Joined
·
3,763 Posts
To all who say they prefer Furtwängler over other options, who can argue with that? I won't. I just don't share that preference.
What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.
I also object to not-Furtwängler being labelled derisively as "pre-scripted," because in general it's all decided in advance. Everything! That's how professionals do it.
For professionals, it is always about very minute, careful, thoughtful, and repetitive preparation. Szell, Reiner, Karajan, Haitink, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Klemperer, Muti, Jansons, Berglund, MTT, Abbado, Bernstein, Alsop, Maazel: all of them. Some of their choices work for me, other don't. Furtwängler's mostly don't. YMMV. But leaving too much to chance (unless you're John Cage) or actual, in fact spontaneity is a recipe for disaster. Furtwängler admittedly flirted with the edge of this, which is why so much of what he did to my ears sounds really, unlistenably sloppy. But his interpetive choices over the years are actually far too consistent to not have been studied. Relying on the moment means you lean most heavily on old, well-established habits, whether good or bad.
"From the heart," "intuitive," "spontaneous": that's all an illusion. You will never really know from a performance or recording whether the conductor adored the work they're performing, or detested it. That's called being a professional. But everything is prepared in advance; that's why we have rehearsals. In general Furtwängler created a myth at odds with the reality.
Mostly what the musicians are doing in performance in their head is counting a lot and hoping they don't screw it up. How much emotion do you bring to the table, when you're focused and concentrating on simple counting? Here's the rub: if you're not sure what the conductor is going to do, because you haven't rehearsed enough, you have to concentrate and count more. Musicians play more confidentally and boldly when they're well rehearsed, and play it safe and spend even more time counting when they're not.
In short, the Furtwängler myth of getting more spontaneous performances from fewer rehearsals is total, abject nonsense on multiple levels. Far more was studied and clearly pre-arranged than the myth allows.
You know what spontaneous (i.e. under-rehearsed) performances sound like, even of standard repertoire? Timid, under-played, careful, boring, sloppy crapola.
What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.
I also object to not-Furtwängler being labelled derisively as "pre-scripted," because in general it's all decided in advance. Everything! That's how professionals do it.
For professionals, it is always about very minute, careful, thoughtful, and repetitive preparation. Szell, Reiner, Karajan, Haitink, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Klemperer, Muti, Jansons, Berglund, MTT, Abbado, Bernstein, Alsop, Maazel: all of them. Some of their choices work for me, other don't. Furtwängler's mostly don't. YMMV. But leaving too much to chance (unless you're John Cage) or actual, in fact spontaneity is a recipe for disaster. Furtwängler admittedly flirted with the edge of this, which is why so much of what he did to my ears sounds really, unlistenably sloppy. But his interpetive choices over the years are actually far too consistent to not have been studied. Relying on the moment means you lean most heavily on old, well-established habits, whether good or bad.
"From the heart," "intuitive," "spontaneous": that's all an illusion. You will never really know from a performance or recording whether the conductor adored the work they're performing, or detested it. That's called being a professional. But everything is prepared in advance; that's why we have rehearsals. In general Furtwängler created a myth at odds with the reality.
Mostly what the musicians are doing in performance in their head is counting a lot and hoping they don't screw it up. How much emotion do you bring to the table, when you're focused and concentrating on simple counting? Here's the rub: if you're not sure what the conductor is going to do, because you haven't rehearsed enough, you have to concentrate and count more. Musicians play more confidentally and boldly when they're well rehearsed, and play it safe and spend even more time counting when they're not.
In short, the Furtwängler myth of getting more spontaneous performances from fewer rehearsals is total, abject nonsense on multiple levels. Far more was studied and clearly pre-arranged than the myth allows.
You know what spontaneous (i.e. under-rehearsed) performances sound like, even of standard repertoire? Timid, under-played, careful, boring, sloppy crapola.
