[premont]

And if the technical perfection is pursued as an end in itself, particularly if it's to draw attention to itself so as to impress the audience with the performer's technical skill, yes it is absolutely antithetical. This is why people will often delineate between performances that use virtuosity merely as an end to impress vs those that use it "in service to the music." The latter recognizes a deeper meaning in the music to which technique is subservient.

I think your argumentation since long has been tiring in its predictability, and this is of course the reason of some ironic comments from other posters. The fact is, that how much "expression" musicians put in their work is a question of temper and musical aesthetics, and the technical perfection is just the prerequisite for them to be able to apply the degree of expressiveness they want. And a more restrained expression is not by itself inexpressive as you seem to presuppose. In fact, I think very few musicians can be called truly inexpressive in your sense.

 

[premont]

No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.

You have talked about the truth Furty seeks in the music. If this doesn't denote a subjective truth, I don't know what the word truth means, but of course the question: "What is truth" was put already by Pilatus.

 

[premont]

That is false. I have never stated it that way. I have stated that his interpretations are not "embellishments" or "adding" to the music, but they are what rings true as a natural expression of the music for him. Reread my posts instead of misquoting me.

.

There were lenghty discussions of this in the "Fascination with Furtwängler" thread and also in the "Fascination with Toscanini" thread. Here is a quote from the former:

.... Furtwangler's greatness was not in possessing the truth, it was in continually seeking the truth. His conception of a work was never "finished." It was never "perfect." Sometimes it could change wildly from one day to the next.

Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. We can only hope to approximate it.

 

[premont]

you make my point exactly, thank you....:tiphat:

And he still does

 

[premont]

Victor Borge was a mere mechanical time-beater (* slaps Knorf around the face). James Last, on the other hand, put himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. Borge reads off in strict dictation like a stenographer.

But who was Victor, and how long shall the memory of James last?