Conductors and Technique

Whatever the mysteries of conductors and the way they convey what they want to an orchestra, no orrchestra ever relaxed with Toscanini on the Podium.

I have never enjoyed the actual appearance of someone conducting. It is one of the nice things about recordings that you have to concentrate on the music alone!

George

George,

I can imagine you're professional experiences have colored your views here. For myself, I found this a fascinating exercise.


Kind Regards


Noye's

Here is something for you that is laugh out loud funny, because the music making is absolutely at the highest level, but one might just wonder how the players managed looking at the conductor! But I knew a bass player who played under Boult for many years and his comment was that the players could play no other way with him! It was like a spell! But it does not translate in film!

Beethoven Violin Concerto, Third Movement: Oistrack/LPO/Boult 1968 in RAH

The film is badly out of sync, but never-the-less Boult's style ssems a mile away from what the orchestra achieved for him in total support of David Oistrack their splendid violin soloist!

Here is a link to a discussion - scroll up this particular page and read down - where it is all gone through quite light-jeartedly! Link.

George

PS: It may interest you to know that Boult was both very thorough in rehearsal, but also very quick. He could get his points across in about the same time it took to actually play the finished piece if required! His players very much enjoyed his precision in sorting out any faulty details, and he only very rarely was less than good humoured, though he could be highly annoyed by a lack of effort, if he knew his player could do better ...

Of course this was with the very best orchestras, but he did not feel the need to play all the music through if time was short but simply cover the potential pitfalls, and leave something extra for the performance. In other words the trust his players had in him was a reflection of his view that he did not need to treat his players like children in needing every detail explained at exhausting length! He spent much longer with a piano and the soloist working on how his soloist required to be supported, with the result that his soloists always knew that the orchestra would match the solo conception! Sometimes the support was so acute that you might think the soloist was following the orchestra, but I think we can be sure Oistrack, for one just example, followed no one! Boult and he got on terribly well! Oistrack also got on with Klemperer! Another giant sized musical genius!

quote:

Monteux, Wagner, Meistersinger [Prelude to Act Three].
This is a very old fashioned conductor. Strict time keeping, very little drama, very composed. Monteux's movements are spare and short, he seems to barely move the baton. The orchestra plays beautifully with a kind of old fashioned, all purpose legato that keeps the piece moving along nicely.

Well I had to have a look at this! Monteux was one of the greatest musicians to have graced the podium. He led the premiere of the Rite Of Spring [which Boult characterised as not exactly celebrating the nicer aspects of the season!] and left us what is still quite arguably the most compelling recording of the Fantastic Symphony that exists. And was invited to lead the best orchestras in the world, from the USA to Vienna and London, let alone in his native land. He never courted or particularly received popular acclamation. Like Boult in the British repertoire Monteux, set the standard for performance of the French repertoire for fifty years, and like Boult was just as at home in the great German and Viennese classics as his native music.

Of course he gave the beat, as do all conductors who learn their trade in the opera and ballet theatre pit. This is a technical necessity, for the orchestra, though well rehearsed will quite possibly be playing one thing in the evening, having rehearsed something altogether different in the afternoon!

I don't think there is anything old fashioned about his legato! It seems to me that few nowadays know how to really get legato from strings, but this comes from being a string player, and knowing how strings work - his players would know that he knew! That kind of authority is often not there now, but it does not make a good legato old fashioned or all-purpose! I rather like his forward moving pulse and especially the way he gets the horns and brass to phrase ...

I hope you do not mind me making these points!

George

George,

Thanks so much for your interesting comments and fine example of Oistrach in performance(an artist I know little about). As I have said, I am a musical novice, so your comments on Montuex in particular are very enlightening.

Musicians for me are like a kind of magicians, (I remember how frustrating my childhood piano lessons were.)

May I take your comments vis a vis Toscanini as being that you are not a particular admirer of his. I ask this not to sound you out... but for a more professional perspective than my own.


Kind Regards


Noye's Fludde

I admire Toscanini, but it does not extend to affection for his music making! If you listen to his recordings you would be forgiven for thinking how terrible were the old techniques!

He so frightened orchestras with his incredible temper that they always produced a rather bright nervous sound. A fine example of this is the recording of Brahms Fourth he made with the BBCSO, which was exactly contemporary with Bruno Walter's recording with them. Same microphones, same hall, same players. One is a great performance, and the other is almost terrifying in its tension. And tension of the wrong sort. I think I'll let you guess who was responsible for which performance I described, but one is blessed with the kind of rich, pure, but deep rooted Brahmsian sound-world, and the other might as well have been Stravinsky in wild mode in its sound world!

What you said above about there being some almost telepathic connection about sums it up. Monteux had it. He hardly used to rehearse! He came on played the music from the start right to the end of a section, and if something had gone not quite so he asked to cover it, but he never asked the players to do it his way. They did it his way because they could not do it any other way when he was there! Same with Boult, same with Klemperer. Indeed if you look at Klemperer conducting you would wonder how ensemble was possible, though sadly the films of him tend to be from the end of his life, when he was very frail. In his younger days he was immensely rhythmic, but rarely did more than cover details of articulation and musical balance in rehearsal, though there was a famous day in 1930 when he made a Choir stand for four hours of rehearsal, because they were so lethargic. That Choir never asked him back, but the performance was apparently incredibly fine! B Minor Mass in Berlin.

His players, though they were frequently quite in awe of him, felt that there was an inevitable way with him that left the performance with great power, but no one could explain it.

Some managed much the same trick by endless drilling and rehearsal, but the really great musician conductors brought something less easily defined to it.

Karl Boehm was a tremendous rehearser and got his results that way, but he was so clear that his players respected him and grew confident with him. He explained in minute detail what he wanted. He was not a charismatic figure, but he was still one of the great musicians.

There is a funny story of Boehm leading the Vienna Phil in Beethoven's Eroica. There was a power cut in the Musikverein, and so the whole place was in the dark, but the orchestra carried on playing very well, and soon the lights came back. Boehm was heard to mutter at the end something to the effect that it was a good job that he had carried on conducting. It is probably fair to say he was more respected than loved by his players!

One of nicest people to lead an orchestra was Sir John Barbirolli. He was truly loved by his players, and he devoted his life to his orchestra. One day the first oboe player's wife approached Lady Barbirolli and said her husband was seeing another woman, and perhaps Sir John could have a word! Lady B told Sir John and he replied, "I know! He has never played so beautifully as now! Is he going to marry her?!" Lady B was shocked!

George

Dear George,

I have a BBC Legends recording (I forget what the work is) which contains a lovely interview with Sir John - I'm sure you'd enjoy hearing it (when I get a moment I'll send a copy).

regards, Tam

George,


I must admit, I have Toscanini's recording of the Brahms Four, this with the NBC orchestra. I also have Walter's NYPO mono, it is exceptionally fine. Some day I will no doubt get Toscanini's BBC versions, for that was a great orchestra indeed.

I think Boehm is a musician who many record collectors take for granted. Not nearly so glamorous as Furtwangler, Karajan, Toscanini et al but such a superb, complete, musician. I must admit seeing him in rehearsal has whetted my appetite for more Boehm experiences.


I think the Barbirolli episode you mention illustrates how much times have changed. I can't imagine Mrs Clinton as having so casual an attitude !


Kindest Regards


Noye's Fludde

It also shows how close Sir John and Lady B- were to the Halle players. He left the New York PO to rescue the Halle in Manchester from what appeared inevitable oblivion in 1942, and then stayed for the rest of his life. I think he died in 1969 or 1970.

There is another funny story about him. He was surprisingly nervous himself on times, and one day he came on to lead Elgar's The Dream Of Gerontius. A friend of mine was drafted in to make the basses up to eight [on loan from the Liverpool Phil] and the was a man standing up about half way back in the Hall. Sir John looked round before starting, and notice the man standing up. He opened the score and looked round again. Still the man was standing up. Sir John asked him if he would mind sitting down.

"No! I am quite alright as I am. Thank-you!"

Then he led the most mistake shot performance, which never settled at all, that anyone could remember, and he afterwards confessed in the Green Room that it comepletely un-nerved him to have that man standing up!

George

PS: Tam, Thanks for the chance to hear Glorious John speaking!

I understand that Richard Wagner was a very effective conductor who had a talent for communication. I would be most interested to hear any other details or information as to his manner of conducting.

In nineteenth century German music making Richard Wagner was the leader of the progressive element, and was one of the most influential musicians of his day. [Brahms was considered the leader of the conservative element, though he hardly seems to have wanted to be so thought of].

The trouble in considering Wagner, the performing artist, is that we only have reports of the style, and without any recordings of his work, it is actually impossible to do more than speculate exactly what his style was like. The next generation of great Wagner conductors, Richter, and von Bulow also left no recordings, so we have to go two generations forward to such as Leo Blech, Karl Muck to come to an understanding of early styles in Wagner, and by then the style had undoubtedly changed quite a lot.

Strangely in the era of modern recording, Sir Adrian Boult may well be a very fine guide to the Wagnerian style, having studied under Nickisch, and attended concerts from such as Weingartner, Steinberg, Sofonov, and of course Richter - before 1914. He acutely observed what each of these men brought out in the music, and even noted the salient points, which need to be brought out. Boult was denied the chance to conduct Wagner at Covent Garden in the 1930s by Beecham, whose own orchestra was in residence in the Royal Opera House [Covent Garden] at the time.

It was noted the best Wagnerian in Britain never conducted Wagner in our leading opera house at the time because of this embargo! But he did make about three hours of recording of Wagner orchestra excerpts in the 1970s, which are exemplary and still available on EMI CDs today.

Other great Wagnerian conductors include Otto Klemperer, and Bruno Walter, and it is no exaggeration to say that some conductors shone in Wagner's music more than any other composers. Hans Knappertsbusch, and the Richard Strauss expert, Clemens Krauss were also wonderful exponents of a Wagner style that is now completely transformed. Boult's recordings show a conspectus of this style, flexible, lithe, quite fast [very fast on time], and not nearly so loud and over weight [and slow] as has become the norm, generally, in the last fifty years ...

Some people regard Furtwangler as the ultimate exponent in Wagner, and he certainly did know how to get a tremendous crescendo, and keep things moving, but I personally cannot think of a more empty-spirited interpreter of the music [of which I am not fond], because he seems to have only two expressive devices. The Crescendo accelerando, and the Diminuendo ritardando. There is much more to the music! Both Klemperer and Boult show that the structure of Wagner's music is far more complex and beautifully crafted than that! Strangely, if Wagner's music has a really significant emotional thrust [beyond wipping up big exciting crescendi] then this more subtle approach is vital to find it.

As for exactly how Wagner conducted his own music, then speculative thoughts based on such artists as these [in their recordings] are the best we can do today: That and a study of the music itself, to see what clues are to be found there.

George

Here is an exact example of the massive sound and slower tempi bought out by Karajan, who really set the stylistic goals in Wagner for the last fifty years:

Meistersinger Prelude live in Tokyo: BPO/Karajan, in 1957.

... , and the earlier [though certainly modified from Wagner's time] style as shown by the young Karl Boehm:

Meistersinger Prelude. Live at the Berlin State Opera/Karl Boehm, in 1935.

A study of the styles contained in recordings will reveal that much of the modern weight and scale of Wagner performance was accumulated in the 1950s [though on occasion Furtwangler was leading the way twenty years earlier], but Boult's recordings show a remarkable approach to the older style, found in the Boehm excerpt. Unfortunately this is the oldest fragment I could find in a postable form. Boult recorded the same Prelude for HMV in about 1933 and it is staggeringly impressive. The BBC Symphony Orchestra may not have had the fashionable cachet of Beecham's newly founded London Philharmonic, but it was every inch as fine a band.

Unfortunately this will not be found anywhere except on old 78s sides, even now. It was one of about 1000 78s I used to have. I also had the Prelude and Good Friday Music from Parsifal with the BPO under Furtwangler [naturally reissued on CD even now] on HMV 78s recorded in 1938. It is fascinating to compare this to Toscanini's performance of the same music recorded in 1935 or 36 with the BBC SO for HMV where Furtwängler is so slow as to make the music almost without direction. With Toscanini one senses that he was utterly convinced by the music, with the consequence that the music and performance also seem convincing.

This has also been released on CD.

Toscanini was really part of the third generation of Wagner conductors who worked at Bayreuth, and though he ceased his activities there with the advent of the Nazi Government he did succeed in reversing some of the excessive slowness that had crept in, and so I think we may take it that between Toscanini, Boehm, and Boult, we have a reasonable idea of what the original Wagnerian style actually was in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Or at least as good and indication as we are ever going to have. [Boult's late recordings show that he did not follow the fashion towards weighty slow Wagnerian performance, but kept to the style we might reasonably consider to possibly have been close to that of Richard Wagner himself so long as this is hedged with caution].

George

Funny story concerning Boult at an early post-War Edinbough Festival.

On the programme was some new piece that had taken a lot of fixing, so the Overture Portsmouth Point by Walton was left with quarter of an hour at the end. There was a play through that seemed to indicate more work would be required to polish it! Instead Boult did not try to work on it at all! He simply stopped and suggested two minutes silent prayer for the performance later that evening, and then sent the orchestra away early, but confident that they would manage very well. They did, and that psychological understanding certainly meant that he had the support of the players!

George

George thank you for you comprehensive interesting reply. In one of many biographies about Richard Wagner I remember the account where in the Bayreuth Wagner had his chosen conductor conducting his opera, (actually this particular conductor was a son of a jewish rabbi!). At that particular opera Wagner attended as one of the onlookers (audience), he decided to take over conducting a certain piece. He did this discretely, and in the Bayreuth one could do this since the orchestra pit is hidden in a pit. From any seat the audience will see only the stage, one of the origins of the 'cinema' effect as the orchestra was in a pit and it got very hot in the pit and one of the few places in Europe. where the players do not need to where a suit. Wagner secretly conducted this piece. Afterwards the audience rose to their feet and gave a long standing ovation. Only afterwards Wagner revealed himself to the audience. For me reading this account brought tears to my eyes and I could not help thinking what an effective conductor he was to bring such a response from the audience. He was reported to be not good in playing any specific instrument, he seemed to do his apprenticeship in Riga as a conductor (where the theatre also had a hidden pit for the orchestra),but I would of loved to be a fly on the wall when he conducted that piece in Bayreuth!

Dear Romi,

I suspect that Wagner was a rather charismatic person and he would undoubtedly have galvanised his orchestra, as many have done since. It seems to me that in reality there is a huge difference between [and this is particularly a conductor phenomenon] a conductor's public profile and charisma and that which he or she exerts on fellow musicians. Sometimes the two coincide, and sometimes not.

I suspect that Wagner had both a public charisma and a powerful musical one! The trouble with it is that these factors are as mortal as the individual possessing them, and without any recordings, not even a hint of the musical style or even charisma is ours to really know.

My one impossible wish would be to attend a recital by JS Bach extemporising on the Organ. It was apparently a wonderful experience, and one we can never have any idea of it beyond simply wishing we could know it!

Elgar was a highly magnetic conductor of his own music [though possessing almost no public charisma, and he could seem decidedly off-hand on occasion], and there is just one recorded rehearsal sequence of him [in the Third Movement of his Second Symphony, LSO recorded in the Queen's Hall in 1927], where he stopped the orchestra, and asked them to play in certain way ... but he realised they had already done so, in spite of his expectation! "I was going to ask ... but you did it anyway. However at three after [cue] letter G I really want more warmth from the violas! That was only loud, not warm at all!" Then he started to sing the passage concerned as he wanted it played and the whole orchestra simply joined in without cue at all and Elgar bellowed, "That's it, that's it!" That is a rather magical musical moment, miraculously preserved at a whim by the recording men. Elgar was delighted. Though no thought was considered for converting the wax to a proper record, and it was played back from the wax, doing damage, Elgar was so pleased that the recording was processed and Elgar given a unique test pressing. This was restored and partially issued in about 1973 on HMV RLS 708, and issued in full on CD by EMI in 1994 after a remarkably successful modern restoration. It is a lovely little momento of a great man doing something he did rather well on occasion!

These people had hardened professional musicians eating out of their hands on occasion!

When the Decca team tried this on Benjamin Britten, he was very angry about it, so the reaction is not predictable.

George

George

If you had to choose five composers who had the most influence on other musicians who would they be?

Romi

Bach, Haydn [more than Mozart in practice], Beethoven, Wagner, and perhaps Stravinski, though we still have not sorted out what was most important in, and the perspective has not stabilised on, the musical upheavals of the twentieth century!

Maybe others will chime in with different ideas, but that took me less than twenty seconds to choose.

What do you think?

Probably different, but why should there be too much agreement on it!

George

PS: I might add that my choice is dispassionate! I really admire three of them and love [consistently] the music of only two! The third one I love most of the time! The other two have their moments for me. But they all wrote great music that led things forward, and set the stage for decades, even centuries ... I suppose in reality I admire them all equally!

Suprising close to my choice. Bach, Mozart, Wagner, Beethoven and Rossini (I suspect you may have reservation over the last choice). On a different note have you heard Dimitri Shostakovich Waltz No 2 (mistakenly known as Jass Suite No 2) first heard in Stanley Kubricks film 'Eyes Wide Shut'.This piece as I understand wa,s only discovered in the year 2000. This piece is the most moving Waltz I ever heard, if only this piece of music was discovered earlier than year in 2000,I would of defnitely played it on my wedding day as the song to dance with my wife. We play often in the kitchen while cooking (and drinking wine),we often burst into dance. This piece is truly obsessional and has that wonderful eastern European (typical Russian)lament melody running through the waltz - stuff of Dr Zhivago-love,sex and that lament (think of the eternal steppes).

Victor.

Dear Romi,

I would not choose Rossini myself, at least in the top five, but that does not alter the fact that he set the parameters for Verdi and Puccini, and depending on your view point almost all operas up to Britten in a manner. He was deeply influential. The fact that his music is such fun, does not mean that his influence on the serious Italian Opera for the rest of the nineteenth century was not profound. Indeed in that respect he is quite possibly as significant an influence as was Wagner, except that Wagner influenced music of all types. One can hear echoes of Wagner in Dvorak, Elgar. I even think you can hear it in Schostakowich! Let alone Richard Strauss, or Bruckner!

I enjoy Rossini far more than Wagner, truth to tell, but sometimes I find it more reasonable to argue in favour of those whose music is less pleasing to me, except for Bach and Haydn!

Now as for Mozart, his influence is felt well enough in Mendelssohn, Tchaikowsky, ... even Ben Britten claimed him as an influence, though I cannot find the connection! But Haydn's influence is more pervasive. His simply established what a symphony is in the modern sense. He wrote the first recognisable Sonata form movements.

Really he set the ground for Beethoven to expand, but his influence is so strong that is hard to deny that is exists right through Schostakowich, and indeed all the modern, romantic, and classical Symphonists, which the possible exception of Sibelius!

Same runs with his perfection of the String Quartet! It is fascinating to watch the young Mozart gleefully adopt Haydn's musical forms, and fill them with his own inspiration.

What is remarkable about Haydn is that though essentially he was only a slow innovator, he worked so long and worked so assiduously that he really moved a huge distance in his life, which would only be a footnote in musical history if his music was not also so fantastically uplifting - seeming to still speak from the heart to the heart after all this time.

Really Beethoven would have had a lot of innovating to do if Haydn had not paved the way! What Beethoven did was to be uniquely both a perfect classicist in his formal, architectural work, but also a fully formed romantic in his philosophy.

Nice to talk to you, from George

quote:

Originally posted by Romi:
I understand that Richard Wagner was a very effective conductor who had a talent for communication. I would be most interested to hear any other details or information as to his manner of conducting.

My understanding is that Wagner was the originator of the 'New Romantic' style, as differentiated from Mendelssohn's strict classical (literal) style. Wagner's conducting was known for its rhythmic elasticity, large dynamic contrasts and a freer approach to the score. This Romantic line extended to Artur Nikish and found it's more modern champion in Wilhelm Furtwangler. Toscanini's way was a return to the earlier, more strict, Mendelssohnian approach.

This may be a crude generalization. Perhaps George could set me straight here.


Wagner was a misunderstood genius. I would recommend Cosima Wagner's diaries (Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich..c.1976) to anyone interested in the composer, his aesthetic, or even just good music in general. Surprisingly readable and enlightening, IMHO.


George,

As far as the Toscanini/Bruno Walter (Brahms Four) comparison goes, I think Toscanini's steady tempo keeps the variations in the finale from losing their focus, in Toscanini's hands the movement (and indeed the entire symphony) is a searing, emotionally draining experience. Unfortunately, Walter seems to take a different tempo for every fourth bar.... which ruins the momentum in a number of places. Agree to disagree !


ATB


Mac

Dear Unstoppable,

Your sumation of Wagner's musical style is copybook! And it has been argued that Futwangler was his successor, ironically running through Gustav Mahler as well as Artur Nickisch, though the few recordings of Nikisch might give a significant pause for thought about how romantic this style actually was!

As for the stability of tempi in the Finale of the Fourth of Brahms, this is a "big" question! I will write a proper response to this this evening, if my internet is still working. It is too much to cover in two minutes, now, and my internet broke yesterday evening, so with a fair wind, later ...

George

Unstoppable, thank you for your information and I will certainly hunt down Cosima Wagner's diaries to read.

Romi

Dear Unstoppable,

Brahms is in some ways an enigma. At once completely versed in the old Music from the pre-Bach era, and also a complete spiritual romantic. The music is itself as strange as it is great. On the surface it shows a certain reserve. About the most exuberant music he wrote is the Academic Festival Overture, but as Elgar [somewhat naughtily] observed, when old Brahms gets excited he gets the triangle out! He only did that twice! [The Hungarians Dances were in all but three cases [?] scored by other hands, so perhaps you might find more than two examples of the triangle in Brahms' hand. I would not want to argue on that, but the point is clear, for all that].

And yet the music courses with human warmth, and is filled with the deepest emotions and human yearnings. Brahms as a younger man was keen to give performers an idea of the tempo by using metronome indications, and yet by the end of his life was trying to get his publishers to remove these indications!

In the specific case of the Finale of the Fourth Symphony, cast as a Pasecaglia, the form itself might suggest that the tempo should not deviate very much at all, but this is not a very Baroque style of a a set of dance variations over a ground bass!* However, it is certainly possible to ruin the musical flow with slowing and accelerations in the wrong places!

But here lies the problem. The premiere was to be conducted by the classically minded Hans von Bulow, but Brahms took over the job, confessing to his friend Joachim, that it was not possible to make enough slowings and accelerations! Just what this means is of course open to doubt, though certainly it does not speak of a single tempo throughout the movement!

So really all we can know is that whatever deviations from a straight through tempo must at the very least follow the harmonic structure and musical architecture of the music. Changing the pulse every four bars will without question completely ruin the performance’s integrity. I must say that though I used to have Bruno Walter's CBS recordings of Brahms, I gave them to a friend in order to convince him that Brahms' symphonies were not just boring! That worked, but I never replaced the Walter recordings either, and though I enjoyed their warmth, I have found two conductors who combine fire, the matching more homely warmth, and the deeply tragic in the music. Possibly neither name is all that much associated [among the younger record buying audience] with Brahms nowadays.

Otto Klemperer and Adrian Boult. Both are full of flexibility in this music, and both bring a completely natural long-term ebb and flow to this movement, but such as it perfectly fits the music's architecture, with the result that as a listener one almost forgets the aspect of performance at all. One neither marvels at it, or find it frustratingly chopped up. Both have a tremendous naturalness to them The Boult recordings come from 1954 with the LPO on the Pye label, and long since deleted. They were released briefly on CDs about fifteen years ago, and I snatched them with glee! The Klemperer recordings were set down in 1957, and really bring the ultimate in romantic architectural strength to the music. Tremendous drive and tremendous realisation of the inner sadness of it as well! The Fourth Symphony is especially romantic in being, like the Pathetique of Tchaikowsky, a truly fully-fledged tragedy in the Greek play sense! No consolation here. Both Boult and Klemperer bring this element out without apology, and yet both bring quite some flexibility of tempo to it, as possibly Brahms actually wanted.

What is fascinating is to listen to some other performances. Furtwängler gets high praise from many critics, and yet I find his slowings and accelerations are far too short term, and for me though the performances are very trenchant they hardly hangs together. I am not fond of the BBC SO performance with Toscanini [as it seems to me far too nervy with scrappy orchestral tone and some very poor balances of lines, even if the overal conception is indeed fine], and not altogether convinced that Bruno Walter makes me even as happy, though there is much in the actual playing I do like, not the least of which is a very good orchestral balance and sound-world.

One really illuminating set to listen to is that recorded in London [LSO and LPO] of the Four Symphonies and Tragic Overture led by Felix von Weingartner between 1938 and 1941. Brahms much admired Weingartner, but this is very classical. Sometimes it feels too strick to me! And this is the paradox, for Brahms both indicated that he wanted a lot of flexibility, and then admired the work of someone who abhorred it!

There is no straight answer! My feeling is that the problems are most successfully solved in performances of the style Boult or Klemperer left, and not the extremes of either the very classical Weingartner or the highly romantic, and subjective Furtwängler, but it is actually possible to argue for almost any style of performance! I suspect that what works at the time must be right!

George

PS: As a youngster I had an image of a "ground bass" being a double bass fed very slowly through a pepper grinder. The phrase still makes me smile! I still imagine the late Frank Muir calling it a "gwound bass!"

OK, I'll play, though I am no expert when it comes to classical music. The three givens for me are Bach, Haydn and Beethoven - if I were condemned to listen to nothing but these three for the rest of my life, it would be no great hardship. Mozart, I can take or leave really, and I am happy to take George's word for it that Haydn was more influential, practically speaking.

I'm going to propose Debussy as my fourth composer. How startled I was by "Prelude..." the first time I heard it! I guess that the complete body of work is not so great, but it has had a disproportionate influence on the development of music in the 20th century and beyond - prefiguring such movements as jazz and minimalism.

Fifthly... I don't know! I'd like to pick a more recent composer, but really it's too early to say how influential our near contemporaries will turn out to be. I recently received a set of Ligeti's orchestral works as a late Christmas present. They're very enjoyable and intriguing - recognisably modern and therefore a bit challenging" but without sacrificing accessibility. I'd like to think that this approach to composition will be influential, even if Ligeti himslef turns out not to be.

George,


Well, like you say, yesterdays romantic interpreter is todays ascetic. The Nikish recordings are a good case in point. In some ways, Nikish may seem classically severe to ears trained on the excess ala Furtwangler. So maybe Brahms view of 'infinite' tempo modifications would appear to us today as being relatively safe in the classical tradition.

I must go find my record of the Weingartner Brahms One. It seemed to me almost ideal last time I listened. I don't have any ideal in the Brahms symphonies but perhaps learning the Fourth through Toscanini's NBC recording has spoiled me for other more 'fleshy' readings. It never ceases to amaze me how unnecessary so much of the romantic hemming and hawing is that we are a costumed to today. At the same time, ears trained on a more 'fleshy' reading will find themselves disappointed at the lack of sweetener in a Weingartner performance. For myself, these days,.. I prefer my coffee black. Ha...


I must admit,much as I admire Otto Klemperer, I have always thought his Brahms Symphony readings a bit grey and dour, lacking a kind of dark, earthy passion that seems necessary. The more ethereal German Requiem unfolds brilliantly in his hands, however.


I have got on well with Bernstein's NYPO readings but according to Tam, these are not so hot..hah ha .. well, to each his own...


Apparently Brahms grew up in a whore house and never married,.. his music is strange I suppose, but only as we make it's further acquaintance. On first hearing, it is indeed 'reserved'...


ATB


US