Classical Music Forum banner
101 - 120 of 274 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,113 Posts
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:
I clarified exactly what I am saying in my previous response:

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.
My previous response you quote here is no different...

.... 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.
...except the context was that another poster was claiming that I was saying that only WF "possessed" the truth. I was clarifying that he as a performer, just like all of us, cannot possess the truth but he can only seek it.

"Truth" in this context refers to the perfect, "true" rendering of a musical work. It can only exist in the abstract.

I NEVER SAID that music is itself a vehicle through which we discover philosophical truth, and neither did WF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,504 Posts
Whilst Szell isn’t in my top 10, I do regard him highly. In particular I admire the sound he created with the Cleveland Orchestra, resulting in a phenomenal ensemble which always gives me the impression of having the qualities of a chamber ensemble. The standards within the Orchestra are well maintained to this day albeit under more agreeable conditions I’m sure.

Regarding Szell specifically, I can appreciate the way he can cut through to the core of the music and deliver a performance/an interpretation of of a work with clarity and without a feeling exaggeration or artificiality. Nothing feels done for the sake of being done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merl

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,162 Posts
I was reading some stuff about Szell a few months back and Eschenbach was actually singing his praises. The elderly Szell took him under his wing and Eschenbach painted a very different picture of him to others.
"I was never frightened of him or intimidated by him. He could be intimidating to others but to me he was warmer. Music was everything to him. As teacher, as conductor, he was supremely articulate. Clarity, transparency, diction, crisp articulation - these were his musical priorities. He was a great delineator of scores. He would say, 'Why is a note written if it's not heard?' For him every note was to be heard. We had wonderful sessions together.... We had endless conversations and two-piano sessions. He was a brilliant pianist, even at his age. I studied all the Beethoven concertos with him. It was an unbelievable experience."
And...
". .. He always gave me his time. He worked through my entire piano repertoire with me at two pianos. This went on for two years, in various locations. He always played the orchestra parts - from memory, by the way, and brilliantly! At least twelve Mozart concertos I performed for him, all five Beethoven, Schumann, the two Brahms, and the second of Bartók..... Szell was a sculptor, a renderer, a formulator of phrases, and with the word formulator I already imply: a master of musical diction. What Harnoncourt formulated very aptly in his book, Music as Speech, I'd already heard ten years earlier from Szell."
Interesting perspectives. He and Karajan got on fabulously too yet you wouldn't have thought they would. When an interviewer said to Karajan that Klemperer once said Szell was" a machine but a very good machine", Karajan firmly retorted,

"No, you cannot really say that. He was a man with a full heart. When you had a chance to meet him in his house with all his guests, he was a most charming and intelligent man. No, I can't understand that remark."
 

·
Premium Member
Chicago (ex-Dublin)
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
Sounds like he was really the Head Coach of the Cleveland Browns
The sports analogy extends further than you might think -

Tales from the Locker Room: An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra

https://www.amazon.com/Tales-Locker-Room-Anecdotal-Cleveland/dp/1626130469

===========================================================

And as long as were on the subject of Cleveland sports... The Cleveland major league baseball team formerly known as the "Indians" announced today that they are now going to be known as the "Cleveland Guardians".

If someone had asked me... which they didn't but should have... I would have suggested

the "Cleveland Rocks" - really nice Ian Hunter reference combined with the location of the Rock
and Roll Hall of Fame.

I know, I know... this has nothing to do with anything but someday... if you're ever on Jeopardy and this comes up you'll thank me....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
And as long as were on the subject of Cleveland sports... The Cleveland major league baseball team formerly known as the "Indians" announced today that they are now going to be known as the "Cleveland Guardians".

If someone had asked me... which they didn't but should have... I would have suggested the "Cleveland Rocks" - really nice Ian Hunter reference combined with the location of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
I'm really surprised they didn't go with the "Cleveland Szells." You'd think the whole city would get behind honoring one if its most distinguished figures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,515 Posts
Don't you mean the *London* symphonies? AFAIK, Szell only recorded a couple of the Paris group.

But I agree about Szell's Haydn. I wouldn't necessarily call it "stiff", but to my ears, it's utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth.
I was thinking of an LP box set that I owned briefly back in the 1980s, and specifically Szell's No. 88 in Cleveland. But you & Kreisler Jr. are right, I misremembered the contents of that set (sorry, it was a long time ago). I'm pretty sure that it did contain Symphony no. 88 though, and now that I think more about it, Haydn's symphonies in the 90s (93-98, perhaps). Which doesn't change my point of view. Szell fans rave about Szell's no. 88, 92, etc., yet in my nearly four decades of listening to classical music, I've never heard Haydn conducting that is so stiff. It's unusual, and distinctive. And therefore, it never fails to surprise me that others who listen to these same recordings don't hear Szell's stiffness (such as David Hurwitz, for example, who thinks that Szell's Haydn is the best out there!), or dismiss my view as being purely subjective. I don't see it as subjective. Not if you actually sit down with an open mind and listen to the examples that I provided. To my ears, it's glaringly obvious.

Yes, I completely agree, Szell's Haydn conducting in Cleveland (but not so much in Vienna & Salzburg) is "utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth". But aren't "clenched teeth" just another way of saying his conducting is too stiff?, which is after all what happens when a person clenches their teeth, the jaw stiffens. So too does Haydn's music. By the way, the two examples that I provided in my previous post included Haydn's No. 88 from the "Paris" Symphonies. So, for any others that are interested, here are my links again, which easily represent the stiffest Haydn conducting I've ever heard, & surely I can't be the only one here that hears Szell's Haydn as overly stiff? considering that it is so extreme:


Heck148 writes, "Of, course, sloppy execution is not the intent, but often it comes off that way.....poor, imprecise execution, to me, and to where and how I was taught, does not further increased musical expression."

You asked about where Furtwangler's "taffy pulling" comes from?, & I merely answered your question: It comes directly from his being a strong adherent to Schenker's more psychologically oriented musical analysis. Which you didn't seem to know about, or understand, or if you did, I don't know why you would have asked the question. Schenker is not a footnote in Furtwängler's career, he had a major influence on the conductor, and therefore, on the conducting style that we hear on most of Furtwängler's records (as did Arthur Nikisch, and one of Wagner's proteges, Felix Motti). Indeed, Furtwängler worked closely with Schenker for 15 years! (between 1920-35). & one of the chief evidences for Schenker's strong influence over Furtwängler IS all the "taffy pulling" of the rhythms, whether you respond favorably to this less precise approach to music, or not.

But I wasn't trying to start an argument or be provocative, or defend or advocate on behalf of Schenkerian analysis, or Schenker's views on Furtwängler's Beethoven. Rather, I mostly kept my personal views out of it, except to say that I do think Schenkerian musical analysis can work well in the music of Bruckner, considering that Schenker was a pupil of Bruckner's; along with the excellent Bruckner recordings that I've heard from Furtwängler and Eugen Jochum (who was a disciple of Furtwängler & held his conducting as the gold standard, even though Jochum shows a greater classical restraint in his conducting style, nevertheless, Jochum likewise pulls the tempi around in Bruckner, & presumably also for expressive purposes--whether people agree with what he does, or not). But I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else that those musicians devoted to Schenkerian analysis are always successful. I'd rather leave that for others to decide for themselves, because we're not all going to agree on it, either way.

I wrote, "But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler."

Heck148 responded, "Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion...."

Again, I wasn't trying to argue on behalf or defend Schenker or his point of view, as you seem to have taken it. Although I will say now that such a view isn't "one man's opinion". A large number of notable composers and musicians--who by the way had no training in Schenkerian analysis--have similarly expressed a high opinion of Furtwängler's conducting, such as composers Arnold Schoenberg, Serge Prokofiev, Paul Hindemith, Bela Bartok, & Arthur Honegger, as well as musicians Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Pablo Casals, Yehudi Menuhin, Claudio Arrau, Maria Callas, Herbert von Karajan, Arturo Toscanini, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Eugen Jochum, Bruno Walter, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Daniel Barenboim, Sergui Celibidache, Vladimir Ashkenazy, & even George Szell!, etc. etc. So, it's hardly one man's opinion (i.e., Schenker's). Although I should point out that all of those musicians had the advantage of hearing Furtwängler conduct live in concert, or actually performed with him on stage. Which most likely makes a significant difference, since, in comparison, all we have are a bunch of lousy, single mic'd sound recordings. (Furtwängler had no patience for the recording process.)

Yet, in other quarters, Furtwangler does get criticized for being "criminally sloppy" and for having "lapses", ostensibly due to his unwillingness to rehearse. By all accounts, like Hans Knappertsbusch, Furtwängler wasn't interested in rehearsing much. & that is precisely what some critics (like David Hurwitz) have blamed his conducting style on--a sloppiness due to a lack of rehearsal time.

However, Hurwitz & others are basically wrong, because Furtwängler's "imperfections" are usually deliberate and happen due to the conductor's adherence to Schenkerian analysis, as mentioned. (In fact, his conducting scores are very detailed & thoughtfully considered.) & again, the intent or goal of Schenkerian analysis is to find a more meaningful and insightful musical expression. Which led the English critic Neville Cardus to write the following about Furtwangler's conducting style,

"He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realized subjectively..."*

In other words, to further quote conductor Henry Lewis,

"The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwangler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."* (* both quotes are drawn from Wikipedia)

But whether you or anyone else hears Furtwangler's conducting as a distillation of the essence or spirit of the music wasn't my point. I was simply answering your question.

Although, if I were to say what I personally think about Schenkerian analysis, yes, I have heard certain performances where Schenker's ideas do work well, at times, in my opinion. To the extent that I suspect some of Schenker's ideas do go back to the earlier 19th century, especially considering what I know about how Franz Liszt taught his pupils, for instance, which isn't dissimilar, and therefore, perhaps some of these ideas do even go back to Czerny, Beethoven, Haydn, & Mozart (& got passed down to Liszt, Bruckner, Schenker...). Especially when I consider how Schenkerian analysis can work, at times, in pianist Elizabeth Rich's survey of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, for example (along with her Haydn Piano Sonatas):
. I also think that it can work well in Edward Aldwell & Samuel Feinberg's Bach playing:
. But as always, there are varying degrees of application, and I do realize that when it is applied to an extreme, as with Furtwängler, it's not for everyone. I also know that some people dislike Rich's Mozart, and Aldwell's Bach, for the very reason that they do pull the rhythms around and don't keep a steady or precise beat, but at times slow down and then speed back up, rather willfully. Fair enough. I don't think it always works either, and personally, I wouldn't want these performances to be the only recordings of these works that I own in my collection (& they aren't). However, I do think that the devotees of Schenkarian analysis can sometimes offer valid & interesting insights into the deeper content of the music.

I'd also bet good money that if we could go back in time and hear Mozart play his own piano sonatas (or Bach his own keyboard works), that they would NOT have rigidly adhered to a strict, unwavering, uniform tempo throughout an entire piece. But would have instead pulled it around, here and there, for expressive purposes. In fact, I don't overly care for the other extreme--which is an ultra strict & inflexible approach to tempo, such as practiced by a pianist like Walter Klein in Mozart, or Carl Seeman in Bach, for example, and I can't imagine that Mozart & Bach would have either. With Klein & Seeman, the music so seldom breathes or relaxes. It's all so relentlessly forward driven & inflexible, & it can be exhausting to listen to in larger doses. (Though I do realize that some people are fans of this kind of playing, which is fine. I just hear the music so differently.)

Klein, Mozart:
Seeman, Bach:

At the same time, yes, I'd be very surprised if Mozart & Bach would have pulled the tempo around to the same extent that Furtwängler does, since the extremes of Furtwängler's conducting style are most likely a product of the late Romantic era, rather than the classical era.

Heck148 writes, "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??

Yes, I agree that at times he pulls & stretches the scores out in ways that can take the music into a realm where he's "just making it up". But, at other times, it is arguably connected to what he sees as a deeper musical content within the score--what the music is about. Even though I agree that it is a wildly expressionist method of conducting, as there is little classical restraint, or any uniform adherence to a steady, precise tempo.

For example, both Furtwangler and Koussevitsky draw out the "death note"--as it is sometimes called, at the end of the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 5th--to an extreme length that no other conductor I've heard has dared to do. Is that extreme length justified by the score? No, I don't think so. So, it represents a huge shift in tempo, and a long, long drawing out of a note to emphasize--or rather over emphasize, depending on your point of view--the note's primary importance and central role in the musical content & context of the symphony. Both conductors then build very slowly towards the transition into the 4th movement (which I agree with). The only way to explain what they're doing here, as I see it, is to say that they've both chosen to extend the duration of the "death note" for a greater expressive purpose--whether they're successful at it or not, that's their intent. Is it overdone? Of course, some will say that it is. Others, no. But do these two conductors understand the content of the music? Yes!, undoubtedly. The "death note" is unquestionably of great importance to a deeper psychological and emotional understanding of the musical content of the 5th. Does it need to be so overemphasized and stretched out to the point where not a single person in the concert hall could possibly miss it? No, probably not.

However, on the other hand, is that better than the multitude of conductors that I've heard in recent decades that don't even know the "death note" is there? who fly through this section so quickly that the note becomes little more than a blur? or gets almost completely drowned out by overly loud timpani? Yes, I think it is much, much better, because at least Furtwängler and Koussevitsky understood the content of the music. They're not clueless, like most conductors today, even if you don't agree with the extreme length that they take in their musical perception.

Although personally--if I were picking for my desert island--yes, I would prefer a conductor that shows a greater classical restraint and precision here. I don't think that a conductor needs to stretch out the "death note" to such an expressionist length, as Furtwängler & Koussevitsky do, in order for the passage to fully communicate a deeper meaning and greater expressiveness. Bernard Haitink, for example, doesn't take these kinds of liberties with Beethoven's score in the 5th, & what he does actually works better, IMO:
. & I could say the same about Kurt Masur's last recording of the 5th with the New York Philharmonic (which is easily the best of Masur's three, in my view):
, or Eugen Jochum's account of the 5th with the LSO (as well as Szell & the Concertgebouw in their 5th, which I've already mentioned favorably). These conductors show a much greater classical restraint than Furtwängler & Koussevitsky, & yet are still able to achieve a strong degree of musical understanding & expression in regards to the deeper meaning and content within Beethoven's score, without messing around with his tempo, or turning it into some drastically expressionist form of music making.

At the same time, I think many conductors today would do well to listen to Furtwängler and Koussevitsky's Beethoven 5th recordings, because, from my experience, too many of them totally miss the content of Beethoven's music in the transition between the 3rd & 4th movements--which is at the very heart & crux of the symphony, & the older conductors do spell it out, clearly. To the extent that if you're listening carefully and you have a brain, it's very hard, if not impossible to miss. So yes, I do believe that this kind of 'expressionist' conducting has its purpose, despite that, if I were a conductor, no, I wouldn't want to emulate the extremes to which both Furtwängler and Koussevitsky take the music. But at least they have passion and understanding, & that's not a minor thing, either.

But I'm not disagreeing with your points, otherwise. Obviously, I think they're perfectly valid. Though, at the same time, your musical training apparently didn't include an introduction to Schenkerian analysis. So, it is something foreign to your own approach to music, and not a part of your experience--whether you agree with Furtwängler's approach to music or not. Therefore, I wouldn't totally dismiss Schenkerian musical analysis, either. As it may have its value, even though obviously I understand that that is not how you & many other musicians were trained (including George Szell).

P.S. If you're open to hearing a Schenkerian oriented pianist seriously pull the rhythm around in Mozart, have a listen to this:
. Do you or anyone else think that her less precise playing here is bad & misguided? or do you think that she offers some legitimate insights & perceptions into Mozart's intended subject matter--the area that exists beyond the mere ink blots on the page of Mozart's score?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,192 Posts
I was thinking of an LP box set that I owned briefly back in the 1980s, and specifically Szell's No. 88 in Cleveland. But you & Kreisler Jr. are right, I misremembered the contents of that set (sorry, it was a long time ago). I'm pretty sure that it did contain Symphony no. 88 though, and now that I think more about it, Haydn's symphonies in the 90s (93-98, perhaps). Which doesn't change my point of view. Szell fans rave about Szell's no. 88, 92, etc., yet in my nearly four decades of listening to classical music, I've never heard Haydn conducting that is so stiff. It's unusual, and distinctive. And therefore, it never fails to surprise me that others who listen to these same recordings don't hear Szell's stiffness (such as David Hurwitz, for example, who thinks that Szell's Haydn is the best out there!), or dismiss my view as being purely subjective. I don't see it as subjective. Not if you actually sit down with an open mind and listen to the examples that I provided. To my ears, it's glaringly obvious.

Yes, I completely agree, Szell's Haydn conducting in Cleveland (but not so much in Vienna & Salzburg) is "utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth". But aren't "clenched teeth" just another way of saying his conducting is too stiff?, which is after all what happens when a person clenches their teeth, the jaw stiffens. So too does Haydn's music. By the way, the two examples that I provided in my previous post included Haydn's No. 88 from the "Paris" Symphonies. So, for any others that are interested, here are my links again, which easily represent the stiffest Haydn conducting I've ever heard, & surely I can't be the only one here that hears Szell's Haydn as overly stiff? considering that it is so extreme:


Heck148 writes, "Of, course, sloppy execution is not the intent, but often it comes off that way.....poor, imprecise execution, to me, and to where and how I was taught, does not further increased musical expression."

You asked about where Furtwangler's "taffy pulling" comes from?, & I merely answered your question: It comes directly from his being a strong adherent to Schenker's more psychologically oriented musical analysis. Which you didn't seem to know about, or understand, or if you did, I don't know why you would have asked the question. Schenker is not a footnote in Furtwängler's career, he had a major influence on the conductor, and therefore, on the conducting style that we hear on most of Furtwängler's records (as did Arthur Nikisch, and one of Wagner's proteges, Felix Motti). Indeed, Furtwängler worked closely with Schenker for 15 years! (between 1920-35). & one of the chief evidences for Schenker's strong influence over Furtwängler IS in all the "taffy pulling" of the rhythms, whether you respond favorably to this less precise approach to music, or not.

But I wasn't trying to start a argument or be provocative, or defend or advocate on behalf of Schenkerian analysis, or Schenker's views on Furtwängler's Beethoven. Rather, I mostly kept my personal views out of it, except to say that I do think Schenkerian musical analysis can work well in the music of Bruckner, considering that Schenker was a pupil of Bruckner's; along with the excellent Bruckner recordings that I've heard from Furtwängler and Eugen Jochum (who was a disciple of Furtwängler & held his conducting as the gold standard, even though Jochum shows a greater classical restraint in his conducting style, nevertheless, Jochum likewise pulls the tempi around in Bruckner, & presumably also for expressive purposes--whether people agree with what he does, or not). But I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else that those musicians devoted to Schenkerian analysis are always successful. I'd rather leave that for others to decide for themselves, because we're not all going to agree on it, either way.

I wrote, "But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler."

Heck148 responded, "Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion...."

Again, I wasn't trying to argue on behalf or defend Schenker or his point of view, as you seem to have taken it. Although I will say now that such a view is hardly "one man's opinion". A large number of notable composers and musicians--who by the way had no training in Schenkerian analysis--have similarly expressed a high opinion of Furtwängler's conducting, such as composers Arnold Schoenberg, Serge Prokofiev, Paul Hindemith, Bela Bartok, & Arthur Honegger, as well as musicians Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Pablo Casals, Yehudi Menuhin, Claudio Arrau, Maria Callas, Herbert von Karajan, Arturo Toscanini, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Eugen Jochum, Bruno Walter, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Daniel Barenboim, Sergui Celibidache, Vladimir Ashkenazy, & even George Szell!, etc. etc. So, it's hardly one man's opinion (i.e., Schenker's). Although I should be point out that all of those musicians had the advantage of hearing Furtwängler conduct live in concert, or actually performed with him on stage. Which most likely makes a significant difference, since, in comparison, all we have are a bunch of lousy, single mic'd sound recordings. (Furtwängler had no patience for the recording process.)

Yet, in other quarters, Furtwangler does get criticized for being "criminally sloppy" and for having "lapses" due to his unwillingness to rehearse. By all accounts, like Hans Knappertsbusch, Furtwängler wasn't interested in rehearsing much. & that is precisely what some critics (like David Hurwitz) have blamed his conducting style on--a sloppiness due to a lack of rehearsal time.

However, Hurwitz & others are basically wrong, because Furtwängler's "imperfections" are usually deliberate and happen due to the conductor's adherence to Schenkerian analysis, as mentioned. (In fact, his conducting scores are very detailed & thoughtfully considered.) & again, the intent or goal of Schenkerian analysis is to find a more meaningful and insightful musical expression. Which led the English critic Neville Cardus to write the following about Furtwangler's conducting style,

"He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realized subjectively..."*

In other words, to further quote conductor Henry Lewis,

"The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwangler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."* (* both quotes are drawn from Wikipedia)

But whether you or anyone else hears Furtwangler's conducting as a distillation of the essence or spirit of the music wasn't my point. I was simply answering your question.

Although, if I were to say what I personally think about Schenkerian analysis, yes, I have heard certain performances where Schenker's ideas do work well, at times, in my opinion. To the extent that I suspect some of Schenker's ideas do go back to the earlier 19th century, especially considering what I know about how Franz Liszt taught his pupils, for instance, which isn't dissimilar, and therefore, perhaps some of these ideas do even go back to Czerny, Beethoven, Haydn, & Mozart (& got passed down to Liszt, Bruckner, Schenker...). Especially when I consider how Schenkerian analysis can work, at times, in pianist Elizabeth Rich's survey of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, for example (along with her Haydn Piano Sonatas):
. I also think that it can work well in Edward Aldwell & Samuel Feinberg's Bach playing:
. But as always, there are various degrees of application, and I do realize that when it is applied to an extreme, as with Furtwängler, it's not for everyone. I also know that some people dislike Rich's Mozart, and Aldwell's Bach, for the very reason that they do pull the rhythms around and don't keep a steady or precise beat, but at times slow down and then speed back up, rather willfully. Fair enough. I don't think it always works either, and personally, I wouldn't want these performances to be the only recordings of these works that I own in my collection (& they aren't). However, I do think that the devotees of Schenkarian analysis can sometimes offer valid & interesting insights into the deeper content of the music.

I'd also bet good money that if we could go back in time and hear Mozart play his own piano sonatas (or Bach his own keyboard works), that they would NOT have rigidly adhered to a strict, unwavering, uniform tempo throughout an entire piece. But would have instead pulled it around, here and there, for expressive purposes. In fact, I don't overly care for the other extreme--which is an ultra strict & inflexible approach to tempo, such as practiced by a pianist like Walter Klein in Mozart, or Carl Seeman in Bach, for example, and I can't imagine that Mozart & Bach would have either. With Klein & Seeman, the music so seldom breathes or relaxes. It's all so relentlessly forward driven & inflexible, & it can be exhausting to listen to in larger doses. (Though I do realize that some people are fans of this kind of playing, which is fine. I just hear the music so differently!)

Klein, Mozart:
Seeman, Bach:

At the same time, yes, I'd be very surprised if Mozart & Bach would have pulled the tempo around to the same extent that Furtwängler does, since the extremes of Furtwängler's conducting style are most likely a product of the late Romantic era, rather than the classical era.

Heck148 writes, "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??

Yes, I agree that at times he pulls & stretches the scores out in ways that can take the music into a realm where he's "just making it up". But, at other times, it is arguably connected to what he sees as a deeper musical content within the score--what the music is about. Even though I agree that it is a wildly expressionist method of conducting, as there is little classical restraint, or any uniform adherence to a steady, precise tempo.

For example, both Furtwangler and Koussevitsky draw out the "death note"--as it is sometimes called, at the end of the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 5th--to an extreme length that no other conductor I've heard has dared to do. Is that extreme length justified by the score? No, I don't think so. So, it represents a huge shift in tempo, and a long, long drawing out of a note to emphasize--or rather over emphasize, depending on your point of view--the note's primary importance and central role in the musical content & context of the symphony. Both conductors then build very slowly towards the transition into the 4th movement (which I agree with). The only way to explain what they're doing here, as I see it, is to say that they've both chosen to extend the duration of the "death note" for a greater expressive purpose--whether they're successful at it or not, that's their intent. Is it overdone? Of course, some will say that it is. Others, no. But do these two conductors understand the content of the music? Yes!, undoubtedly. The "death note" is unquestionably of great importance to a deeper psychological and emotional understanding of the musical content of the 5th. Does it need to be so overemphasized and stretched out to the point where not a single person in the concert hall could possibly miss it? No, probably not.

However, on the other hand, is that better than the multitude of conductors that I've heard in recent decades that don't even know the "death note" is there? who fly through this section so quickly that the note becomes little more than a blur? or gets almost completely drowned out by overly loud timpani? Yes, I think it is much, much better, because at least Furtwängler and Koussevitsky understood the content of the music. They're not clueless, like most conductors today, even if you don't agree with the extreme lengths that they take in their musical perceptions.

Although personally--if I were picking for my desert island--yes, I would prefer a conductor that shows a greater classical restraint here. I don't think that a conductor needs to stretch out the "death note" to such an expressionist length, as Furtwängler & Koussevitsky do, in order for the passage to fully communicate a deeper meaning and greater expressiveness. Bernard Haitink, for example, doesn't take these kinds of liberties with Beethoven's score in the 5th, & what he does actually works better, IMO:
. & I could say the same about Kurt Masur's last recording of the 5th with the New York Philharmonic (which is easily his best of Masur's three, in my view):
, or Eugen Jochum's account of the 5th with the LSO. These conductors show a much greater classical restraint than Furtwängler & Koussevitsky, & yet are still able to achieve a strong degree of musical understanding & expression in regards to the deeper meaning and content within Beethoven's score, without messing around with his tempo, or turning it into some drastically expressionist form of music making.

At the same time, I think many conductors today would do well to listen to Furtwängler and Koussevitsky's Beethoven 5th recordings, because, from my experience, too many of them totally miss the content of Beethoven's music in the transition between the 3rd & 4th movements--which is at the very heart & crux of the symphony, & the older conductors do really spell it out, very clearly. To the extent that if you're listening carefully and you have a brain, it's very hard, if not impossible to miss. So yes, I do believe that this kind of 'expressionist' conducting has its purpose, despite that, if I were a conductor, no, I wouldn't want to emulate the extremes to which both Furtwängler and Koussevitsky take the music. But at least they have passion and understanding, & that's not a minor thing, either.

But I'm not disagreeing with your points, otherwise. Obviously, I think they're perfectly valid. Though, at the same time, your musical training apparently didn't include an introduction to Schenkerian analysis. So, it is something foreign to your own approach to music, and not a part of your experience--whether you agree with Furtwängler's approach to music or not. Therefore, I wouldn't totally dismiss Schenkerian musical analysis, either. As it may have its value, even though obviously I understand that that is not how you & many other musicians were trained (including George Szell).

P.S. If you're open to hearing a Schenkarian oriented pianist seriously pull the rhythm around in Mozart, have a listen to this:
. Do you or anyone else think that her imprecise playing here is bad & misguided? or do you think that she offers some legitimate insights & perceptions into Mozart's intended subject matter--the area that exists beyond the mere ink blots on the page of Mozart's score?
How long did it take you to write this dissertation? ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Chicago (ex-Dublin)
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
I'm really surprised they didn't go with the "Cleveland Szells." You'd think the whole city would get behind honoring one if its most distinguished figures.
Even better - the "Cleveland Szellots" - when you combine Szell with zealots magic is made... well... maybe not "magic".... but it sure is kind of catchy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,113 Posts
^

I took one semester of conducting in grad school. One day we were each taking turns with the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th. When I did the downbeat for the opening chord, I did sort of an uncertain jiggle. I wasn't consciously trying to be Furtwangler or anything, I was simply portraying what I heard in my head and wanted from the group. The professor immediately stopped me and directed me to do a simple, clear down beat so that there would be no question as to when to enter. I did it the way he said, and I was not happy at all with the way it sounded. I didn't want to simply make sure everyone came in together. I was wanting something different in the character and sound of that chord. It's not as simple as "applying" a rhetorical device. You have to feel it and internalize it. This informs your movements. So yes, there absolutely is a tradeoff depending on what you choose to emphasize.

When I hear Szell, I hear an emphasis on precision, in that same exact chord in fact, and I think the music calls for something deeper.
 
101 - 120 of 274 Posts
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