let's go through the piece." One problem: the room had no piano. Szell proceeded to tell Previn to play the piece on a table. "Well, I was still young and inexperienced, I suppose, and in awe of the great conductor, so I didn't walk out," recalled Previn. "I sat down and started whacking away at this table." Soon Szell stopped him: "No, no, no. It needs to be faster." He wasn't kidding. Nor, perhaps, was Previn: "Well, maestro, the reason it sounds so slow is that I'm simply not used to this table. My dining room table at home has much better action." With that, Szell dismissed him -- "I don't consider that funny, young man. You may go." -- and the recording was off.
 
#199 · (Edited)
I agree that Abbado/Berlin for Brahms offers an attractive "middle road" between Furtwängler and Szell, but, Brahmsianhorn, I feel you demonize Szell; to my ears your criticisms are very far from fair, even though Szell is not my own favorite for Brahms (and yet even so I would not want to do without having heard Szell's Brahms, and I get why people like it...)
 
#204 ·
Question for Heck, Knorf, or any other experienced orchestral musician:

My first Haffner Symphony was a Szell/Cleveland LP that I liked (and still revere) because of the crystalline nature of some of the string phrases in the first movement. I have already expressed my preference for Szell's Mahler Fourth, in part because of the precision of the wind playing.

So my question: Are these things any first rate orchestral musician can accomplish with enough whipping? Or does it require finding the right people with the right technique and temperament to respond to the blandishments? :)
 
#205 · (Edited)
Question for Heck, Knorf, or any other experienced orchestral musician:
....So my question: Are these things any first rate orchestral musician can accomplish with enough whipping? Or does it require finding the right people with the right technique and temperament to respond to the blandishments? :)
That's an excellent question. Great conductors have in mind, in their ear, a sound that they want to produce from their orchestras...in a past era conductors would seek out specific musicians they knew, or knew of audition them personally, and get them into their ensembles...

so, not every musician will play with a tone or style that will please every conductor....every musician is going to have their own personal sound and approach...the trick is to have your sections comprised of players who all play in a similar style, tone, articulation....

The greatest orchestras all have their "training grounds" for prospective members...students who are studying with incumbent orchestra members, feeder orchestras...all perpetuating the sound of that orchestra.

Anomalies, inconsistencies within or between sections stick out like an auditory sore thumb...tone and balance problems are readily apparent...if a new musician doesn't "fit" into the orchestra for tone and balance, they probably won't be granted tenure...
Good question, big topic...I'm sure others will chime in with more insights...
 
#211 ·
I would like to return to George Szell and also touch upon the issue of homogeneity of orchestra. I am going to make two statements. Your opinions please.

Obvious some like Szell,some do not. The statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950’ s until his death in 1970. Many(a large major) have control to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is known as “reference recordings.”
Would you agree to disagree to that statement?

The Cleveland Orchestra still is influenced by Szell. 50 years after his death. Three music directors;Lorin Maazel,Christopher Von Dohnanyi,Franz Welser Most. Your thoughts please
 
#212 ·
I would like to return to George Szell and also touch upon the issue of homogeneity of orchestra. I am going to make two statements. Your opinions please.

Obvious some like Szell,some do not. The statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950' s until his death in 1970. Many(a large major) have control to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is known as "reference recordings."
Would you agree to disagree to that statement?

The Cleveland Orchestra still is influenced by Szell. 50 years after his death. Three music directors;Lorin Maazel,Christopher Von Dohnanyi,Franz Welser Most. Your thoughts please
Just my very humble opinion, but the Cleveland Orchestra today is nothing like what it was under Szell. The discipline and precision he was able to attain at his best is no longer there, even if today's players are as good or better. I don't think that's anything to moan and groan about, though. Things change.
 
#214 · (Edited)
An interesting biographical note about Szell - early on in his musical endeavors, he took up the horn.....he loved the horn and really wanted to ex-Szell [sorry, couldn't resist :devil::lol:] on it as his personal instrument....But, apparently, he just lacked the "chops"....try as he might, he simply could not master the tricky instrument.
However, his love, interest, [obsession??], with it persisted throughout his life....he loved the horn, and always wanted lots of loud horns in his interpretations of various works....if you listen to much Szell, you'll hear it....
I heard Szell/Cleveland perform a Beethoven 7th once, he used 6 horns!! yeh, they were loud!! I think he used 5 or 6 for Eroica, as well...
Myron [Mike] Bloom, the excellent Cleveland principal horn under Szell relates how Szell was always asking him questions, going over matters related to the horn section - quite detailed - <<How would he play that passage?? F or Bb horn?? which parts would the assistant cover?? How do we get this or that effect?? and so forth>>....Bloom didn't mind, but surmised that Szell never could let go of the challenge of the horn, one of the few things at which he had failed....

A funny Szell story involving horns -
rehearsing a Beethoven Sym [had to be #9 - it uses 4 horns] - the scherzo - rocking along - 3/4 in 1 - Szell stops abruptly - agitated - glares back at the horn section - <<Third horn [who is counting rests] - What are you doing??!! What's going on back there??>>
3rd Horn player - [mystified, bewildered] <<er....I'm counting rests, I have 48 measures rest, I'm counting, then I'll make my entrance>>
Szell - <<What?? 48 measures rest?? ....let's see [looks in score] - well, OK, then - but don't look so STUPID!!]

Might have been the same 3rd horn musician in a not very funny story - the incumbent 3rd horn heard thru the musicians' grapevine that a horn player from another orchestra was going to become 3rd horn with Cleveland....he'd heard nothing from Szell....he went to ask the Maestro what was up - Szell assured him, nothing's up, don't worry, it's all fine....
About 2 weeks later, the horn player got his pink slip, and was out!! Szell was not a nice person....
 
#215 · (Edited)
Thank you to those who gave their thoughts to my last post about Szell. I asked two questions and the responses seemed to be more geared towards the second question. I would like to repost my first question and await any opinions from the TC community.

Obviously,some like Szell,some do not. My statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950’’s until his death in 1970. Many(a large majority) have come to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is know as “reference recordings. “

Thank you
 
#233 ·
Thank you to those who gave their thoughts to my last post about Szell. I asked two questions and the responses seemed to be more geared towards the second question. I would like to repost my first question and await any opinions from the TC community.

Obviously,some like Szell,some do not. My statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950''s until his death in 1970. Many(a large majority) have come to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is know as "reference recordings. "

Thank you
I'm still awaiting some thoughts on this statement that I have put forth.
What role does Szell's discography have in classical recordings?
 
#216 · (Edited)
It depends who you ask. People who like clarity and precision - Hurwitz for example - will recommend Szell for everything. Hurwitz said recently that Szell is the "Mozart guy," i.e. the reference for Mozart's last six symphonies. Nobody else would say the same, but they would say he is among the best alongside Walter, Klemperer, Bernstein, Mackerras, etc. I find Szell to be a bit stiff in Mozart. His Haffner is excellent, perfect for his energetic exhuberance.

There is broad consensus that Szell's Eroica is among the best alongside Klemperer, Kleiber, Toscanini, and Furtwangler. Not so much the other symphonies, though some including Hurwitz champion his live 5th on Orfeo. His Brahms has many admirers, but again I think it is stiff next to Abbado, Klemperer, Jochum, Karajan, and Walter.

Most admired are his Dvorak final three symphonies. I'll admit that I do not know these particular recordings very well. I do like his celebrated Slavonic Dances, even if they are not as idiomatic as Talich. But the sound quality is fantastic.

I am an especially big admirer of his R. Strauss - Tod und Verklarung, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, Don Quixote with Fournier. These I think can confidently be recommended as reference versions. Orchestral tone poems with their emphasis on brilliance and color work well with Szell.

He didn't record much Bruckner and sounded stiff in the one I heard (I think the 8th). His Mahler 4th is considered by many to be THE version, as well as his 6th to a lesser extent. But for me in Mahler of all composers, Szell's cool approach doesn't work so well. I prefer the warmth and passion of Barbirolli and Bernstein.

.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top