[HenryPenfold]

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 ..............

 

[HenryPenfold]

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!

 

[HenryPenfold]

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.