Which living conductors equal the ones of yore?

[Jack Kelso]

Well----Mengelberg, Furtwängler, Weingartner, Reiner and Beecham left behind a great legacy. They had their say on the podium in their time and space. Sometimes their styles broke the back of form or fell into excesses of "individuality" and extreme rubato. But some composers' works profit from such an approach (e.g., Liszt).

Some music lovers today are not turned on by the primitive sound of the 1930's, 40's and early 50's. I happen to be one of them.

Will conductors such as Norrington, Muti, Sawallisch, John Eliot Gardner and Michael Tilson Thomas ever be regarded in the same breath as their mighty predecessors?! I believe so. In some cases, perhaps even higher.

Due to a more precise modern musicology, the inner secrets of many composers' works have been brought to the foreground---so that conductors, pianist, violinists, etc. have more literature to study. Back in the 1950's it was relatively rare to record a cycle of symphonies of any one composer. Today, it's the norm.

Which living conductors (if any!!) do you think will someday become an immortal icon of the podium?

Tschüß!
Jack

[val]

I think it is too soon to establish such a prognosis.
Many of us grew up familiar to the interpretations of artists that, in general, were much older.
For example, Furtwängler and Toscanini died before I was born.

My conception of Beethoven Symphonies has to do with several versions of conductors of previous generations: Furtwängler, Monteux, Toscanini, Reiner, Karajan, Böhm, Jochum, Cluytens, Szell.
Listening the symphonic repertory played by Gardiner, Norrington, Jacobs, Minkovsky or Harnoncourt is always a challenge to our habits and conceptions.

I had no difficulty, regarding Baroque music, in replacing my old versions of Bach (Munchinger, Ristenpart, Kurt Thomas), by Gardiner, Leonhardt or the Musica Antiqua Köln.

But regarding the repertory from Mozart to the 20th century is different. Jacobs in Mozart Symphonies seems too artificial, Hogwood too prosaic. The Bruckner of Harnoncourt seems almost exhibitionist, with no spirituality. The Schumann of Gardiner is agreable but superficial.

Perhaps in 20 years, new generations will find this aesthetic more natural than the older ones.

But since I like energy, poetry and emotion in an interpretation, I remain faithful to Furtwängler playing Beethovens 9th Symphony in Bayreuth, Böhm conducting Bruckner's 7th, Jochum conducting the 8th or Sawallisch conducting Schumann's 2nd Symphony.

[Jack Kelso]

You make valid points, Val.

I still prefer the Münchinger/Stuttgart playing of baroque concerti to the choppy, stacatto style of many contemporary conductors! Additionally, one shouldn't play Vivaldi like J.S. Bach or Handel like Purcell.

Tschüß!
Jack

[david johnson]

None yet, for me.

dj

[pizza]

I think there are some today who are already on that high plane. If we're speaking of living conductors who offer a wide range of repertoire, there's Skrowaczewski, Levine, Chailly, MTT and Salonen. For top-notch conductors who specialize, there's Thomas Sanderling (Shostakovich, Mahler), Gergiev (all the Russians and opera), Vanska (Scandinavian composers), Boulez (Mahler and the moderns), Metzmacher (the moderns) and James Sinclair (one of the unsung heroes of American music). I don't know if he's still active, but Luis Herrera de la Fuente, who studied with Scherchen, is probably the finest exponent of Mexican and Latin American music still living.

Not all names that are universally recognized as great today, but in a generation or so, I think they will be.

[Ken]

I agree with pizza, particularly about Levine and Gergiev. Perhaps another Russian whose legacy will stand tall is Rozhdestvensky, whose mastery of Shosktakovich works can in many ways be considered to be an extension of Mravinsky's style.

I can't make an objective statement as to which present-day conductors will leave a lasting impression on the musical community as a whole, but I know that in my mind, Davis, Haitink, and maybe even Maazel, will always stand out.

[RebLem]

Levine, definitely. Also, Abbado, Gergiev, Gardiner, Hogwood, Vanska.. Gustavo Dudamel shows promise, but its too early yet to say for sure.

[Barry]

I just addressed my feelings on Muti's work in the standard 19th century Austro-German repertoire on another thread. I can't judge him in the opera house, but I think I've heard enough from him over the years to conclude that up until now at least, he is not a "great" conductor of orchestral music. Maybe his best years are still ahead of him in Chicago, as Sawallisch's best years in the concert hall came at the end of his career, but that remains to be seen. And while I hate to say it, I'm afraid I don't think there are any living conductors who lead Beethoven and Brahms that is competitive with what we have on record from the masters of the middle third of the 20th century.

Of course, there is a lot more music than that out there, and there are a number of active conductors who are making a big name for themselves in repertoire that wasn't widely recorded by the conductors of the 30s-60s. The conductors of today are more likely to be remembered for how good they are with Mahler and Shostakovich than for Beethoven and Brahms.

[stenka razin]

In no particular order, the living conductors who will be remembered and listened to in the future include:

Claudio Abbado

Riccardo Muti

Daniel Barenboim

Vladimir Ashkenazy

Lorin Maazel

Andre Previn

Riccardo Chailly

Michael Tilson Thomas

Bernard Haitink

Wolgang Sawallisch

James Levine

Neeme Jarvi

Sir Colin Davis

Kurt Masur

Pierre Boulez

Nikolaus Harnoncourt

Sir John Eliot Gardiner

Valery Gergiev

[Cyril Ignatius]

Among the immortal conductors of our times may be Claudio Abbado, Valery Giergev, Sir Colin Davis, Osmo Vanska, James Conlin among others.

[Chalkperson]

Here is my Ten...no particular order...

Vanska

Levine

Abbaddo

Previn

Gardiner

Skrowaczewski

MacKerras

Gergiev

Davis

Rozhdestvensky

[Heck148]

Which living conductors (if any!!) do you think will someday become an immortal icon of the podium?

Abbado, Levine, Rozhdes'sky very probably. not sure about others...

[Lance]

No one yet, for me either, just like our David Johnson. However, that said, the ones I hold in the very highest esteem are James Levine and Bernard Haitink. Muti hasn't made it in the minds of those who know conductors even though he has achieved great prominence. There just aren't any that could make music like Monteux, Reiner, Toscanini, Furtwängler, Mitropoulos, Beecham, Mengelberg, Weingartner, Stokowski, Szell, Walter, Bernstein, Talich, Kondrashin, Boult, Erich Kleiber, Knappertsbusch, Mravinsky Clemens Krauss, and a handful of others. That appears to be a golden age that is now gone. The second "wave" after those would include people like Sargent (totally underrated), Kertesz, Martinon, Dorati, etc., but already, even with some of these, we began to hear noticeable differences. Of course, everyone will have varying opinions, and that is to be expected because we are talking on the surface without substantial proof except what remains in our minds. Those I mentioned, in the first crop, came up the hard way and had as tutors, composers of their period, or students of great conductors such as Arthur Nikisch, to name but one.

[Corlyss_D]

I think it is too soon to establish such a prognosis.
Many of us grew up familiar to the interpretations of artists that, in general, were much older.

True but their reputations were legend while yet they lived. I can't think of anyone with that kind of status based on the staying power of their their work.

Ristenpart,

Be still my foolish heart! I had no idea anyone had heard of Ristenpart. I loved the guy. I fondled some LPs by Ristenpart yesterday in a nationwide search for two lps to send to Lance for a tribute to oboist Harry Shulman. Brought back so many fond hours. There was this one Nonesuch Vivaldi album with a blood red cover I used to spend days listening to. Never got enough of it.

[nadej_baptiste]

I still prefer the Münchinger/Stuttgart playing of baroque concerti to the choppy, stacatto style of many contemporary conductors!

Me too! Do you know their recording of Handel's Water Music & Royal Fireworks? So warm and real...that's the way to play Baroque music...

[TopoGigio]

Gone with the Time!

Now, we have better recording, discoveries, diffusion...

[Wallingford]

Perhaps the one maestro to give me zero-per-cent cause to be myopic is NEEME JARVI. As an orchestral wizard, he invites favorable comparison with Ormandy or Stokowski; as one KING-FM deejay I spoke with years ago said it, the man can conduct anything. I'd allow for a goodly amount of overstatement there, but he does have a neat "renaissance man" approach in his catholic repertoire. He almost totally avoids Baroque repertory (holiday presentations of Messiah notwithstanding), and is quite selective in Classic era music. But from there on in, the fields are practically his own. And he's perhaps the ONE living conductor whose performances really THRIVE on the spirit of the moment--his commercial CDs almost sound fussy & stilted compared with his concert work, of which there're happily tons of surviving examples.

[Jack Kelso]

I just addressed my feelings on Muti's work in the standard 19th century Austro-German repertoire on another thread. I can't judge him in the opera house, but I think I've heard enough from him over the years to conclude that up until now at least, he is not a "great" conductor of orchestral music. Maybe his best years are still ahead of him in Chicago, as Sawallisch's best years in the concert hall came at the end of his career, but that remains to be seen. And while I hate to say it, I'm afraid I don't think there are any living conductors who lead Beethoven and Brahms that is competitive with what we have on record from the masters of the middle third of the 20th century.

Of course, there is a lot more music than that out there, and there are a number of active conductors who are making a big name for themselves in repertoire that wasn't widely recorded by the conductors of the 30s-60s. The conductors of today are more likely to be remembered for how good they are with Mahler and Shostakovich than for Beethoven and Brahms.

"Mahler and Shostakovich" are in the same line and demand similar approaches. Try Hindemith and/or Prokofiev....they possess totally different emotional requirements.

"Beethoven and Brahms" is also a very incomplete summation of the 19th century, since Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Wagner, Bruckner and Tschaikowsky all require special and individual styles for proper interpretation---and are as important as Brahms in the orchestral repertoire. Also, a great Beethoven conductor is not necessarily a Brahms specialist.

Muti is exceptionally fine with Schubert, Schumann and Tschaikowsky. For Beethoven I still like Karajan and Sawallisch better, and good ol' Bruno Walter for Brahms has never been topped---IMHO.

Tschüß!
Jack

[Heck148]

We have to take into consideration that the exposure of conductors in the previous age was much less than they receive now...
most conductors like Toscanini, Walter, Weingartner, Reiner, Szell, Solti etc started out conducting in small regional opera companies or smaller venues, where the talent pool was not great. these conductors had to make do with what was there, which in many cases, was less than great.

by outstanding talent, these conductors rose thru the masses, gained the top spots and thereby made their marks as podium giants...
the public at large did not know of them when they were assistant conductors at the East Blunderberg Opera House.
this process simply weeded out many of the very competent, very good conductors, who simply did not reach a level that produced national or international recognition...

presently - with recordings, with increased media coverage, broadcasts, etc - many more conductors receive notice and acclaim than ever before. naturally, many of these conductors receiving this notice and acclaim are not of the highest talent level. most are good, or very good, but many are something less, yet they somehow garner the media coverage and understandably milk it to the utmost.
so we have a mediocrity like, say Ejie Oue, assuming the post in Minnesota, he makes a few recordings, and suddenly he's a big "star".....

but are we supposed to compare someone like this with a Walter, Reiner or Szell?? hardly. the talent level, the experience, the track record is not even remotely close...

the present day music/media scene allows far more conductors to enjoy a piece of the spotlight...in the past - the spotlight was alot smaller, and only the top ones fought their way into it.

[Barry]

"Mahler and Shostakovich" are in the same line and demand similar approaches. Try Hindemith and/or Prokofiev....they possess totally different emotional requirements.

"Beethoven and Brahms" is also a very incomplete summation of the 19th century, since Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Wagner, Bruckner and Tschaikowsky all require special and individual styles for proper interpretation---and are as important as Brahms in the orchestral repertoire. Also, a great Beethoven conductor is not necessarily a Brahms specialist.

Muti is exceptionally fine with Schubert, Schumann and Tschaikowsky. For Beethoven I still like Karajan and Sawallisch better, and good ol' Bruno Walter for Brahms has never been topped---IMHO.

Tschüß!
Jack

I know there is a lot more repertoire out there. My point is that the conductors of today tend to get more attention and are more likely to be remembered as great for something like a fantastic Mahler or Shostakovich symphony cycle than for the music that the legendary conductors of the past made their reputations on. I think Muti's record on Tchaikovsky is fairly mixed. His best recordings of that music are probably his earliest ones. I'm not nuts about the ones he made here in Philly. And I've also seen him conduct Schubert's 9th a couple times live and wasn't that impressed. Granted, I haven't heard his recordings of the earlier Schubert symphonies, but I've never heard a 9th from him that I've considered anywhere near top-notch.

[stenka razin]

I forgot Gennady Rozhdestvensky.

[anasazi]

Does Bernstein count as a contemporary of Reiner and Munch, or of the latter group? (Abbado, etc.). I'm kind of unclear about that myself.

My own preference, and since I love how well the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra conducts it's own music, then I suppose I don't have a choice.

How much is a conductor really needed, other than at rehearsal? Today's musicians seem more capable than ever of counting their measures.

If I wished to name a conductor of the 'past' whose recordings are nearly always superlative, it would be George Szell.

If I wanted to name a living conductor that I admire, both as a conductor and as a musician, it would be Andre Previn.

That is like oil and vinegar. So I will settle for Orpheus, or for Perahia leading the musicians from the keyboard, Previn also for that matter.


Update. I had to edit my post as I forgot to mention Mariss Jensons, the one conductor today that I perhaps admire the most.

[Ralph]

Bernstein will definitely be highly regarded in the next century.

But no mention of Herbie? Sacrilege!

[Chalkperson]

Bernstein will definitely be highly regarded in the next century.

But no mention of Herbie? Sacrilege!

But Ralph, we are takling about living conductors, no, otherwise Carlos and Guiseppi would top(o) our list...

[RebLem]

Bernstein will definitely be highly regarded in the next century.

But no mention of Herbie? Sacrilege!

Blomstedt is a good conductor, but, IMO, not a great one.

[Heck148]

Does Bernstein count as a contemporary of Reiner and Munch, or of the latter group? (Abbado, etc.). I'm kind of unclear about that myself.

Bernstein is of the generation following Reiner, Monteux, etc. he studied conducting with Reiner.

Lenny's generation featured 3 big All-Stars - himself, Solti, and von Karajan. they will all be regarded amongst the podium giants...
nobody from the present generation has attained the stature of these three.

[Lance]

I think Bernstein's mentor was Dimitri Mitropoulos, whom he succeeded at the NYP. I never quite understood why Bernstein wasn't more closely associated with the Boston Symphony, himself being a native of that area. Nonetheless, he brought the NYP to great, new heights.

Does Bernstein count as a contemporary of Reiner and Munch, or of the latter group? (Abbado, etc.). I'm kind of unclear about that myself.

Bernstein is of the generation following Reiner, Monteux, etc. he studied conducting with Reiner.

Lenny's generation featured 3 big All-Stars - himself, Solti, and von Karajan. they will all be regarded amongst the podium giants...
nobody from the present generation has attained the stature of these three.

[Heck148]

I think Bernstein's mentor was Dimitri Mitropoulos, whom he succeeded at the NYP.

Mitropoulos was one of them, along with Reiner, Koussevitsky, Copland.

Reiner certainly recognized talent when he saw it:

Reiner on Leonard Bernstein, 1944: "Wait until you see that kid conduct tonight. Mit einem Schmiss [with fiery verve]! Watch out for him. He's going to make a real career."

I never quite understood why Bernstein wasn't more closely associated with the Boston Symphony, himself being a native of that area.

Bernstein was very close to Koussevitsky - was very active at Tanglewood, and was Koussie's conducting assistant..
when Koussevitsky's star fell at the BSO, we have to assume that his associates went along with him...

Nonetheless, he brought the NYP to great, new heights.

yes, his major conducting debut was with the NYPO in 1943, when he jumped in to sub for Bruno Walter.

[CharmNewton]

Mitropoulos was one of them, along with Reiner, Koussevitsky, Copland.

Reiner certainly recognized talent when he saw it:

Reiner on Leonard Bernstein, 1944: "Wait until you see that kid conduct tonight. Mit einem Schmiss [with fiery verve]! Watch out for him. He's going to make a real career."

I remember Reiner stating in a 1959 interview in High Fidelity magazine thet "Bernstein was the most talented pupil I ever had" adding "but not for conducting". I have read that Reiner felt betrayed when Bernstein decided to study with Koussevitzky.

I don't know if Bernstein ever conducted the CSO during Reiner's tenure, but I don't believe he did. Back in the mid-70s, I was very excited when I learned DG was going to be recording the CSO as I expected that Bernstein and maybe even Karajan might visit the city to guest conduct and record, but it didn't happen.

If one has the 6-CD box of Mitropoulos' Mahler performances on Music & Arts and compares them with Bernstein's 1960s New York performances, one can hear they were kindred spirits in the overall shaping of Mahler's music.

One of the very greatest conductors of the Bernstein generation was Carlo Maria Giulini.

John

[Heck148]

I remember Reiner stating in a 1959 interview in High Fidelity magazine thet "Bernstein was the most talented pupil I ever had" adding "but not for conducting".

it figures, Reiner could always be depended upon to say something nasty or snotty.

I have read that Reiner felt betrayed when Bernstein decided to study with Koussevitzky.

I believe I've read that , too.
Reiner was really vain, of course so was Koussevitsky.

I don't know if Bernstein ever conducted the CSO during Reiner's tenure, but I don't believe he did. Back in the mid-70s, I was very excited when I learned DG was going to be recording the CSO as I expected that Bernstein and maybe even Karajan might visit the city to guest conduct and record, but it didn't happen.

DG recorded with Abbado - great stuff, and some with Giulini [more great stuff]. of course, Giulini/CSO recorded a whole series with EMI which is consistently excellent...he had great rapport with the orchestra.

[CharmNewton]

I remember Reiner stating in a 1959 interview in High Fidelity magazine thet "Bernstein was the most talented pupil I ever had" adding "but not for conducting".

it figures, Reiner could always be depended upon to say something nasty or snotty.

The High Fidelity interview occurred right around the time Reiner pulled out of what would have been the first European tour of the CSO and was replaced by Bernstein and the N.Y. Philharmonic. A missed opportunity right after Van Cliburn had won the Tchaikovsky Competition. The younger and more attractive Bernstein was a hit. No reason was given for the cancellation, but I imagine that Reiner was worried about his health and the care he would receive if something happened to him in Russia.

I have read that Reiner felt betrayed when Bernstein decided to study with Koussevitzky.

I believe I've read that, too.
Reiner was really vain, of course so was Koussevitsky.

Reiner seems to have interpreted this decision as a deeply personal rejection. For Bernstein, the BSO was his hometown orchestra, arguably the greatest orchestra in the world at that time.

I don't know if Bernstein ever conducted the CSO during Reiner's tenure, but I don't believe he did. Back in the mid-70s, I was very excited when I learned DG was going to be recording the CSO as I expected that Bernstein and maybe even Karajan might visit the city to guest conduct and record, but it didn't happen.

DG recorded with Abbado - great stuff, and some with Giulini [more great stuff]. of course, Giulini/CSO recorded a whole series with EMI which is consistently excellent...he had great rapport with the orchestra.

During a CSO Radiothon (about 17 years ago, so memory might be a bit sketchy) one of the CSO players recalled a conversation Bernstein had with him and several other members of the orchestra about Reiner. Bernstein mentioned that Reiner coveted the NYP job and was deeply disappointed when it went to Mitropoulos. How would we be speaking about the NYP today if they had hired Reiner instead of Mitropoulos? I don't know how strong the fires were for N.Y. by 1958 when Bernstein replaced Mitropoulos, but those WBAI broadcasts of the CSO certainly reminded New Yorkers of what they could have had.

I treasure the recordings Giulini made in Chicago and am only disappointed that he didn't make his recording of the Bruckner 8th there (he programmed it a second time in 1977, but it was dropped at the last minute for a Haydn/Schubert program which led to his recording of Schubert's 9th symphony).

John

[TopoGigio]

If one has the 6-CD box of Mitropoulos' Mahler performances on Music & Arts and compares them with Bernstein's 1960s New York performances, one can hear they were kindred spirits in the overall shaping of Mahler's music.

I disagreeeee.I have four or fünf Mitropoulos Mahler CDs, but even
in poor sound his charge is unsurpassed by NY Bernstein or ANY Bernstein.
Its the old feud Golden Age/Silver Age in conductors...

[Heck148]

The High Fidelity interview occurred right around the time Reiner pulled out of what would have been the first European tour of the CSO and was replaced by Bernstein and the N.Y. Philharmonic. A missed opportunity right after Van Cliburn had won the Tchaikovsky Competition. The younger and more attractive Bernstein was a hit. No reason was given for the cancellation,

that cancellation caused alot of controversy, and really upset the musicians. Philip Hart goes into it in detail in his Reiner biography - IIRC - there was a real beef with the state dept regarding scheduling, length and scope of tour, number of concerts/per day, etc, etc...it got rather complex...
again, IIRC, when the tour was arranged with Bernstein after the CSO cancellation, the state dept had dropped its excessive demands, which pissed everyone off even more...

Reiner coveted the NYP job and was deeply disappointed when it went to Mitropoulos. How would we be speaking about the NYP today if they had hired Reiner instead of Mitropoulos? I don't know how strong the fires were for N.Y. by 1958 when Bernstein replaced Mitropoulos, but those WBAI broadcasts of the CSO certainly reminded New Yorkers of what they could have had.

Reiner kept a good relationship with the NYPO - he guest conducted and led some terrific performances.
his Brahms Symphony #2 from 1960 is great. live performance, really exciting...

it was dropped at the last minute for a Haydn/Schubert program which led to his recording of Schubert's 9th symphony).

I've never been able to find that one, which is supposed to be really great - same with the Dvorak 8th....I've never found that one either.

[CharmNewton]

it was dropped at the last minute for a Haydn/Schubert program which led to his recording of Schubert's 9th symphony).

I've never been able to find that one, which is supposed to be really great - same with the Dvorak 8th....I've never found that one either.

They were early Galleria re-issues, and seem to have to disappeared. The Schubert is large-scale reading with slower tempi and all the repeats, much the opposite of the recording by, say, Munch.

John

[CharmNewton]

They were early Galleria re-issues, and seem to have to disappeared. The Schubert is large-scale reading with slower tempi and all the repeats, much the opposite of the recording by, say, Munch.

Actually, the Dvorak can be found here with Fournier's recording of the Cello Concerto in B minor. The original coupling for the symphony was the Schubert 4th (which was also re-issued with his L.A. Pastoral.



http://www.amazon.com/Dvor%C3%A1k-Conce ... 912&sr=1-1

John

[Jack Kelso]

Some of Norrington's recordings have just blown me away! Talk about dynamics!

As to Muti, I think that his Vienna Phil. recordings are a bit stronger and more consistent than those from Philadelphia.

Tschüß!
Jack

[Gary]

I typed this, so sorry about the typos.


BBC Music
August 2005
Andrew Stewart

Give it some stick

Where are today’s Klemperers and Toscaninis? Andrew Stewart suggests that the fast-track approach of training conductors today misses a vital element.

When talk turns to conductors, at least one question unites reactionaries and instinctive adventurers: why do most performances today sound the same? The need to find an answer has never been more acute. In our age of ‘specialist’ conductors, fast-tracked from music college or plucked from seats in the orchestra, musical individuality amounts to premature career death. While personal eccentricity is perceived as a marketeer’s dream, striking departures from the collective expectation of how Beethoven’s Ninth or Brahms’s Fourth should go most certainly are not. The thin rank of impressive young talents, Gustavo Dudamel, Robin Ticciati, Mikko Franck and Ilan Volkov among them, stand ahead of countless podium nonentities with a collective ability to prove Hans Keller’s theory that ‘the conductor’s existence is essentially superfluous’.

Keller condemned conductors for making it impossible for the professional orchestral musician to express his love for music. Despite placing conducting among his provocative list of ‘phoney professions’ this did not deflect the author’s deep admiration for Wilhelm Furtwangler. ‘Possibly the greatest [conductor] of all times was Mahler,’ Keller observed, and like Mahler, Furtwangler was a conductor who composed, as did Mahler’s director successors at the Vienna Court Opera, Felix von Weingartener and Richard Strauss. Indeed, Strauss and many others developed all-round skills that few conductors today can match.

The biography of Daniel Harding, to take just one high-profile example, is rich in terms of the orchestras he has conducted. But it falls light when it comes to details of training. Harding, according to conventional wisdom, was a born conductor, a natural who developed his innate skills ‘on the job’. Compare the young specialist’s CV with that of Ferenc Fricsay, another conductor who matured early. Fricsay studied violin, clarinet, trombone and percussion as a child at the Franz Liszt Academy, progressed to study composition with Kodaly and Bartok, and went on to raise the Szeged Philharmonic Orchestra from local mediocrity to national prominence. It remains to be seen if Harding, for all his ability to steer world-class orchestras, will hold a candle to Fricsay’s music making.

A century ago, boundaries between composers who conducted and conductors who composed were more flexible than they are today—perhaps invisible. Conducting composers of the Furtwangler generation developed their interpretations of the classical canon from first-hand knowledge of the syntax and structural foundations of 19th-century music. Pierre Boulez, recently observed that composition and conducting teachers ‘ought to be in the same boat—and that is unfortunately not the case at the moment, which I find disastrous’.

Another composer-conductor, Harold Farberman, expects every student on his conducting course at Bard College to compose at least one short piece for full orchestra. Farberman is convinced that, with hard work and time, a talented young musician can develop into a competent conductor: ‘Until recently,’ he notes, ‘conductors were valued for their maturity, not their precociousness.’ Otto Klemperer said much the same to Peter Heyworth a few years before his death. ‘The trouble [with the younger conductors] is that they have no sense of maturing: they want to get to the top right away.’ The study of composition and orchestration, once central to the maturation process of conductors noted for the individuality of their interpretations, Klemperer prominent among them, has become a ‘module’ bolted on to the routine learning of stick technique and the ability to manage a three-hour rehearsal. Furtwangler, an aspiring composer, made his conducting debut within a month of his 20th birthday before spending most of the next decade learning his craft as a repetiteur in Breslau and Munich and as conductor in Lubeck.

Conducting, says Boulez, has demanded that he balances the composer’s speculation of what can be expressed in music with the performer’s consideration of what is practically possible. ‘You have the mirror of speculation and the mirror of performance, which reflect each other. That is indispensable.’ It is worth setting Boulez’s remark in the context of conducting training at the Paris Conservatoire, which began in 1914 under the guidance of Vincent d’Indy and effectively remained a class for composers, Boulez among them, for almost 40 years. The once rich French conducting tradition, notably promoted by the Societe des Concerts du Conservatoire in Paris, drew strength from the work of such composer-conductors as Andre Messager, Gabriel Pierne and Henri Rabaud. Paul Paray, Roger Desormiere, Desire-Emile Inghelbrecht and his pupil Jean Martinon, who pursued distinguished conducting careers, were also schooled and widely respected as composers. It is hard to think of a French conductor born since 1945 with the qualities of a Boulez or even a Geroges Pretre (whose first ambition was to be a composer).

BIG FIVE IN BERLIN

A photograph taken at the 1929 Berlin Festival instantly frames the issue of the conducting composers. Here is the mighty handful of international conducting, four Austro-Germans and one Italian: Bruno Walter, Erich Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Wilhelm Furtwanger and Arturo Toscanini. It’s hard to imagine more contradictory characters, but their development as musicians supplied common links in composition. Although Toscanini may appear the odd-composer out, seven of his youthful works, were published in the late 1880s, while his Adante and Scherzo formed a personal part of the conductor’s repertoire. Furtwangler’s late Romantic scores include his Symphony No. 2, the Sinfonisches Konzert for piano and orchestra, and the monumental Piano Quintet. Klemperer’s compositions included his Symphony No. 2 and Merry Waltz, works which admittedly spoke in a language seen as old-fashioned long before he recorded them in the 1960s.

Composition was Erich Kleiber’s first study at the Prague Conservatoire. His violin and piano concertos, if contemporary reports are to be believed, deserve a hearing today. What is beyond dispute is that Kleiber had the composer’s capacity to comprehend long-range musical form and make subtle details of rubato and phrasing work to articulate primary structural points. A perfectionist, Kleiber forged a judicious blend of Toscanini-like care for the printed score and the expressive licence favoured by the Furtwangler. In that respect, he stood in line with older contemporaries, such as Weingartner and Strauss. Kleiber valued individual expression, a point he made in 1929. The bad thing about the recording process, he said, ‘is that it fixes forever a certain performance, a unique emotional moment when, really never two musical performances are the same. One day I feel music in one way, next day it is otherwise. Which is the true one that should remain on the record? It’s a matter of state of mind. Blood doesn’t flow every day at the same speed. A record fixes that which is versatile, the living thing.’

Bruno Walter’s catalogue of compositions includes his substantial Mahlerian Symphony No. 1, acclaimed by the audience at its Viennese premiere in 1909, several song albums, and a skilfully written Violin Sonata. Like Furtwangler, Walter considered himself to be a serious composer. George Szell and Leo Blech, who also conducted performances in the 1929 Berlin Festival, were known as composers: the prodigious Szell made his conducting debut with the Berlin Philharmonic in a programme that included one of his compositions, while Blech’s Wagnerian opera Versiegelt was successfully staged in Hamburg and New York. Hermann Abendroth, one of the finest ever interpreters of Brahms, studied composition with Ludwig Thuille and conducting with Felix Mottl, who in turn had studied composition with Bruckner. The list of lesser Austro-German conductor-composers active before and after World War I includes Oskar Fried, who set down the first recording of Mahler’s Symphony No. 2 in 1924; Leopold Reichwein, a composer of operas who hailed from Klemperer’s hometown of Breslau, and Alexander von Zemlinsky.

The influence of conducting composers and the individuality of their recorded interpretations can easily be traced. Walter Frederick Stock, carried German ideals of conducting to the US, while Koussevitzky, Walter, Klemperer, Rodzinski, Mitropoulos, Szell and Dorati served to connect old Europe’s conducting-composing traditions with the New World. Koussevitzky and Mitropoulos paved the way for Leonard Bernstein, the first homegrown US conducting composer with world success.

In discussing the modern ‘Russian school’ of conducting, it’s become almost a cliché to cite Ilya Musin as the pedagogical godfather, not surprising given his longevity and the remarkable success of his students, Valery Gergiev among them. The unfairly overlooked Alexander Gauk, unlike Musin, composed as well as conducted. Gauk’s pupils included fellow conductor-composers Evgeny Mravinsky and Evgeny Svetlanov. Finland’s tradition of conducting composers reaches back to Armas Jarnefelt and Robert Kajanus, and remains in good health today thanks to Jorma Panula, Leif Segerstam and Esa-Pekka Salonen. The British experience ranges from Percy Pitt and Albert Coates, both raised as performing composers, to composer-conductors such as Elgar, Eugene Goossens, Bliss, Harty, Lambert and Britten. The estimable Malcom Sargent made his Proms conducting debut with a performance of his own work, while Henry Wood, John Barbirolli and Beecham periodically turned their hands to arranging. Grzegorz Fitelberg, Paul Kletzki, Andrzej Panufnik and Stanislaw Skrowaczewski stand tall among Poland’s conducting composers. The catalogue of Igor Markevitch’s compositions is blessed with quantity. Sergiu Celibidache, Issay Dobrowen and Victor de Sabata composed appealing works, as did the undervalued Vittorio Gui and the extraordinary Wilhelm Mengelberg.

Only a fool would claim that the above mentioned conductors are superior to their contemporary counterparts. Conversely, only the bravest or most perverse of critics would argue that Chritoph von Dohnanyi, Chritoph Eschenbach, Wolfgang Sawallisch, Kurt Masur, Leonard Slatkin or the passionless Kent Nagano had more to say about the classical repertoire than Klemperer, Walter, Erich Kleiber or Furtwangler. In the mid 1980s Simon Rattle has recalled that, as a teenager, he discovered recordings of the Big Five and was inspired. That great individualist, Stokowski, was also among his recorded heroes. ‘Also, one felt that those records were produced honestly,’ says Rattle. ‘Once can hear they are performances…I find I listen to almost no modern recordings.’ With luck, wannabe conductors will follow Rattle’s example and steer clear of Dohnanyi’s gutless Beethoven symphony cycle or Slatkin’s or Eschenbach’s sterile Brahms.

INTERPRETER’S ART

As orchestral musicians continue to push forward the boundaries of technical excellence, such that orchestras far distant from the traditional centers of music making command critical attention, the need for conductors with something meaningful to say about the scores in their repertoire becomes more pressing. The case of Christian Thielemann, general music director of the Munich Philharmonic, underlines the point. He has been described as a ‘sorcerer of sound’, and epithet echoing the mystical German tradition of conducting established by Wagner and personified by Furtwangler. Sadly, Thielemann’s sonic sorcery masks the stolid, often disjointed nature of his musical interpretation and its indifference to the opera’s formal landmarks. The conductor’s live recording of Tristan und Isolde beguiles in terms of sound while leaving the score to hang. The same can be said for his dirge-like performance of Bruckner’s Fifth, which withers by comparison with Furtwangler’s.

Furwangler, conscious of the conducting ideals of Wagner and Liszt, wrote of the mystical nature of the interpreter’s art. That view, combined with the evidence of Furwangler’s recordings, attracted much criticism for its dependence on willful departures from the letter of the printed score, not least voiced by disciples of Toscanini’s so-called come scritto (‘as written’) dogma. Furtwangler later came under attack again from devotees of historically informed performance practice. I remember taking part in a recording of Beethoven’s Ninth under Christopher Hogwood in the late 1980s, during which the conductor used a metronome to set the speeds for each take, thereby creating an absurd antithesis to Furtwanglerian interpretation. While Furtwangler evoked Wagner’s almost indefinable musical quality of melos (a subtly inflected ‘singing’ line), Hogwood appeared to be content with chronos, the diligent act of maintaining a regular pulse. Hogwood’s cult-like devotion to literal fidelity, shared by many of his early music colleagues, has informed a new orthodoxy of categorical imperatives: do this and it is right; don’t do that because it’s wrong. the drab world of period instrument performances is crying out for a transfusion of subjective interpretation, especially as conductors cover the late 19th–century music.

Pierre Boulez says that he was surprised to hear Anton Webern’s exquisite recording of his orchestration of Schubert’s Germanic Dances, ‘above all by his use of rubato’. the Frenchman offers ‘a possible but not very probably explanation’, suggesting that Webern’s fluid tempo rubato stood as ‘a relaxing contrast to his asceticism [as a composer]. Perhaps such devices were, in his eyes, essential to expressiveness.’ They were certainly essential to the ingrained Austro-German ideal of conducting, where due respect for the composer’s authority was balanced against the imperative for performers to transcend notes on the printed page. Weingartner, Walter, Furtwangler and many others were prepared to intervene in the scores of the classical canon, not just by altering instrumentation but also by conceiving fresh interpretations as part of a living tradition of music making.

Historically informed performance, if it is to justify its prevalence in contemporary thinking about music, must recognize that Furtwangler’s individual readings of Bruckner, for example, were rooted in the performing ethos of Bruckner’s time. Furtwangler’s contrasting live recordings of the second version of Bruckner’s Eighth, which he premiered in Vienna in July 1939, suggest that a literal reading of the score was alien to the work’s early performance tradition. Following the score’s letter, wrote Furtwangler, was nothing more than a pedantic ideal. Pedantic or not, it has robbed modern audiences of the thrills and confrontations of interpretative individuality.

[DavidRoss]

Established greats:
Boulez
Abbado
Harnoncourt

Contenders:
Chailly
Gardiner
Mackerras
MTT
Haitink
Dutoit
Blomstedt
Maazel
Vänskä

Noteworthy specialists
Handley
Segerstam
Jacobs
Plasson