Conductors and Technique

Posted by: Noye's Fludde on 12 February 2008

There have been many discussions in these forums about orchestral conductors and their interpretations of the classical symphonic repertoire. Since the Naim gear we favor is very performance transparent (ie. it is revealing of what the musicians are doing and what separates one performance from another) I thought it might be interesting to get some visual evidence of what we hear through our speakers. What does a conductor do to incite the orchestra to create the conception he imagines in say... a Beethoven symphony ? In my opinion, there are three prerequisites must exist for a interpreter on the podium:


1) He or she must have a complete mental grasp of the score and must be aware of all the markings of dynamics, expression, tempo ect, as well as the raw notes themselves


2) The conductor must have something to say about a work in question. We are not talking getting the orchestra to play in time or with virtuoso technique but to penetrate the meaning of the composer.. Why did the composer write as he did ? As Gustav Mahler once said: 'What is in the score, everything but that which is essential"


3) He or she must be able to communicate their conception to the members of the orchestra, through their gestures, facial expressions, stick technique or perhaps even by using some form of telepathy. They can do this spontaneously during a performance or as a pre planned scheme in rehearsal.


I'd like to ponder on this third criteria in the following examples. Keep in mind I am not a professional musician. My comments are from a layman's point of view.. If anyone in this forum has experience at performing in an orchestra professionally, or as an amateur , their comments , even if to debunk my observations, would be most welcome.


link Bohm
This example has a lengthy intro, so.., bear with it. I am very impressed.... The conductor uses only strict musical terminology. I have heard that this is very important to orchestra members, who insist that the leader talk in a musical language they can understand. Some orchestral maestros will bend their ear with useless and endless philosophical pontifications. Bohm is trying to get the orchestra to play in time and to preserve the rhythmic and structural felicities of the movement. He encourages the players but at the same time, he insists they don't make any untimely entrances. Don't watch part 2 as it is out of sync...


link Celibidache Bruckner
Here the conductor is working with an orchestra familiar to him. He appears to be keeping time slowly (beating in four ? one down beat per bar ?? Dunno..) Hard to see how the orchestra members could follow this. Apparently, this conductor works everything out in extensive (and numerous) rehearsals.


link Bernstein
This is Bernstein hashing out the opening bars of the Mahlers 5th (most especially the phrasing of the opening fanfare). I have the CBS recording of this symphony.. In the recording, the phrasing Bernstein gets is consistent with what he is getting the trumpet player to do in this example. I guess this is an example of a conductor being painstaking over certain details so that everything else falls into place.


link Rattle Mahler 5
This is a clip from the same Mahler symphony (different conductor). It is hard to see how an orchestra can follow the beat here. The conductor appears to be convulsing erratically on the podium. There is seemingly no clue as to the rhythm or a tempo. Again, perhaps it is all worked out in rehearsal.

link Stravinsky Firebird
Composer conducts his own music. Clear and concise. Stravinsky uses broad, flowing movements. No distorted facial features. No histrionics. Way cool.


link monteux wagner meister 3
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.



link Toscanini Beethoven 5
Here the conductor is very professional and focused. He seems to be almost matter of fact. You can tell that in the loud bits, he is totally immersed in the music. The conductor here has an astonishingly clear and concise beat, looks like Toscanini is giving the orchestra all the cues it needs, so that they can relax, not worry about their entrances and play like they mean it.

End Of Examples.

D
Posted on: 20 February 2008 by Unstoppable
Drood,


Sorry to pre=empt you there. Took me sometime to write my post. Yes, I disagree with you on Mozart. The others are A OK by me. Ha ha..



Mac
Posted on: 21 February 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Unstoppable,

I have had some further thoughts on Weingartner. When he recorded the Brahms Symphonies in London he was very old. His style had apparently changed and he was more or less uninvited as chief conductor of the VPO in 1927. There was a feeling that he had begun to play everything the same, and that was rather unbending. This suits some pieces better than others. I do not think it would injure the First Symphony of Brahms at all, but it might take some of the poetry out the Second, or even the really tragic element in the Fourth. So it is possibly dangerous to judge his style in these Symphonies as being exactly what Brahms admired in him.

Of course this is all impossible to call, but Boult made some fascinating observations on particularly Richter, Steinbach, and Nickisch in the music, and there is a sense that even in Brahms' circle of musicians there was a fairly wide range of style, all of which Brahms seems to have appreciated as being fine enough.

Boult observed that Richter was steady, unaffected, and perhaps a little staid in the music. Perhaps there might be a parallel with the opinion you have of Otto Klemperer's recordings.

In Steinbach's performances he noted a wonderful sonority and warmth of tone in the playing with more fervour than Richter brought, and then there was Nickisch! He brought out the Hungarian gypsy element, present mostly in the rhythms Brahms uses, and that he made the music very exiting! In Boult's opinion, sometimes he overdid this, but then the few Nickisch recording show a different picture.

Are they representative of what he managed in the concert hall? Is it possible that, like Furtwangler there was quite a difference between his concerts and studio recordings?

I listen to the Weingartner performances from time to time, but still prefer Boult's LPO set from 1954, and sometimes I am just the mood for Klemperer's ideas!

Boult freely admitted that his aim was to bring the music out as well as Steinbach had all those years earlier.

I also have Abbado's set with the BPO on DG. These are very fine, if soft-grained beside Boult or Klemperer.

I am not disagreeing with you so much as being caused to think by you!

George