Furtwängler: 55-CD Warner set has arrived!

[Lance]

Most collectors of recorded performances I know covet the recordings of conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler [1986-1954]. The major labels for whom he recorded include EMI, DGG, very few for British Decca, and myriad other labels such as the massive 107-CD boxed set on Brilliant Classics containing many live performances. Much is also on Music & Arts, Archipel, Orfeo, Lys, Tahra and many others. However, Warner has done a magnificent job in remastering all their recordings they have under the Warner blanket with Decca recordings included by their courtesy.

This is a cube-type box with an excellent booklet providing many photographs as well and complete details of the recordings, the wallets hold the CDs securely. If you—like yours truly—have many/most of his recordings especially issued by EMI and DGG and want to have Furtwängler in one box, you will enjoy having this space-saving presentation. Thus you might be able to sell the individual CDs you have or give them away. What you won't find here is the Brahms Requiem originally available on German Electrola LPs but now available on Archipel [0154, live 1948], Memories [2004, live 1948], Music & Arts [289, live 1948], Lys 209-10, live 1948], Orfeo [834.118, live 1951], EMI 56338 [live - date?, I believe the 1948 recording from Electrola/Germany mentioned above from LPs]. His Brahms Requiem I thought to have been beautifully and memorably interpreted.

There are some newly published items as well: A Schubert Symphony #8, a Rosamunde excerpt; J. Strauss, Jr. Kaiser Waltz; Wagner Gotterdammerung excerpt, the third movement of Tchaikovsky's Serenade, all of this on disc 54. Aside from that, disc 55 is a documentary, "A Memoir" with interviews, etc.

Recordings have been remastered in High-Definition from original tapes or best sources available by Art & Son Studio in Annecy. In some places, this 55-CD set is now available for less than $150, which constitutes an exceptional buy for the quality of interpretations for the music. Here, approaching 70 years after Furtwängler's passing, his memory still lives on, thankfully.

[maestrob]

Oh my!

Sorry to say, Lance, but Furtwangler is simply not my cuppa. My musical instincts and training are very different from his conception of how to interpret the great works, so I'll pass for now.

Do enjoy, though! Regret that we can't share this.

[Lance]

Hmm, interesting. No question, we all have our likes/dislikes/favourites/etc. and for whatever reasons, no one should deny us. I held Toscanini, Mengelberg, Weingartner, Koussevitzky, Beecham, Walter and some others of that period in the same vein recognizing the difference among their conceptions of performance. Perhaps that's why I am so attracted to the historical artists of the past. If I lived in a prior life, it must have been the beginning of the late 1890s (who recorded) on through to about 1950. Can't explain it.

Oh my!

Sorry to say, Lance, but Furtwangler is simply not my cuppa. My musical instincts and training are very different from his conception of how to interpret the great works, so I'll pass for now.

Do enjoy, though! Regret that we can't share this.

[barney]

Hmm, interesting. No question, we all have our likes/dislikes/favourites/etc. and for whatever reasons, no one should deny us. I held Toscanini, Mengelberg, Weingartner, Koussevitzky, Beecham, Walter and some others of that period in the same vein recognizing the difference among their conceptions of performance. Perhaps that's why I am so attracted to the historical artists of the past. If I lived in a prior life, it must have been the beginning of the Victorian period on through to about 1950. Can't explain it.

Oh my!

Sorry to say, Lance, but Furtwangler is simply not my cuppa. My musical instincts and training are very different from his conception of how to interpret the great works, so I'll pass for now.

Do enjoy, though! Regret that we can't share this.

It was a long life then, Lance. 1837 -1950 = 113 years. Glad to know you have a long way to go this time round!

[maestrob]

Hmm, interesting. No question, we all have our likes/dislikes/favourites/etc. and for whatever reasons, no one should deny us. I held Toscanini, Mengelberg, Weingartner, Koussevitzky, Beecham, Walter and some others of that period in the same vein recognizing the difference among their conceptions of performance. Perhaps that's why I am so attracted to the historical artists of the past. If I lived in a prior life, it must have been the beginning of the Victorian period on through to about 1950. Can't explain it.

Oh my!

Sorry to say, Lance, but Furtwangler is simply not my cuppa. My musical instincts and training are very different from his conception of how to interpret the great works, so I'll pass for now.

Do enjoy, though! Regret that we can't share this.

Truth is, Lance, I find those other conductors you listed mostly highly rewarding. I grew up with Toscanini and Koussevitsky, as well as Ormandy's, interpretations on both 78RPM & LP issues, but there was no Furtwangler in the house, as I found his interpretations hard to process: his music-making simply didn't make sense to me, and I was mesmerized by Toscanini's discipline and his influence on the entire art of conducting.

Early on, I realized that Toscanini was on to something quite special, especially when it came to the practicalities of a globe-trotting maestro. It simply made sense to me that if musicians worldwide could start their music-making from some sort of basically agreed principles, then audiences would be rewarded by many great performances of great music with minimal preparation. Somehow, this idea clicked with me, and became the basis for my taste in performances, as well as my own creativity. It is why I sought out Vincent La Selva at Juilliard, rather than "Uncle Otto" as we used to call him.

Be that as it may, I find much of what Furtwangler did as a conductor very fine, but he strayed too often from my chosen path, and eventually I had to stop listening to what I find quite willful recordings. Frankly, I just get too upset.

As a conductor, I had to take a stand, and my stand is with Toscanini. Mengelberg also could do well. His Tchaikovsky IV pleases me, but his V is very strange to my ears, as an example, much as Furtwangler's Tchaikovsky VI is quite distorted in tempo.

Oh well, we can't always have the same taste. I'll bet we like different wines as well!

[Modernistfan]

Not for me, thanks. (I would rather spend $150.00 getting a box set of Liberace playing the complete Stockhausen Klavierstücke.)

[diegobueno]

Not for me, thanks. (I would rather spend $150.00 getting a box set of Liberace playing the complete Stockhausen Klavierstücke.)

Now that's something to contemplate! That along with Andre Rieu's Xenakis disc.

[Lance]

Well, perhaps I WAS stretching the point! But you know what I mean. Insofar the Victorian composers, I am very interested in them. It would have been better to say conductors from the very late 1890s who made some recordings and those to about 1950! Thank you, as always, for clarifying my point, Barney!

It was a long life then, Lance. 1837 -1950 = 113 years. Glad to know you have a long way to go this time round!
[/quote]

[Lance]

Gotcha! Understand. On the other hand, Liberace was quite the entertainer. I don't know if there would ever be a $150 box given to the artist, but even then, I can't fathom buying the Stockhausen material. Nonetheless, it might be interesting to hear.

Not for me, thanks. (I would rather spend $150.00 getting a box set of Liberace playing the complete Stockhausen Klavierstücke.)

[david johnson]

I have only tow Furty recordings: Tristan/Isolde(EMI), and Schubert 9/Haydn ?(DG). I like them both, but never bought more of him for some reason.

[maestrob]

I have only two Furty recordings: Tristan/Isolde(EMI), and Schubert 9/Haydn ?(DG). I like them both, but never bought more of him for some reason.

Furtwangler didn't mess with Wagner, at least in the recordings I've heard. That Tristan is very fine. So is his Otello, interestingly. Otello, btw, is also the only Verdi opera that Gergiev, who often models his conducting on Furtwangler's, led at the MET, IIRC.

[THEHORN]

Maestro B, I've always had enormous admiration for Furtwangler's conducting , and have never found his conducting anywhere near as "mannered", perverse or willful as his distractors would have us believe .
In fact, Stokowski , whom I certainly admit in some repertoire , was far more self-indulgent, willful and flashy at times .
I've always preferred the recordings Toscanini made with the New York Phil., the Philadelphia orchestra , the BBC and Philharmonia orchestra to those he made with the NBC symphony , which have for the most part struck me as mechanical, joyless and stiffly regimented , taking the dogma of "faithfulness tot he composer's intentions to extremes .
The NBC recordings have always seemed hectic, punchy, nervous, choppy , coarse , rushed and metronomically rigid , with some exceptions .
Furtwangler's live and studio recordings certainly aren't perfect in execution by any means , but their mixture of profundity and spontaneity is something I've always admired .

[THEHORN]

OOPs . Should read "admire", not admit , regarding Stokowski .

[Lance]

GIVING AN OLD THREAD SOME POSSIBLE NEW LIFE?

Since my original October 2021 post on Furtwangler, I wonder if anyone has changed their thoughts/minds on this conductor's work. Furtwangler seems to be "legendary," and long since his death, people continue to hold him in the highest esteem. His recordings are issued, re-issued for an eager-to-buy public.

All my life, since my earliest collecting days, I have tried to avoid the hoopla about certain artists that everyone thought to be the very best of them all. I found the way to Furtwangler pretty much on my own and didn't just jump on the bandwagon. Furtwangler didn't get to the top for no reason at all, which for me, is quite evident in so many of his recordings and collaborations. On the other hand, I also felt the same way about Toscanini, Mengelberg, Stokowski (who really did much for music and bring it to a larger public especially with his inimitable string sound), Mitropoulos, Koussevitzky, Talich, Szell, Walter, Rodzinski, Beecham, Reiner, Monteux, Fricsay and so many others. Klemperer was never in that high echelon for me though I certainly recognized his talent and genius on many occasions on recordings.

In the end, you ask yourself: what was it, exactly, that brought all those conductors I mentioned to their music-making that made it so definitive? Perhaps it more "old-world" convictions that did it. Moving forward, of course, we also have the Bernstein's, the Abbados, Ormandys, Kleibers, and so many more that have given us much to enjoy with even bringing sound quality up to its most realistic into our new century.

All interesting to ponder.

[barney]

Of all the legendary conductors, Furtwangler may be the most controversial.
Lance, why do you like him?
And Brian, why do you not?(Also Mark and Modernistfan?)

I've barely listened to any Furwangler; maybe it's time to try.

[maestrob]

Of all the legendary conductors, Furtwangler may be the most controversial.
Lance, why do you like him?
And Brian, why do you not?(Also Mark and Modernistfan?)

I've barely listened to any Furwangler; maybe it's time to try.

Barney, you pose a good question, and I will try to answer as best I can.

Firstly, I like some of what Furtwangler has done, particularly his Wagner (Tristan & the Ring) and his Otello. What puts me off him is when he invents tempos that don't exist in the score. His distortion of Schumann IV on DGG is but one of the most egregious examples, as is his post-WWII Beethoven IX that crawls along like old treacle. Then there is a very strange Bruckner IX with massive distortions throughout from, IIRC, 1944. His Brahms cycle is rather ordinary as well. These examples have so put me off that, truthfully, I have not explored much further because I find them so deeply offensive.

Too much of his giant ego in his music-making.

[barney]

Thanks Brian. Was there a Furtwanglian school - do you trace any other conductors who pulled the music around like that? What about some of the Europeans who came to America after WWI and II? (Not Szell or Reiner, obviously.)The 1950s and later emphasis on respecting the score was partly a reaction to his (and some others') highly romanticised approach, was it not?

[Lance]

Thinking about this, Barney, and the best way to respond with more than just a few words! Given an accumulation of 204 listings in my own catalogue of Furtwangler's recordings, which amounts to hundreds of individual CDs, I found something in nearly most everything that brought the music to life, as an example. Many conductors play with tempi, particularly Otto Klemperer in his later days. Other more current conductors — after Furtwangler's death — have given credit and deep respect to Furtwangler's conducting technique and musicianship, especially in matters of interpretation. Having been born in Germany in 1886 and being chief conductor of the Berlin PO (in two periods of time), and having worked with the Vienna PO as well as other fine orchestras, his influences for, particularly, the great German or Austrian composers fed his musical influences. Unfortunately, Furtwangler, after World War 2, lost much of his favor due to the fact that he remained in Germany during the Hitler era, did not condone antisemitism, and was, from all accounts, absolved of Nazi involvement. Some of this may have also had an affect on his career between the beginning of WW2 and the time of his death in 1954. More will follow on this thread as time allows.

Of all the legendary conductors, Furtwangler may be the most controversial.
Lance, why do you like him?
And Brian, why do you not?(Also Mark and Modernistfan?)

I've barely listened to any Furwangler; maybe it's time to try.

[maestrob]

Thanks Brian. Was there a Furtwanglian school - do you trace any other conductors who pulled the music around like that? What about some of the Europeans who came to America after WWI and II? (Not Szell or Reiner, obviously.)The 1950s and later emphasis on respecting the score was partly a reaction to his (and some others') highly romanticised approach, was it not?

Yes, Barney, there are conductors who have followed his example, in some cases, to extremes, as in most recently Gergiev conducting Tchaikovsky VI in Vienna. Gergiev actually copies Mravinsky's reading, which turns the symphony (in places) into what I call a "taffy pull." Another example would be Celibidache, whose tempo extremes and lack of discipline put me off totally. So the Furtwangler "school" has not died out entirely, but exists in a very small minority of recordings. As for prominent Europeans who came to America after WWII, I can't think of any who considered themselves disciples of Furtwangler, although Barenboim has acknowledged some influence from both him and Celibidache.

Here's Gergiev with his Marinsky Orchestra in the Tchaikovsky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHgHgbZ8YB8

[maestrob]

Thinking about this, Barney, and the best way to respond with more than just a few words! Given an accumulation of 204 listings in my own catalogue of Furtwangler's recordings, which amounts to hundreds of individual CDs, I found something in nearly most everything that brought the music to life, as an example. Many conductors play with tempi, particularly Otto Klemperer in his later days. Other more current conductors — after Furtwangler's death — have given credit and deep respect to Furtwangler's conducting technique and musicianship, especially in matters of interpretation. Having been born in Germany in 1886 and being chief conductor of the Berlin PO (in two periods of time), and having worked with the Vienna PO as well as other fine orchestras, his influences for, particularly, the great German or Austrian composers fed his musical influences. Unfortunately, Furtwangler, after World War 2, lost much of his favor due to the fact that he remained in Germany during the Hitler era, did not condone antisemitism, and was, from all accounts, absolved of Nazi involvement. Some of this may have also had an affect on his career between the beginning of WW2 and the time of his death in 1954. More will follow on this thread as time allows.

Of all the legendary conductors, Furtwangler may be the most controversial.
Lance, why do you like him?
And Brian, why do you not?(Also Mark and Modernistfan?)

I've barely listened to any Furtwangler; maybe it's time to try.

Lance, in my own personal rection to Furtwangler's craft, I'm just not considering his politics, just his musicianship. He obviously had a strong bond to Wagner's music, so in what I've heard he's really great. As a Toscanini admirer though, I put myself firmly in his camp in regards to respecting the tempo markings in the score. That's how I was trained at Juilliard, but truthfully, I sought out that training because Vincent La Selva aligned with my already established taste.

[barney]

Well, I look forward to this discussion as it unfolds further.

[Lance]

No, of course I would never expect that politics would enter here if we are strictly talking about music, but for some, during/after WW2, Furtwangler's reputation was somewhat hampered by all that. Interesting how each of us hear music in so many different ways. I, defer to you, however, since you have studied conducting and have conducted orchestras. My conducting abilities, learned from my father, and a couple others, but never for professional performing purposes. Nonetheless, Furtwangler's music-making has had a good affect on me all these many years. And like all music-makers, there would, of course, be some music that might not be appealing from any great musician or artist. I remain interested in his art. And, true, the Wagner you allude to actually hits the nail on its head!

Lance, in my own personal rection to Furtwangler's craft, I'm just not considering his politics, just his musicianship. He obviously had a strong bond to Wagner's music, so in what I've heard he's really great. As a Toscanini admirer though, I put myself firmly in his camp in regards to respecting the tempo markings in the score. That's how I was trained at Juilliard, but truthfully, I sought out that training because Vincent La Selva aligned with my already established taste.

[maestrob]

No, of course I would never expect that politics would enter here if we are strictly talking about music, but for some, during/after WW2, Furtwangler's reputation was somewhat hampered by all that. Interesting how each of us hear music in so many different ways. I, defer to you, however, since you have studied conducting and have conducted orchestras. My conducting abilities, learned from my father, and a couple others, but never for professional performing purposes. Nonetheless, Furtwangler's music-making has had a good affect on me all these many years. And like all music-makers, there would, of course, be some music that might not be appealing from any great musician or artist. I remain interested in his art. And, true, the Wagner you allude to actually hits the nail on its head!

Lance, in my own personal rection to Furtwangler's craft, I'm just not considering his politics, just his musicianship. He obviously had a strong bond to Wagner's music, so in what I've heard he's really great. As a Toscanini admirer though, I put myself firmly in his camp in regards to respecting the tempo markings in the score. That's how I was trained at Juilliard, but truthfully, I sought out that training because Vincent La Selva aligned with my already established taste.

Oh, Lance! You give me too much credit by far!

I have never had the privilege of preparing an orchestra, since my studies at Juilliard were interrupted by the onset of my sleep disorder. I did prepare and conduct 95 concerts with singers and pianist, 35 of those in Carnegie's Weill Hall before I was forced to retire due to various health issues (sleep disorder and back problems). Sadly, I never had the opportunity to study the instruments individually, though, which would have qualified me to prepare an orchestra.

A tidbit: when I was in conducting classes with Vincent, we studied both symphonic and operatic scores. When it came time for opera, Vincent would sing tenor and I would sing baritone, along with several young women who would sing mezzo and soprano roles. Great fun!

[diegobueno]

I always refer to him as Furt-mangler. His interpretations are so mannered and heavy-handed, and the playing in the war-time recordings makes you aware that his best players are either on the front lines or in Auschwitz. The primitive recording technology of the day doesn't make his recordings any easier to listen to. No, I don't like him. You can refute every point I've made, but I still don't like him.

I would be interested in hearing any performances of Hindemith or Schoenberg he may have committed to disc, though. I appreciate that he championed them even when it was not politically expedient to do so.

[Lance]

Based on Mark's/diegobueno's comments - and Mark is a composer, one wonders how a man like Furtwangler could receive the acclaim he received from so many of his contemporaries and many who still laud the man today. The recordings, of course, are all that we have left to make any evaluations, many from the days of electric shellac discs and into the early LP era until his passing in 1954 and his recorded output still sells very well all these years later. [I am told Enrico Caruso's recordings still sell very well, and he's been dead since 1921.] Furtwangler did perform and record Hindemith, Blacher, Stravinsky and others. He also wrote a Symphonic Piano Concerto that was recorded by no less a giant pianist than Edwin Fischer. I personally did not like the work nor his Symphony #2, and, based on that and — for me — Furtwangler was a far better conductor than a composer.

In reading the booklet of this complete Furtwangler edition, I read: "Releasing a complete edition of Furtwangler's recordings - most made in the studio, a few at concerts, whether for HMV (now part of Warner Classics) or labels such as Telefunken (Warner) of Polydor, DG and Decca (all part of Universal Music Group) - means taking stock of the monumental legacy left by one of the greatest conductors of the twentieth century, perhaps the greatest of all. Our main responsibility has been to avoid anything that might come between the music and the listener and, at the same time, to obtain as much detail as possible from the original recordings by using the most cutting-edge sound processing tools available." [Italics above are mine - but believe me, I don't believe all I read that could be hype! My ears and brain (such as it is) continue to be my guide.

In re-reviewing discs among the 55 discs in the box, the new recordings are far superior to the originally issued LPs or even some of the CDs previously issued and could provide a difference in correcting the problems of older recording techniques. This might provide a more reliable evaluation of the conductor.

Anyway, I'm glad I brought this thread up from the past to determine what others might have to say about this "greatest of all" conductors! So far, it looks like it's thumbs down for Herr Furtwangler.

[diegobueno]

Lance, you probably don't want to hear my opinion of Toscanini either.

Both Furtwangler and Toscanini represent in their own ways the musical thinking of their time, and they came along just as the recording of classical music was becoming viable. Their recordings are valuable historical documents for that reason. I find both conductors mannered, not because they necessarily are, but because contemporary ideas of how music should go have changed.

I play under a conductor who tries to imitate Furtwangler's interpretations. Before rehearsals begin I can tell what tempos he'll take by listening to Furtwangler's recording of it. Leonore Overture no. 3 was particularly strenuous, what with the slow introduction in a very deliberate 6. It's hard to make that bit of Florestan's aria sing when you're worried about running out of breath. And then the allegro doesn't begin at tempo. It starts slows and gathers speed until the fortissimo. And there are so many tempo modifications along the way that by the time it's over you feel like you've heard a slow movement with occasional bursts of speed.

Apropos of nothing, a German native told me once that there was a joke that people used to say in Germany, involving puns on musicians' names

"Da geht der Wängler fort, und nimmt den Hinde mit." (The "Wängler" goes forth, and takes the "Hinde" with him)

[maestrob]

Ah, yes, the contrast between Furtwangler and Toscanini can still be a topic for discussion, n'est-ce pas?

Toscanini was my musical hero growing up, but I have since come to realize that he had his limitations as well. His Mozart sounds very dry today, and his Sibelius II is far too literal, especially in the final movement. However, Toscanini could make Brahms sing with real passion, and his live recordings of those symphonies from the early 1950's show that he was nowhere near metronomic in his interpretation, far from the clockwork automaton that the naysayers would have us believe he was. Listen to his passionate "Nimrod" from the 1930's as well. Of course his Verdi was always comfortable to sing to. Toscanini was also the conductor who solved the conductorial problems in the score of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Here is that Ninth Symphony telecast from 1948.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr2mcEtCxnY

I am a Toscanini supporter over Furtwangler on any day you care to name, yet Furtwangler had something special to say with Wagner. Both conductors excelled in Wagner's music IMHO. Furtwangler's Brahms, by contrast, feels turgid to me. Furtwangler derided Toscanini as a "bean counter," but I don't agree with that assessment. It's difficult to say, but I suspect that Toscanini was more concerned with accuracy than with tone quality, but that may be an unfair assessment due to the quality of the recording technology of the era. I always felt that I wanted the musical discipline of Toscanini coupled with the tone quality of Leopold Stokowski in Philadelphia. Pipe dream, I'm sure.

Both conductors made great music and lots of it, but my heart goes to Toscanini for his musical values over Furtwangler's over-abundance of tempo distortions.