Funny you mention it as that is maybe my favorite Szell recording. His Richard Strauss was great - the DJ, Don Quixote with Fournier, Tod und Verklärung, and Till Eulenspiegel all among the best.Absolutely yes, he is, because he was an astounding musician and left us numerous superb recordings.
The rest is up to taste. For mine, I frequently find his recordings extremely satisfying.
I'm listening to the Szell/Cleveland Don Juan right now, and this recording still sweeps me away with its virtuosity, keen sense of drama, and thoughtful understanding of the dark side of the original poem that inspired Strauss to compose this.
Until I pop in Beecham, Walter, Jochum, Bernstein, or Klemperer and realize Classical works can be done with warmth without losing the sense of proportion and balance.Szell's surgical, level-headed presentation of scores works well for me in Mozart and Haydn.
Yes, that Brahms 1st collaboration with Curzon is dramatic as hell, well engineered by Culshaw.Brahms first concerto with Curzon.
Being sensitive to the nuances and emotional underpinnings of a score is not "hamming it up." To the contrary, Furtwängler described his style as simple honesty, following the natural flow of the music like a brook.His underlying philosophy, that the emotional depth of a work is best conveyed by presenting it clearly (rather than hamming it up).
That's the literalist philosophy. Literally.I strongly disagree with this caricature.
This goes back to my original point. Interpreting music in a naturally emotive way is no different than speaking in a tone that naturally conveys the emotion of the speech. You are not adding anything. But interpreting the music in a passionless, mechanical way strips the music of its natural essence. In that sense you are subtracting.I'd prefer to say that strongly adding emotive interpretations to heavily emotional, romantic music like Tchaikovsky runs the risk of gilding the lily.
When I hear a conductor like Szell apply expression, it feels like just that - applying a tool to something. That's why it feels mechanical to me.Yes, The excessive taffy-pulling of tempo by Furtwangler often sounds forced, or contrived to me...not natural...
To me, it is total falsehood that a literal approach is unexpressive, mechanical or robotic and unexpressive...that's complete baloney...a conductor who sticks close to the score can inspire amazingly passionate and expressive playing from his/her orchestra...
Clarity for clarity's sake does detract. You need to be saying more than just simply, "and HERE is Beat One."Precision does NOT automatically equate with expressive restraint....loose, sloppy playing does not automatically equate with great passion or expression.
It was relevant to the post to which I was replying, which was claiming that emotion is something that one "adds" to music.This has no relevance to Szell....
Getting a little touchy, aren't we? There's no affront here. I already mentioned that I count Szell's Richard Strauss among the best. The question was posed by the OP, and I answered it.I didn't mention Furtwangler, and neither did anyone else on this thread, that I noticed. Somehow, if someone admires another conductor it is an affront to you because someone other than Furtwangler was praised.
No. Wrong. Incorrect.But "applying" emotion is exactly what Furtwangler does!! Sometimes it works, sometimes it sounds wildly off track.
"I didn't sack many."In other words, Szell seems to have been a happier person & a more relaxed conductor when he got out of Cleveland.
The Haffner, yes! Thank you, that is in fact one symphony I can give it to Szell for being one of the best. The pointy rhythms and exuberance and all that. A jolly good show.For me, Szell could be very great. His symphony recordings for Mozart Haffner, Beethoven 3, Tchaikovsky 4 and 5, Kodaly
You have expressed several subjective opinions on this thread. Are you just making them up? Of course not. These are your honest impressions. I am a performer as well. Getting deeper into the heart of a piece is a process of discovery. And when you succeed, and the audience is with you, the result is often magical. It's most definitely not made up. I have never understood technicians who eschew heart and emotion. It is almost as if they are afraid of "mistakes" and so take the more reliable, less dangerous path in order to not be embarrassed in front of their audience. That may be the crux of the difference in philosophy."deeper psychological and emotional truths" - the positing of such is indeed extremely subjective - it begs the question - is the conductor performer just making it up??
From John Ardoin's book, The Furtwängler Record:Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion....
If you quote the entire post, I was specifically describing my experience as a performer.??? Why do you assume that those conductor/performers who do not take the Furtwangler approach are "technicians" who eschews "heart and emotion"??
From Alex Ross, The New Yorker:It's a strawman that deserves to be ignored. Lesser performers (and I am certainly among them) have to concentrate on the technical aspects of playing and performing, because the first responsibility of any performer is to execute the notes that are written on the page. If you can't play the right notes, in tune, with the proper rhythm, and at a coherent tempo, there's little point to looking past the notes to find "heart and emotion", because the audience isn't going to notice - they're going to hear only the technical flaws.
And here we go with the strawmanI mean, what is the "truth" of Brahms Symphony #1??
That's not what strawman means. Strawman is when you argue against someone by distorting their argument.It's a strawman because it's a non-provable statement that someone wishes to use to argue that technical perfection is antithetical to musical expression.
No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion." subjective truth" - lol!! Good label...
The board needed a little revving up...things getting a little stale...
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.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.
