Why Barenboim got to Mahler late

[karlhenning]

The words to some degree are the sticking point there. Listeners naturally differ over to what degree.

Lest you think (or be led to think) that I am simply opposing you, Barry (and Michael), allow me reflections upon one performance I conducted two weeks ago, and a reading of another piece of mine I attended six weeks ago.

It is simply a fact of my circumstances, that high-profile professional ensembles are not playing or singing my music; and practically all performances of my music are imprecise. This does not remotely mean that I am never happy with these performances; it pleases me to say that music is made of my work, even where observance of the score wavers. But the music would sound better yet, if the notes (the score) were better adhered to.

And, really, I believe that a composer would take it as on some level an insult, if a listener preferred the inaccurate performance to (i.e., claimed that it was somehow “more musical” than) an accurate performance.

I do not, at bottom, have any quarrel with Barry saying he looks more for interpretive things, than ‘strict accuracy.’ It is only that, from this composer’s perspective, it is the composer more than anyone, whose work is injured by cavalier disregard of the actual merits of reading and realizing the score.

Cheers,
~Karl

[Barry]

I definately appreciate what you're saying, Karl. I think it's perfectly natural for a composer to want his or her music to be played as close to the written letter of the score as possible (I can also appreciate Heck's perspective. Both composers and musicians are not necessarily looking for the same things in a performance that non-trained fans are).

But of course, I'm not a composer and am listening with a different perspective than you. What matters most to me is that the performance moves me on an emotional level. And I'm inclined to give performers interpretive leeway in getting me there.

[karlhenning]

I definately appreciate what you're saying, Karl. I think it's perfectly natural for a composer to want his or her music to be played as close to the written letter of the score as possible (I can also appreciate Heck's perspective. Both composers and musicians are not necessarily looking for the same things in a performance that non-trained fans are).

But of course, I'm not a composer and am listening with a different perspective than you. What matters most to me is that the performance moves me on an emotional level. And I'm inclined to give performers interpretive leeway in getting me there.

I think I understand, Barry.

In my work, my goal is to achieve that emotional connection, even through my actual notation :-)

[rwetmore]

I think we disagree on something like Furtwangler's Beethoven fifth, with his extended rests, long holding of notes, shifting tempos, etc.

I don't associate any of these things with imprecision or technical flaws. To me, they are interpretive decisions that relate to the literal vs. subjective philosophies of music making.

[Barry]

Randall,

You're right. The discussion Karl and I were having had evolved from one about precission to a continuation of an earlier one he and I had on another board about the extent to which a peformers are bound to stick to the written score (i.e. subjective vs. objective or literal).

[karlhenning]

BTW, I read that Schumann, e.g., did not approve of Wagner's liberties in tempo with Beethoven. And I don't know if we can argue that Wagner was closer to Beethoven, than was Schumann :-)

[Barry]

I've also read that upon hearing Beethoven's ninth for the first time, Schumann said something to the effect that the old man had lost it with this one.

But regardless, whether Schumann was closer to Beethoven than Wagner makes no difference according to the view that I've espouced all along. My view is that Wagner, as a conductor, was not doing something immoral by using tempos that may not have been what Beethoven envisioned. It's up to each individual listener to decide for him or herself when a conductor or other performer has overstepped and gone too far.

[karlhenning]

Was altering the orchestration immoral?

I think it's hard to pin down the point of no return ... but it seems to me that at some point, Wagner ceased being an interpreter of Beethoven, and began to be a reshaper of Beethoven in his own image.

And maybe immoral is the right adjective for the latter.

[Barry]

I'm still not willing to use the word immoral for altering the orchestration. I'm not sure exactly what changes you're talking about. If I heard them, it's possible I'd think they're in poor taste. But I doubt I'd scoff at them as a matter of principle (I may even like them ).

[karlhenning]

I'm not sure exactly what changes you're talking about.

I'm talking about Wagner's changes (which must have been slight, compared to Mahler's changes :-)

I don't know what they were, exactly, either.

[Michael]

I think that we are more or less agreeing with one another here. I wouldn't dream of 'changing' anything that a composer wrote. If one remains faithful to the score there really are so many things that a performer can do without insulting the written note. Words are not sufficient because we are talking about a non-verbal art form...the most rich art form that we have. I also have no idea what Wagner's alterations were in Beethoven symphonies but am well aware of the Mahler ones....they are still used by some conductors...don't much care for them but when one hear's Klemperer for example (maybe I should substitute 'me' for 'one') he takes you/me with him. Tempi are another consideration...the scherzo of Beet 2 for example....goodness, how many different ideas do we have about that one. Was Beethoven's metronome faulty? Who cares..I've heard it work at all manner of speeds..tempo is of course relative to so many things. I would hate to get used to a fixed idea of a work. (The adagietto from Mahler 5 also has many diverse interpretations..I take each one on it's merits but chicken out on saying what I like and don't like..hell I'm a newbie on here )
One tries to re-create what a composer intended without interfering with the creative process but we are, as performers part of that process, without us the music will not live, it is our responsiblity to communicate the composers intentions to an audience whilst at the same time, hopefully, sharing our own thoughts and resposes to the printed page to those who care to listen. Result: music.

[Heck148]

Randall,
He then said that it's much harder to achieve precision with a fluid approach to music-making than it us with a straight forward, sharp-edged approach, which makes sense. I mean by definition, a sharp-edge is more precise than a rounded one.

IOW precision is not a priority, or why would somebody deliberately take an apporach that is anti-precision??

I've heard Furtwangler's approach explained, by himself and others. I just don't find it to be all that effective. too often it simply sounds lax and sloppy. what he sought in theory is admirable, but in reality it doesn't always come off...

OTOH - a conductor like Leinsdorf seemed to seek exacting precision, yet his interpretations are almost always IMO, dull, lifeless and utterly lacking in character and expression.