"Fussy" conducting?

Started by chrisch, October 23, 2008, 10:18:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kuhlau

Fascinating post, imperfection. I'm not sure I can wholly support your assessments of either performer - you're quite clear on which you admire and which you disdain - but essentially, I think you make some valid points. Thanks for also making interesting reading of two sizeable paragraphs. :)

FK

imperfection

Quote from: Kuhlau on October 24, 2008, 10:11:29 AM
Fascinating post, imperfection. I'm not sure I can wholly support your assessments of either performer - you're quite clear on which you admire and which you disdain - but essentially, I think you make some valid points. Thanks for also making interesting reading of two sizeable paragraphs. :)

FK

Many thanks, FK.  :) I admire Furtwangler most of the time, and dislike some of his work, but dislike Lang Lang most of the time, and like a very small amount of his output.

By the way, why don't you do yourself a favor, especially if you like emotionally-charged, good taste performances, and watch that YouTube performance of Mahler's 2nd I posted on the first page of this thread?  :D It's one of the most satisfying Mahler performances I've heard or seen.

Senta

Well..."fussy" conducting is overrated and overfocused on IMO. Now I myself am not intimately acquainted w Rattle's Beethoven cycle, but have heard it criticized for being too in love with details, to the point where the music suffers and comes across strangely. Well could be, I would guess this is the type of "fussy" conducting you are likely referring to, and yes...Rattle has often been accused of sometimes seeing "the trees for the forest", so to speak.

I was the one who uploaded that Mahler 2nd, and I still think it is truly one of the most outstanding videos I have, because the communication between conductor and musicians there is at such a high level. Rattle is completely at the top of his game, and in part because it is so clear the CBSO completely trusts him and his interpretation. You get a feeling they would follow him to the ends of the earth, which is truly a thrill. I WISH there were more performances as "fussy" as his interpretation there of the 2nd mvmt. of M2, I wish there were more conductors that paid such close attention to the play of the inner lines. Look closely at how his hand gestures "scoop" the sound from the strings, if one ever had a doubt as to the resonance of Rattle's conducting surely this video would serve as a refute.

It makes me glad when this M2 video is noticed because I think honestly that Rattle is one of the more interesting conductors we have around today, and this performance is strong proof. True, yes, not everything he does in performance works, he does take some things literally too far (or perhaps too "literally") in interpretation, but then again don't we need that at times? Plumbing the depths of a score, as he sees them, is surely better than the glossy superficial readings we receive far too often often from young "star" conductors.

To boil it down - re. 'fussy" conducting - if it serves the music and the composer in some significant way, I do not have a problem with it, but if it becomes so indulgent or out-of-touch that it serves only the conductor, or serves as simply not more than a curiosity, and accomplishes nothing besides self-aggrandizement - then it is a problem. 

Illuminate the music anew - cast a fresh light on it. But don't obscure the intent.

imperfection

Quote from: Senta on October 24, 2008, 10:19:31 PM
Well..."fussy" conducting is overrated and overfocused on IMO. Now I myself am not intimately acquainted w Rattle's Beethoven cycle, but have heard it criticized for being too in love with details, to the point where the music suffers and comes across strangely. Well could be, I would guess this is the type of "fussy" conducting you are likely referring to, and yes...Rattle has often been accused of sometimes seeing "the trees for the forest", so to speak.

I was the one who uploaded that Mahler 2nd, and I still think it is truly one of the most outstanding videos I have, because the communication between conductor and musicians there is at such a high level. Rattle is completely at the top of his game, and in part because it is so clear the CBSO completely trusts him and his interpretation. You get a feeling they would follow him to the ends of the earth, which is truly a thrill. I WISH there were more performances as "fussy" as his interpretation there of the 2nd mvmt. of M2, I wish there were more conductors that paid such close attention to the play of the inner lines. Look closely at how his hand gestures "scoop" the sound from the strings, if one ever had a doubt as to the resonance of Rattle's conducting surely this video would serve as a refute.

It makes me glad when this M2 video is noticed because I think honestly that Rattle is one of the more interesting conductors we have around today, and this performance is strong proof. True, yes, not everything he does in performance works, he does take some things literally too far (or perhaps too "literally") in interpretation, but then again don't we need that at times? Plumbing the depths of a score, as he sees them, is surely better than the glossy superficial readings we receive far too often often from young "star" conductors.

To boil it down - re. 'fussy" conducting - if it serves the music and the composer in some significant way, I do not have a problem with it, but if it becomes so indulgent or out-of-touch that it serves only the conductor, or serves as simply not more than a curiosity, and accomplishes nothing besides self-aggrandizement - then it is a problem. 

Illuminate the music anew - cast a fresh light on it. But don't obscure the intent.

Excellent comments, Senta. And many thanks for uploading that once in a life time M2  :). Did you get that off a Japanese import DVD?

Superhorn

  I  admire Furtwangler greatly, but wouldn't call him "fussy". His flexibility of tempo is very subtle, and doesn't call attention to itself as with Stokowski and Mengelberg. Eugen Jochum was a friend and great admirer of Furtwangler, and had a similar style of conducting, but was still very much his own man as a conductor.

  This is not to say that I haven't enjoyed some of the Stokie and Mengelberg recordings very much; they just go overboard at times.

imperfection

Quote from: Superhorn on October 25, 2008, 07:06:17 AM
  I  admire Furtwangler greatly, but wouldn't call him "fussy". His flexibility of tempo is very subtle, and doesn't call attention to itself as with Stokowski and Mengelberg. Eugen Jochum was a friend and great admirer of Furtwangler, and had a similar style of conducting, but was still very much his own man as a conductor.

  This is not to say that I haven't enjoyed some of the Stokie and Mengelberg recordings very much; they just go overboard at times.

Note that I never called Furtwangler "fussy" either. If anything, I regard him as the greatest conductor of the first half of the last century.

jochanaan

One of my all-time favorite conductors is Wolfgang Sawallisch.  He uses considerable flexibility of tempo, but it's so subtle that unless you follow along you don't even realize he's bending the tempo. :D His Brahms and Dvorak recordings are among my favorites, as well as his "Ma Vlast" with the Suisse Romande.

The trouble I have with Maazel, though, is not that he's bending the tempo, but rather that it seems like he's trying to make it seem as if he's feeling the music when he's really not.  That's why he feel "fussy" while Sawallisch doesn't.  Maazel tries to "warm himself up" by bending the tempo, but winds up doing even that in an inflexible manner; Sawallisch's (and Furtwaengler's and Celibidache's) tempo changes flow from an inner fire and flexibility.  Furtwaengler and Sawallisch, in particular, never seem to do a piece the same way twice; that's real flexibility.  (On the other hand, I've heard that Maazel's more recent recordings are warmer...)
Imagination + discipline = creativity

M forever

How often have you seen Maazel live?

knight66

In all honesty I have not found Mazzel fussy, or to pull tempi about. For my taste he tends to play it too straight. I can recall him setting tempi, then very much leaving them alone.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

Kuhlau

Quote from: jochanaan on October 26, 2008, 11:50:02 AM
The trouble I have with Maazel, though, is not that he's bending the tempo, but rather that it seems like he's trying to make it seem as if he's feeling the music when he's really not.

Forgive me, but the part I've emboldened suggests you know this as fact. How, exactly?

Quote from: jochanaan on October 26, 2008, 11:50:02 AM... Sawallisch's (and Furtwaengler's and Celibidache's) tempo changes flow from an inner fire ...

I'm not saying that Celibidache wasn't a passionate musician, but that's the first time I've seen a word as urgent as 'fire' used in connection with his approach to conducting.

FK

Norbeone

Quote from: Kuhlau on October 26, 2008, 01:09:45 PM
Forgive me, but the part I've emboldened suggests you know this as fact. How, exactly?
FK

Maybe the 'it seems' applies to the entire sentence and so, in other words, includes 'when he's really not'. That how I read it, any way.   :)

Kuhlau

Quote from: Norbeone on October 26, 2008, 01:29:40 PM
Maybe the 'it seems' applies to the entire sentence and so, in other words, includes 'when he's really not'. That how I read it, any way.   :)

A good point. I didn't read it that way. :)

FK

jochanaan

Quote from: Norbeone on October 26, 2008, 01:29:40 PM
Maybe the 'it seems' applies to the entire sentence and so, in other words, includes 'when he's really not'. That how I read it, any way.   :)
Exactly right. :)
Imagination + discipline = creativity

scarpia

#33
Quote from: jochanaan on October 26, 2008, 11:50:02 AM
The trouble I have with Maazel, though, is not that he's bending the tempo, but rather that it seems like he's trying to make it seem as if he's feeling the music when he's really not.  That's why he feel "fussy" while Sawallisch doesn't.  Maazel tries to "warm himself up" by bending the tempo, but winds up doing even that in an inflexible manner; Sawallisch's (and Furtwaengler's and Celibidache's) tempo changes flow from an inner fire and flexibility.  Furtwaengler and Sawallisch, in particular, never seem to do a piece the same way twice; that's real flexibility.  (On the other hand, I've heard that Maazel's more recent recordings are warmer...)

What jibberish!  What do I care if the conductor is "feeling the music."   What does it mean to "bend the tempo" in an "inflexible" manner?   This has to be the biggest pile of mixed metaphors, double talk, self-contradicting boilerplate that has appeared on the board in a long while. 

Maazel hits and misses, like most of them.  His recent Sibelius cycle with Pittsburgh is superb and it isn't because he's "warming himself up" or drawing tempo changes from "inner fire" it's because he knows what he wants and how to get it from an orchestra.

jochanaan

#34
"Gibberish," scarpia?  "Self-contradicting boilerplate"?  Because I express an opinion that's different from the norm?

And I thought it was clearly understood that when I post something like this, it is ONLY my opinion.  I am not claiming, and have never claimed, anything like absolute truth in my posts.  Perhaps I used more words than needed to say I find Maazel's work cold and unmusical, but such is my honest opinion.  (Although I should say that I'm not familiar with Maazel's more recent work, and in a previous post I admitted I'd heard better things about that.)  If I'm to be scorned for this, then perhaps I should look elsewhere for discussions about music.
Imagination + discipline = creativity

M forever

So how often have you seen Maazel live in concert?

jochanaan

Quote from: M forever on October 27, 2008, 08:26:48 PM
So how often have you seen Maazel live in concert?
I refuse to answer that question.  You have a reputation for scorning anyone with less knowledge and experience than yourself, and tonight I don't feel like dealing with it.
Imagination + discipline = creativity

scarpia

Quote from: jochanaan on October 27, 2008, 08:25:20 PM
"Gibberish," scarpia?  "Self-contradicting boilerplate"?  Because I express an opinion that's different from the norm?

And I thought it was clearly understood that when I post something like this, it is ONLY my opinion.  I am not claiming, and have never claimed, anything like absolute truth in my posts.  Perhaps I used more words than needed to say I find Maazel's work cold and unmusical, but such is my honest opinion.  (Although I should say that I'm not familiar with Maazel's more recent work, and in a previous post I admitted I'd heard better things about that.)  If I'm to be scorned for this, then perhaps I should look elsewhere for discussions about music.

Opinions that differ from mine are most welcome.  Criticizing a conductor because of your speculations on his emotional state while conducting doesn't strike me as conveying much information.   As far as Sawallish and his inner fire, someone I know reported seeing Sawallish berate orchestral musicians at recording sessions to the effect that "I can find high-school musicians that play better than you."  That must be the key to his effortless rubato.  :P

Superhorn

 ???  Imperfection, your comparison between Lang Langs"immaturity" and Kempff's "maturity" is unfair. Lang Lang is only about 26. Give him time to mature. I admire Kempff too, but just about all our recordings of him are by a seasoned pianist in his 60s to 80s.  And I HAVE heard some really fine performances from the constroversial young Chinese pianist, such as one of the Mendelssohn piano concertos from Mostly  Mozart on PBS, and a live recording from London of the Rachmaninov 3rd with Temirkanov and the St.Petersburg Philharmonic.
  Our reactions to different performers are often like the way we describe people we like or dislike personally. If you like some one, you admire that person's "frugality". But if you can't stand him, you call him"stingy" and "cheap".
  Or some one's "gift of Gab" if you like him, and his "diarhea of the mouth" and "motor mouth" if you don't. Or his assertiveness if you like him, and his obnoxiousness if you don't.
   Therefore, we often criticize musicians we dislike for making the same
interpretive choices as the ones we admire and praise.

M forever

Quote from: Superhorn on October 28, 2008, 12:58:28 PM
???  Imperfection, your comparison between Lang Langs"immaturity" and Kempff's "maturity" is unfair. Lang Lang is only about 26. Give him time to mature. I admire Kempff too, but just about all our recordings of him are by a seasoned pianist in his 60s to 80s. 

I completely agree. So let's give Lang Lang the time he and his agents don't allow him(self), ignore him and check back with him in 40-60 years to see if he has actually matured. There is really no need for him to be everywhere and make all these recordings right now.