still sad this got ignored!also - von Dohnanyi vs Szell is more fun than another Furtwangler vs Szell (wasn't it Furtwangler vs Toscanini yesterday?) argument
von Dohnanyi's Bartok is so good....
still sad this got ignored!also - von Dohnanyi vs Szell is more fun than another Furtwangler vs Szell (wasn't it Furtwangler vs Toscanini yesterday?) argument
An aspect of a number of his interpretations I have found fairly annoying as well.[Furtwangler's]......excessive taffy-pulling, distortions are hardly natural sounding....I often find myself asking "WTH is he doing?, why did he do that??"
And here we go with the strawmanI mean, what is the "truth" of Brahms Symphony #1??
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.I don't think so - the implication seems to be that accurate playing, precision, necessarily excludes expressive or passionate presentation....my own long experience tells me this is not so. what is the basis for this implication??
And, who knows? Some of us may not like the way Beethoven conducted/interpreted his own symphonies, could we have a chance to hear the performances, after having gained familiarity of the music as produced by some of our favorite conductors and their orchestras.How much technical imperfection impacts your enjoyment is really entirely subjective to your tastes as a listener.
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.
" subjective truth" - lol!! Good label...Oh a thread about Furty and subjective truth. How fascinating.
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.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.
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...![]()
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.No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.
"Subjective truth" was not my label...I just happen to think it quite fitting...No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.
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.
Nope. It absolutely is your label. You are claiming that I am arguing that musical interpretation is a road to some larger "subjective truth." I have never said that. Do you know what a strawman is? It's when you mischaracterize someone's argument in order to pretend you are "winning.""Subjective truth" was not my label...I just happen to think it quite fitting...
No, it is Merl's...i find it quite fitting...Nope. It absolutely is your label.
Isn't that exactly what you claim that WF pursues??You are claiming that I am arguing that musical interpretation is a road to some larger "subjective truth."
No, I have never said that, and neither would he.Isn't that exactly what you claim that WF pursues??
Some metaphysical, extra-musical "truth"??
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: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.
.
.... 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.
you make my point exactly, thank you....:tiphat:....What he says is that the perfect realization of a classical work exists only in the abstract, and as performers were are attempting as best we can to approximate it.
Szell was a great conductor; for me, he sometimes keeps things "buttoned down" too tightly...and the assertions that he could be stiff or rigid have some validity....however, this is not always the case...at times, he'd really let the orchestra rip - and this was to great effect - Cleveland was a terrific ensemble with great players - I'm thinking Beethoven #7, Leonore #3[!!], Walton Sym #2, just ottomh........Any chance of a return to discussing Szell anytime soon ....? Personally I'd put Szell's mechanical, surgical, soulless, shallow Dvorak symphonies 7-9 above nearly anyone's.
Sounds like he was really the Head Coach of the Cleveland BrownsSzell was a great conductor; for me, he sometimes keeps things "buttoned down" too tightly...and the assertions that he could be stiff or rigid have some validity....however, this is not always the case...at times, he'd really let the orchestra rip - and this was to great effect - Cleveland was a terrific ensemble with great players - I'm thinking Beethoven #7, Leonore #3[!!], Walton Sym #2, just ottomh....
I also enjoy his Mozart and Haydn....the exquisite phrasing and precision are most attractive, and again, he enjoyed input from his outstanding orchestra....
The guy was a total control freak, tho - any lengthy solo meant special coaching sessions with the Maestro, so that it was presented according to his wishes. Szell controlled each musician's salary. If a musician wanted a raise, it had to go thru him...he even tried to dictate musicians' personal habits to a degree - what instrument they played, what they ate, drank, did with free time, etc...
A highly enjoyable book Tales from the Locker Room - An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra by Lawrence Angell and Bernette Jaffe sheds some light on his relationships with his musicians....very entertaining...