Why Barenboim got to Mahler late

[Ralph]

From The New York Times:

May 14, 2005
Mahler With Finesse as Well as Power
By BERNARD HOLLAND

Pronouncements about music, however silly, take on lives of their own if repeated often enough. Vivaldi did not write the same concerto 400 times, nor did Hollywood ruin Erich Korngold. Neither, in fact, are the best American orchestras coldhearted factories of perfection, as so many critics abroad like to describe them.

The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, which began a long weekend at Carnegie Hall last night with a deeply touching performance of Mahler's Ninth Symphony under Daniel Barenboim, comes closer to perfection than most orchestras. On the other hand, being that good can be perverse, working as much against an image as in its behalf.

The Ninth is Mahler's last completed symphony. Its famous farewell breaks our hearts, just as the slow movement of the unfinished Tenth scares the daylights out of us. Those quiet final pages of the Ninth are like the last guest of the evening standing at the doorway, reluctant to say goodbye.

Where so many European orchestras play with heart and an almost impenetrable thickness, the Chicago showed an astonishing transparency in Mahler's outer movements and equally astonishing fineness in the brass-heavy inner ones. There is great power, but power so finely focused that the ear sees straight through it.

Maybe listeners are unnerved by such playing. Hearing people who work hard to be perfect and fall short creates a kind of comfortable bond . Fallibility becomes a badge of sensitivity. Frailty becomes expressivity. In the Chicago's case - and think, too, of orchestras like the Cleveland or the Metropolitan Opera's - associating warmth and heart with vulnerability and frailty does not work, and yet no reasonable person could deny the warmth and heart that went along with the sophistication of Mr. Barenboim and his players.

If the Mahler filled the stage with its huge assemblage of musicians, there were only 10 for Bach's B-minor Suite. Mathieu Dufour is the Chicago's principal flutist and a wonderful player, but he and his string-playing colleagues glowed with such resonance that the music almost disappeared in a haze of luxuriant echo. Period instruments, curiously, seem better for big halls with good acoustics. The duller sound of gut strings and wooden winds neutralizes the reverberation and cuts large spaces down to size.
.

[Heck148]

From The New York Times:

May 14, 2005
Mahler With Finesse as Well as Power
By BERNARD HOLLAND

Maybe listeners are unnerved by such playing. Hearing people who work hard to be perfect and fall short creates a kind of comfortable bond . Fallibility becomes a badge of sensitivity. Frailty becomes expressivity. In the Chicago's case - and think, too, of orchestras like the Cleveland or the Metropolitan Opera's - associating warmth and heart with vulnerability and frailty does not work, and yet no reasonable person could deny the warmth and heart that went along with the sophistication of Mr. Barenboim and his players..

Thanx, Ralph -

Holland makes a good point. often people wrongly equate perfection of performance with coldness or lack of feeling. I think that may cause alot of the erroneous assessments of Solti and his CSO performances. the level of virtuosity as truly stunning. I heard it enough times to be consistently amazed. these players were really nailing it perfectly, but there was nothing cold or unfeeling about it...

I hope to hear Barenboim and his orchestra play Mahler 9. it sounds like it was very good. I know he's doing it again at the end of next year.

[Barry]

....often people wrongly equate perfection of performance with coldness or lack of feeling.

I know we've gone over the subjective versus objective standards for judging a performance a number of times. Wouldn't you call a judgment of a performance as cold or lacking in feeling as a subjective call? And if that is the case, how can these judgments be erroneous? People decide for themselves based on their own reactions whether a performance is cold or unfeeling. As I said earlier on this thread, I thought the CSO concert that I saw Wednesday was wonderful, both from a technical and emotional standpoint. But there really have been some CSO recordings that strike me as models of execution and power, but still cold or just lacking the sort of emotional feel that best serves the music in my view. I know you disagree with me on this, but the example that comes to mind first is the Giulini Mahler 9th. It's perfectly played. But it strikes me as cold and lacking in the emotional punch that I want from that music. And I've heard a few Solti recordings that certainly can't be faulted for execution, but which did nothing for me on an emotional level. I'd expect that less from Barenboim since I generally like his approach to the standard Austro-German repertoire from an emotional perspective.

Sorry if this is nitpicking with your statement, but equating perfection with coldness has merrit at times. I know I'm not alone in thinking that there has been a modern tendancy in the direction of performances and recordings that are more technically proficient and less emotionally satisfying.


From the Holland review:

<<<Where so many European orchestras play with heart and an almost impenetrable thickness, >>>

Some of us also just find the European approach more appealing in a lot of the standard repertoire. I've said before that I think there is too much emphasis placed on clariety by a lot of conductors. They sacrafice other things to get it, and I don't always think the sacrafice is worth it on an emotional level.

I know Maazel's performances are often criticized as being technically great, but cold. Maybe Ralph can comment on that.

[Ralph]

Well I certainly agree that a great deal of subjectivity goes into the listening experience, especially at concerts and recitals as opposed to home listening.

I've been told by first-time American concertgoers in Japan that they're often confused because the Japanese audience usually applauds very lightly after each piece no matter how well it's been played, reserving a more enthusiastic response after the last work. People wonder if they've heard a poor reading, a rational testament to the importance of group ratification of a performance's excellence (the American experience as in the now standard standing ovation).

Maazel has been criticized for hypertechnical perfection at the expense of a more free-ranging emotionality. But who can objectively dispute or validate such responses? Not me, that's for sure. I know some Maazel concerts have left me less than thrilled but never feeling that it was a bad performance.

I do agree with Barry that musicians today, singly and in ensemble, often strive for a technically highly proficient sound. I think that's because so many of them are products of conservatories that reflect the current academic dogma which they must replicate in performance.

[Barry]

I do agree with Barry that musicians today, singly and in ensemble, often strive for a technically highly proficient sound. I think that's because so many of them are products of conservatories that reflect the current academic dogma which they must replicate in performance.

Yes, I would imagine there is more emphasis placed on technical virtuosity in the top American conservatories than at the top ones in Europe. I can't believe Americans simply have a stronger innate ability to play with greater technical proficiency.

[Ralph]

I do agree with Barry that musicians today, singly and in ensemble, often strive for a technically highly proficient sound. I think that's because so many of them are products of conservatories that reflect the current academic dogma which they must replicate in performance.

Yes, I would imagine there is more emphasis placed on technical virtuosity in the top American conservatories than at the top ones in Europe. I can't believe Americans simply have a stronger innate ability to play with greater technical proficiency.

*****

Nurture versus nature raises its head here too, huh?

[Barry]

Nurture versus nature raises its head here too, huh?

Of course .

[MACHINA weapon]

There are other conductors such as Karajan, Mengelberg and Boehm, .....who have earned disdain for their actions, inactions and political views during the Nazi regime, but to my knowledge nobody denies their innate musicianship. Barenboim just ain't in their league.

Barenboim isn't in their league, he's well above it..
Barenboim may not be the greatest conductor ever, but he has certainly done some very fine things...

Wait, that is too borderline. That's like saying Leo Di Caprio is well above the league of Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro.

Barenboim's early conducting efforts are disaster. The first Bruckner Ninth I had was his amateurish conducting with CSO, then the indifferent conducting with his late wife Jackie on Elgar's Cello concerto also with CSO.

His late efforts, especially with BPO improves better. I like his Bruckner Fifth on Teldec, his first movement being the most shattering and intense I've ever heard. But he's still so-so compared to conductors today like Haitink, Rattle, Jansons etc.

[MACHINA weapon]

I do agree with Barry that musicians today, singly and in ensemble, often strive for a technically highly proficient sound. I think that's because so many of them are products of conservatories that reflect the current academic dogma which they must replicate in performance.

Yes, I would imagine there is more emphasis placed on technical virtuosity in the top American conservatories than at the top ones in Europe. I can't believe Americans simply have a stronger innate ability to play with greater technical proficiency.

This sentiment affects brass bands in Asia. They tend to play Japanese method; prominent winds, subdued brasses and cold, precise technical proficiency. Bands today tend to sound more pop. When I play heavy brass pieces of Shostakovich, Bruckner and Wagner to them, they told me they didn't like the brasses it was too vulgar. Vulgar? No wonder the Japanese are fond of perfectionists like Karajan.

[Heck148]

Wouldn't you call a judgment of a performance as cold or lacking in feeling as a subjective call?

yes, subjective. and therefore not equatable or necessarily connected with technical execution, which is more objective...

And if that is the case, how can these judgments be erroneous?

what is erroneous is to equate the two - to claim that objective perfection of execution necessarily results in subjective lack of warmth or expression makes no sense.

they are separate phenomena...

People decide for themselves based on their own reactions whether a performance is cold or unfeeling.

of course, not a problem.

But there really have been some CSO recordings that strike me as models of execution and power, but still cold or just lacking the sort of emotional feel that best serves the music in my view.

but that lack of emotional feel is not due to the superb technical execution, is it?? it is a separate thing.

the example that comes to mind first is the Giulini Mahler 9th. It's perfectly played. But it strikes me as cold and lacking in the emotional punch that I want from that music.

that's interesting, because I've never heard that music delivered with such power and emotional impact as produced by that performance...

but equating perfection with coldness has merrit at times.

again - lack of expression, or lack of warmth, is not necessarily a product of technical perfection...it is possible to attain both.

I know I'm not alone in thinking that there has been a modern tendancy in the direction of performances and recordings that are more technically proficient and less emotionally satisfying.

I agree - there is a tendency to stress technical perfection, but I don't think this applies to the greatest performers at the highest levels. it applies to those who are trying to reach those levels.

I know Maazel's performances are often criticized as being technically great, but cold. Maybe Ralph can comment on that.

I don't find Maazel's performances cold so much, but more like mannered, and fussy, with lots of finnicky little Maazel-isms interspersed which tends to disrupt the musical flow...perhaps "over-conducting" is the problem??

[karlhenning]

... That's like saying Leo Di Caprio is well above the league of Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro.

Doesn't this statement presuppose that DiCaprio can act? When did that happen? :-)

[Heck148]

There are other conductors such as Karajan, Mengelberg and Boehm,"....
Wait, that is too borderline. That's like saying Leo Di Caprio is well above the league of Marlon Brando, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro.

no, not at all. Barenboim has done some very good things. I'm not crazy about everything he's done, but his best efforts, IMO, are above anything I've heard from Karajan, Mengelberg or Bohm.

I'm not saying they are bad - but HvK's style/sound is definitely not to my liking, other than the 1928/NYPO Ein Heldenleben, I've not heard anything that earth-shattering from Mengelberg. Bohm is good and solid, but, IMO, I don't find any of them eclipsing Barenboim's best efforts.

Barenboim's early conducting efforts are disaster. The first Bruckner Ninth I had was his amateurish conducting with CSO,

Hmmm.... I greatly enjoy his earlier Bruckner recordings for DG with CSO - great 4th, 9th is good, and 7th is good, with the best scherzo I've heard. I also like his Schumann recordings from that period.

Haitink, Rattle, Jansons etc.

Oh please. Haitink?? Rattle?? gawd......

of living conductors, strictly OTTOMH - Abbado, Rozhdestvensky, Levine lead the pack for me -
Barenboim, Blomstedt, Salonen are perhaps a notch down, but still very excellent.

[Barry]

....but that lack of emotional feel is not due to the superb technical execution, is it?? it is a separate thing.

Well.....it is and it isn't. The actual achievement of technical perfection should not be equated with a lack of emotional feel, but the focus on achieving it can be. I don't think it's a coincidence that conductors who focus on sharp edged precission above all else generally lead performances that I find to be emotionally unsatisfying. Just like I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the old-time Austro-German conductors who focused on the music's emotional core (phrasing, interpretation) and didn't really care if there were some flaws in execution often led performances that were immensely satisfying.
So I guess I do think that a conductor and orchestra focusing very heavily on precission (rather than achieving it) often leads to sacraficing other things. If there is a heavy focus on the music's emotional core from an interpretive standpoint, and technical perfection also happens, then wonderful. But I find conductors who focus on the one, generally don't achieve the other, Reiner and Solti not excepted (and I understand that that's a subjective view.....we clearly have drastically different preferences in performance styles).

I mean if you want to say the two have nothing to do with each other, I can just as easily turn the tables and say it's erroneous to equate a focus on achieving a blended sound with rounded edges and more legato playing with boring or emotionally unsatisfying music-making.

[Heck148]

conductors who focused on the music's emotional core (phrasing, interpretation) and didn't really care if there were some flaws in execution often led performances that were immensely satisfying.

I like the conductors who do both - strive for technical accuracy and precision, and also stress musical style and expressive phrasing...

sloppy and imprecise does not necessarily equate with warmth and expressiveness. often it is merely sloppy and imprecise.

If there is a heavy focus on the music's emotional core from an interpretive standpoint,

I don't really understand what that means to the "player in the pit" - should you screw up your part and played imprecisely, then the audinece will think it is emotionally uplifting??

I mean if you want to say the two have nothing to do with each other,

they are different features - different phenomena. technical accuracy itself does not make a performance emotionally exciting or not exciting. neither does technical sloppiness.

say it's erroneous to equate a focus on achieving a blended sound with rounded edges and more legato playing with boring or emotionally unsatisfying music-making.

except to always present that style of sound is monotonous [as in monotone-ous], and is not really applicable to the music of every period.
one can be rightly criticized for inflexibility for applying that approach to music of all different styles.

[MACHINA weapon]

Hmmm.... I greatly enjoy his earlier Bruckner recordings for DG with CSO - great 4th, 9th is good, and 7th is good, with the best scherzo I've heard. I also like his Schumann recordings from that period.

With respect to your opinions, I think Barenboim's later efforts with Berlin Philharmonic is better.

Oh please. Haitink?? Rattle?? gawd......

of living conductors, strictly OTTOMH - Abbado, Rozhdestvensky, Levine lead the pack for me -
Barenboim, Blomstedt, Salonen are perhaps a notch down, but still very excellent.

I've forgotten to mention Levine, he's the very best of maestros now. Rozhdestvensky is okay. Abbado is overhyped.

[herman]

Abbado is overhyped.

Two things. Is there any way I can persuade you to use the correct form, i.e. "hyped"? It's a silly word, but nonetheless "hype" already carries the notion of "too much". Think of hyperventilate. Or should we start talking about "overhyperventilate" now?

The reason why this "overhype" is funny is because it seems to indicate that hype has become the norm. I.e. nothing will ever make it if it's not hyped, whether it has any inherent qualities or not. I hope this is not the case.

My second point would be that your notion that Abbado has been hyped is massively incorrect. If anything Abbado was not hyped, or overhyped or anything. For instance he has never ever been the record company's top conductor. When he got the Berlin job the story has always been" he's not Karajan. When Rattle got the Berlin job, the story was, "at last a sexy man on the podium" - i.e. a conductor who was born and raised with hype.

(It's rather hilarious you should mention Rattle with full approval in this context. I mean, Rattle breaks wind and it makes the cover of Gramophone magazine, and this has been going on for 25 years now.)

Irrespective of whether he was hyped or not, Abbado is a wonderful conductor, and maybe you should spend some time listening to his work, early and recent. His Beethoven DVD cycle is wonderful, for instance.

[MACHINA weapon]

I've had flubby experiences with Abbado. His Berlin live performance of Beethoven's Ninth was a flub. It was the first time I hear BPO sound amateurish. His Wagner was typical, I can live without it. Not to mention he has one of the ugliest baton technique I've ever seen. Not to wallow myself with bias, but I shall give him chance by listen to his live Mahler 7th and his Beethoven cycle.

Rattle on the other hand, is pretty good. Well I agree with your view he is too overhyped, but how much world class conductors you have nowadays? Sometimes flashy, yes. I don't like his Mahler 2nd, so i don't really revere him too much since I'm a sentimentalist.

[herman]

It was the first time I hear BPO sound amateurish.

I don't care much for LvB's 9th, but I have seen it a couple of times with Abbado on DVD, and amateurish is the last word that comes to my mind. Perhaps the problem is yours.

Rattle on the other hand, is pretty good. Well I agree with your view he is too overhyped, but how much world class conductors you have nowadays?

Did you see what I said about the non-existence of the word "overhype" - so now you even add "too" to this weird word?

Both Rattle and Abbado are world-class conductors. The difference between 'em is Rattle is only good when you see him in action; I have never heard a record of his I really liked. Abbado is excellent live and on record - which to me means he is a truly musical man, whereas with Rattle you have a lot of excess froth.

However, if memory serves, you are rather into kinds of music which I don't care for much - the big massive crowd getters, such as Mahler 2 and 8, Beethoven 9 etc etc - so it would only make sense if we were into different conductors. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to beef up your taste with non-existent claims such as that Abbado is a hyped-up conductor (or that the BPO soundslike a bunch of amateurs under his baton).

[Michel]

Whats wrong with neologisms? You hijagreler.

Abbado is brilliant, btw.

[karlhenning]

I kind of like 'overhype'; it's so very too much ....

And there's a cosmic "rightness" to this, in a thread about Mahler, non è vero?

[herman]

Whats wrong with neologisms?

"Hype" was a neologism. If you need a new neologism every ten years, it's perhaps an indication that people who talk this way don't know what they're talking about, as evidenced by mentioning Abbado and Rattle in the same paragraph and calling Abbado "overhyped".

BTW I would like you to stop calling people (like me) names. It's tiresome and puerile, and it's also against the the forum rules, nr 2.

[Michel]

Whats wrong with neologisms?

BTW I would like you to stop calling people (like me) names. It's tiresome and puerile, and it's also against the the forum rules, nr 2.

Then don't call me names, you little child. I did not say anything to you, or about you, on this site until you did about me (which was an insult). Why don't you try not responding to me,like you said you would, but didn't have the self-control to do so. Thanks.

I also find it funny you don't like me calling you hijagreler. How do you even know what it means?

[herman]

Why don't you try not responding to me [...] Thanks.

[...] How do you even know what it means?

If you're asking me not to respond, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to ask me another question right away.

However, you asked me to give you another chance, on this board. You'd be different from the flame kid in the other place.

It looks however that not much has changed. You're teasing and baiting again. You're calling people four-letter names, or at least you did in my case (edited out by Corlyss).

So, yeah, I'll go back to my usual way of skipping your stuff. Not a great loss, since pretty much every post of yours is self-reflexive anyway.

[Barry]

I've had flubby experiences with Abbado. His Berlin live performance of Beethoven's Ninth was a flub. It was the first time I hear BPO sound amateurish. His Wagner was typical, I can live without it. Not to mention he has one of the ugliest baton technique I've ever seen. Not to wallow myself with bias, but I shall give him chance by listen to his live Mahler 7th and his Beethoven cycle.

Rattle on the other hand, is pretty good. Well I agree with your view he is too overhyped, but how much world class conductors you have nowadays? Sometimes flashy, yes. I don't like his Mahler 2nd, so i don't really revere him too much since I'm a sentimentalist.

I agree with Herman on Abbado (but not Rattle, who I've seen lead too many outstanding performances.........and I know others may disagree, but I consider live concerts a better indication of how good of a musician a conductor is than recordings).

I saw Abbado conduct the BPO three times in NYC. He led a Mahler 9 that was one of the greatest live concert experiences I've ever had. The BPO sounded amazing and the interpretation was one of the more thrilling I've heard. The following night, he led a Bruckner 9 that I didn't like at all. Something about it felt way off.

A couple years later, I saw him conduct the Beethoven 5 and 6. The fifth was a solid performance, but the sixth was really sensational; one of the better Pastorals I've heard.

I see a lot of very good performances in concert, but only a handfull really stand out in my memory as absolutely unforgettable. One of those was definately that Abbado Mahler 9 and his Beethoven 6 is among the best live Beethoven I've heard.

[Michel]

If you're asking me not to respond, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to ask me another question right away.

You really do have the social skills of a breadbin. Its called a rhetorical question. As a super stud WORLD FAMOUS AND AMAZING writer you should know that.

It looks however that not much has changed. You're teasing and baiting again. You're calling people four-letter names, or at least you did in my case.

Thats only in reaction to your inherent offensiveness.

So, yeah, I'll go back to my usual way of skipping your stuff.

Good.

Not a great loss, since pretty much every post of yours is self-reflexive anyway.

False.

[herman]

I agree with Herman on Abbado (but not Rattle, who I've seen lead too many outstanding performances.........and I know others may disagree, but I consider live concerts a better indication of how good of a musician a conductor is than recordings).

Apart from the fact that Rattle is of course very good and works with a brilliant orchestra, I just think he has this stage persona that makes everything he does look and sound twice as good as it really is. Same with Gergiev perhaps. So if you later hear those concerts via a radio broadcast they are all of a sudden not so brilliant, and at times rather wilful.

And it remains rather strange that I have literally discarded every single Rattle disc over time - but that may just be me.

[Barry]

Herman,
I have a tape of the Rattle performance that made the biggest impact on me (Gurrelieder with the Philly O), and it sounds pretty great on tape too.

Believe me, I'm an experienced enough concertgoer to be able to differentiate between a visually based personal and quality music-making.

In fact, some of the conductors I find most pleasant to watch, I don't think very much of as music-makers. The reverse is also true.

[herman]

Herman,
Believe me, I'm an experienced enough concertgoer to be able to differentiate between a visually based personal and quality music-making.

Of course I know that Barry. I'm not even sure whether you actually have a home and a bed, since you seem to spend most of your non-working hours in various Eastcoast concert halls.

I wasn't trying to make you see things / Rattle my way; I was just relating my experiences.

[Barry]

I caught my last concert of the season Saturday; no more until September . I actually enjoy the break each year. I don't go to any summer concerts.

I realize that living in Philadelphia (with our own great orchestra and within a couple hours of NYC, where every major orchestra in the world stops most seasons) makes me fortunate from the perspective of a classical music fan. And I do tend to form my opinion of active conductors based on what I've heard from them in the concert hall. As far as recordings go, most of mine are by the dead guys.

Based on my experience, the conductor I'd cite whose music-making doesn't live up to his on-stage aura or persona is Muti. He generally led well-played, but not very inspired performances in Philly. The qualification is that I haven't seen him much in recent years. What little I've heard of him more recently leads me to believe that he's probably a better (maybe more mature) conductor today than he was in the 80s and early 90s.

[Ralph]

Well lots of folks still want him for the New York Philharmonic.

[Barry]

I assume you mean Muti, Ralph.

There are even people who would like him back here in Philly.

But interestingly, the people I hear lament his moving on and relatively infrequent return appearances here are women who thought he was sexy on the podium. Most of the long-time Philly concertgoers/serious music fans who I know don't miss him.

But again, as I said in my last post, based on what little I've heard of him in more recent years, I think he's become a better conductor. He certainly wouldn't be the first maestro to get better with age. I think it takes some of them many years to fully develop their interpretive views and styles (I'm thinking of people like Wand, Celibidache, Sawallisch and even Abbado, who has done some of his best work over the past decade). Muti's best years may still very well be ahead of him.

[herman]

I heard a great Bruckner 6 with Muti.

My last regular RCO concert, btw, will be Russell Davies conducting Prokofiev 6 and Carter's Dialogues piano concerto.

It's been at least twenty years since I heard the Concertgebouw in Prokofiev 6, since Myung Whun Chung.

[rwetmore]

I confess to not having heard that many Barenboim performances, but I do feel like I have heard enough to justify an general uninterest in his conducting. I recall the new Tchaikovsky Piano concerto with Lang Lang and the CSO being dreadful - I don't remember even being able to sit all the way through it!

I found his Schumann set with the CSO to be fairly good, but I don't desire to come back for repeat listenings. The SB Schumann set is also good (similar in approach), but I agree the tonal color/character of the orchestra is bland. Again, no desire for repeat listenings.

With regard to the precision being equated with emotional coldness debate, I don't see the connection either. The trick is to be both precise and musical/emotional. Perhaps some conductors can't focus on precision and be musical at the same time, but that is a separate issue, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, the best conductors intertwine the two and require their performances be both technically accurate and musical.

[Heck148]

With respect to your opinions, I think Barenboim's later efforts with Berlin Philharmonic is better.

to each his own. Barenboim's early Bruckner set is really fine.

I've forgotten to mention Levine, he's the very best of maestros now. Rozhdestvensky is okay. Abbado is overhyped.

of the living, Abbado is the best overall. He's gotten trememndous results throughout his career, and has achieved these with a whole collection of the world's greatest orchestras - CSO, LSO, BPO, VPO - quite remarkable.

[Heck148]

I don't care much for LvB's 9th, but I have seen it a couple of times with Abbado on DVD, and amateurish is the last word that comes to my mind.

right- I saw it on TV a couple of years back. really great, first-rate. the orchestra sounded marvelous.

[MACHINA weapon]

I don't care much for LvB's 9th, but I have seen it a couple of times with Abbado on DVD, and amateurish is the last word that comes to my mind. Perhaps the problem is yours.

And what are you going to do about it?

Both Rattle and Abbado are world-class conductors. The difference between 'em is Rattle is only good when you see him in action; I have never heard a record of his I really liked. Abbado is excellent live and on record - which to me means he is a truly musical man, whereas with Rattle you have a lot of excess froth.

Uh, that is the best you can offer? We're arguing from personal subjective points here, so your side of argument is as good as mine. Just because Abbado doesn't have "excess froth" makes him better than Rattle? Not for me.

However, if memory serves, you are rather into kinds of music which I don't care for much - the big massive crowd getters, such as Mahler 2 and 8, Beethoven 9 etc etc - so it would only make sense if we were into different conductors. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to beef up your taste with non-existent claims such as that Abbado is a hyped-up conductor (or that the BPO soundslike a bunch of amateurs under his baton).

Wow, now you're going as far as criticising my musical tastes that you made up. Bravo. Looks like my argument hasn't budge an inch.

read again:

"Well I agree with your view he is too overhyped, but how much world class conductors you have nowadays? Sometimes flashy, yes. I don't like his Mahler 2nd, and i don't really revere him too much since I'm a sentimentalist."

Slight grammar change there.

Since there are many Abbado admirers here, I'll concede defeat. There's still his Mahler 7th with BPO I will listen and I will try to listen to his London Symphony Orchestra recordings.

[Barry]

With regard to the precision being equated with emotional coldness debate, I don't see the connection either. The trick is to be both precise and musical/emotional. Perhaps some conductors can't focus on precision and be musical at the same time, but that is a separate issue, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, the best conductors intertwine the two and require their performances be both technically accurate and musical.

I objected initially to both Heck and Holland saying that people confuse perfect execution with a lack of emotion. I may have improperly made statements that could have led Heck to that conclusion in the past. Again, that's probably my lack of musical education. I don't know how to word my point at times, so I may give the wrong impression. And I'm guessing that if he's seen others make such statements, they were having the same musical language problem that I have. We don't confuse perfect execution with lack of emotion. But conductors who are noted for getting perfect execution generally have an approach to music making (sharp-edged, lean textures, etc.) that I don't find appealing.

Conversley, I tend to like guys like Furtwangler, Scherchen, Horenstein, and even Knappertsbusch (although he was certainly all over the map in terms of consistancy), who were known for NOT getting a real high degree of precission, but who had other aspects of their performances (interpretive vision, the way they handled tempos, rubato, etc.) that draw me in.

[rwetmore]

With regard to the precision being equated with emotional coldness debate, I don't see the connection either. The trick is to be both precise and musical/emotional. Perhaps some conductors can't focus on precision and be musical at the same time, but that is a separate issue, IMO. As far as I'm concerned, the best conductors intertwine the two and require their performances be both technically accurate and musical.

I objected initially to both Heck and Holland saying that people confuse perfect execution with a lack of emotion. I may have improperly made statements that could have led Heck to that conclusion in the past. Again, that's probably my lack of musical education. I don't know how to word my point at times, so I may give the wrong impression. And I'm guessing that if he's seen others make such statements, they were having the same musical language problem that I have. We don't confuse perfect execution with lack of emotion. But conductors who are noted for getting perfect execution generally have an approach to music making (sharp-edged, lean textures, etc.) that I don't find appealing.

I see, though "sharp-edged" and "lean textures" aren't necessarily an indication of precision...nor is a lack of them necessarily an indication of imprecision (I think - I'm no musician either ). I think this is perhaps where the confusion lies, but I'm not sure.

Conversley, I tend to like guys like Furtwangler, Scherchen, Horenstein, and even Knappertsbusch (although he was certainly all over the map in terms of consistancy), who were known for NOT getting a real high degree of precission, but who had other aspects of their performances (interpretive vision, the way they handled tempos, rubato, etc.) that draw me in.

Sure. We all listen to what we like, but again - I'm not so sure it is the imprecision that is attracting you their performances. I tend to think it is more a subjective vs. literal approach that is the issue.

[Barry]

Randall,
I also think that the straight-forward, stick to the score, sharp-edged approach makes it easier for the musicians to play precisely than when they are playing for a conductor who may change his interpretive view of the work from night to night and who does NOT want that sharp edged approach.

If you've seen the Great Conductors video, while talking about Furtwangler, Menuhin says something to the effect that the last thing Furtwangler wanted was that sharp-edged sound and he went out of his way to avoid getting it. He wanted a fluid, rounded, spread sound. 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.

[karlhenning]

"Fuzzing up" the details of the score, is no automatic service done to the composer though, is it?

I guess there is imprecision over the degree and kinds of imprecision which you feel "essential" to music-making, Barry; since as a composer, I encode instructions in notation which is to some degree precise (and certainly says what it says, and not something very much else) ... I admit to finding some of your comment on this head rather perplexing ....

[Barry]

Karl,
We've gone over this on the other board to an extent.

You know I think conductors should be free to interpret a score, within reason. And I know you and I disagree over what is "within reason."

Since Eschenbach took over the Philly Orchestra, the playing has been a little less precise, and I have no doubt that that's at least partially due to his very subjective interpretive approach. I read a quote from one of the musicians who was perplexed by the way Eschenbach was asking them to play one passage of a Mahler symphony. It wasn't exactly the way it was written in the score and it wasn't the way he was used to playing it under other conductors.

From my perspective as a listener with my own taste, I am more than willing to sacrafice some precision for an interpretation that floats my boat. I enjoy hearing my favorite warhorses played differently.

I've seen you dismiss Furtwangler's Beethoven, while I think it's head and shoulders above any other Beethoven I've heard.

[karlhenning]

Karl,
We've gone over this on the other board to an extent.

I know; I don't mean to be exasperating ... (just a natural talent I have) ... but really, sometimes I get the impression that you would prefer conductors to be less prepared as conductors, and 'more prepared' as ... 'interpreters.'

[Barry]

I'm just not a stickler for great execution. As a listener, I find the interpretive aspects of a performance more interesting.

[rwetmore]

Randall,
I also think that the straight-forward, stick to the score, sharp-edged approach makes it easier for the musicians to play precisely than when they are playing for a conductor who may change his interpretive view of the work from night to night and who does NOT want that sharp edged approach.

If you've seen the Great Conductors video, while talking about Furtwangler, Menuhin says something to the effect that the last thing Furtwangler wanted was that sharp-edged sound and he went out of his way to avoid getting it. He wanted a fluid, rounded, spread sound. 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.

Well, I'm afraid I still don't understand. I have heard plenty of Furtwanger performances and a lack of sharp-edges is not what I remember about them.

[Barry]

Then I guess all I can say is to watch that video some time.

What Menuhin was talking about made pretty good sense to me.

[rwetmore]

I'm just not a stickler for great execution. As a listener, I find the interpretive aspects of a performance more interesting.

I think just about everyone does. Some of my favorite performances have technical flaws and errors; however, it is anything but those flaws that attracts me the performances.

I still think this is where the confusion lies.

[karlhenning]

I'm just not a stickler for great execution. As a listener, I find the interpretive aspects of a performance more interesting.

And (as we've explored elsewhere) thus stated, I have no argument.

Just sometimes, Barry, where something you've said has the appearance of endorsing the Dark Side (touchy-feely conducting) ....

[Michael]

I have never believed that a performer is a mere servant of the notes on the page. A great artist will re-create a work and contribute to the piece coming alive in a concert performance. His own genius as a musician will enrich the performance and as such the work will evolve and be a satisfying experience rather than just a cold technical exercise. I am not suggesting that we should be more aware of the performer than the composer but it is a partnership between all concerned.
Brahms conducted his own works and shortly after performing his 2nd symphony he heard a performance by Weingartner. He congratulated the conductor, saying it was rather different to how he conducted it but had enjoyed the experience hugely. (If I have got this story wrong please correct me but the point remains valid). Usually composers love hearing different interptetations of their works...of course I am not suggesting that a performer alters the essential characteristics of a piece but I imagine that you know what I am trying to say here.

[karlhenning]

I have never believed that a performer is a mere servant of the notes on the page.

Nor me. But a performer is to some degree the servant of the composer; and the notes on the page are some of the clearest indications the composer furnishes.

[Barry]

Nor me. But a performer is to some degree the servant of the composer; and the notes on the page are some of the clearest indications the composer furnishes.

The words to some degree are the sticking point there. Listeners naturally differ over to what degree. I'm sure we agree that the disco version of Beethoven's fifth is a bit much . But based on past comments, I think we disagree on something like Furtwangler's Beethoven fifth, with his extended rests, long holding of notes, shifting tempos, etc.