"Fussy" conducting?

[chrisch]

I've read a number of reviews where there are complaints about "fussy" conducting - I have no idea what this means and was hoping that perhaps someone could try to explain it.

Simon Rattle is frequently accused of this - I have access at my local library to his Mahler and Beethoven cycles, plus his Planets.  Are there perhaps examples in any of these that would demonstrate "fussy" conducting?    These would be easiest for me to get, but I can certainly get just about any other not too hard to find item.

Thanks.

[mn dave]

1: easily upset : irritable
2: overly decorative <a fussy wallpaper pattern>
3 a: requiring or giving close attention to details <fussy bookkeeping procedures> b: revealing a sometimes extreme concern for niceties : fastidious , picky

[chrisch]

Forgive my misuse of quotation marks.

"Fussy conducting" is what I don't get it - "close attention to details" in terms of conducting doesn't mean anything to me - hence my question.     

[imperfection]

Of course it does. It just means that the conductor is trying too hard to milk an individual passage, or a chord, or any little thing like that. Then the overall structure will fall. Attention to details is a good thing, but just as with everything else, too much of it is not.

[Kuhlau]

Even before I opened this thread to read it, I knew Rattle would be cited as an example of a 'fussy' conductor. Maybe I've not heard enough Rattle recordings, but I can't hear anything in his conducting that strikes me as particularly 'fussy'. Yes, he might occasionally exaggerate a point, but a good many conductors have done that before now. Perhaps his emphasis (sometimes too acute?) on getting at details in a score is mistaken for 'fussiness'? Or maybe, I'm just not 'fussy' enough ...

FK

[imperfection]

Well, I guess it works both ways. Exaggeration at some points could sound totally inappropriate, like how some conductors like to highlight the "emotional climaxes" of a piece at the expense of the overall structure. However, when used properly, a little spark here and there could spice up the piece and the performance could come out very intense and thrilling, as in the case of many Furtwangler's recordings (especially wartime ones). As for Rattle, I don't know why people call him fuzzy, but from what I've heard by him so far, I think he's very powerful in Mahler (especially Mahler 2 with the city of Birmingham Orchestra right before he stepped down as the MD in 1998). That totally falls in of the latter category, being overwhelming, over-the-top yet very well played and nicely paced at the same time.

[jochanaan]

How can we know if a conductor is too "fussy" without seeing him?  It may be that s/he is directing things that are better left to orchestras, like the solos in Sheherazade.  (I can't imagine any first-rank conductor trying to direct things like the clarinet and bassoon runs in "The Story of the Kalandar Prince," but some others apparently do. I suspect most clarinet and bassoon players would just ignore the conductor at those points.  I certainly would! )  Or perhaps s/he is trying to synthesize a level of detail most conductors just leave to orchestras.

The key is whether, as in the cases of Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Szell or Boulez (to name a few examples), the "fussiness" results in unusually clear performances, or whether it just irritates the orchestra.

[Kuhlau]

As for Rattle, I don't know why people call him fuzzy ...

Probably, because of his hair ...

FK

[knight66]

I agree with Imperfection, (though I think it was Mahler 8, rather than Mahler 2 that Rattle treated as his swansong). I was in choir for a number of Rattle performances. I would not attach the word fussy to him at all and I never saw him over-conduct, as though the players were thick.

In this context, I think fussy refers to concentrating on detail and ensuring the orchestral spectrum can be heard at the expense of the thrust and shape of the piece. Rattle is always keen to ensure that detail is exposed, possibly highlighted, but I don't feel the structure of the piece is thereby damaged. It is often the emotional temperature of the piece I don't respond to in his work. I find a lot of his work to be a bit bloodless. I enjoyed him much more as a young conductor, when the interpretations seemed less 'studied' now they seem almost academic.

However, to be honest, I have not listened to him for some time now, so he may be doing wonderful things. I was in his very first performance of Beethoven's 9th and he did not seem to have anything distinctive to say about the piece. An efficient, fleet run-through. No excitements, no revelatory moments, at least for this listener. His Mozart seems somehow dis-engaged. His 20th cent repertoire, plus Mahler seem to be more his home ground.

Mike

[imperfection]

I agree with Imperfection, (though I think it was Mahler 8, rather than Mahler 2 that Rattle treated as his swansong). I was in choir for a number of Rattle performances. I would not attach the word fussy to him at all and I never saw him over-conduct, as though the players were thick.

In this context, I think fussy refers to concentrating on detail and ensuring the orchestral spectrum can be heard at the expense of the thrust and shape of the piece. Rattle is always keen to ensure that detail is exposed, possibly highlighted, but I don't feel the structure of the piece is thereby damaged. It is often the emotional temperature of the piece I don't respond to in his work. I find a lot of his work to be a bit bloodless. I enjoyed him much more as a young conductor, when the interpretations seemed less 'studied' now they seem almost academic.

However, to be honest, I have not listened to him for some time now, so he may be doing wonderful things. I was in his very first performance of Beethoven's 9th and he did not seem to have anything distinctive to say about the piece. An efficient, fleet run-through. No excitements, no revelatory moments, at least for this listener. His Mozart seems somehow dis-engaged. His 20th cent repertoire, plus Mahler seem to be more his home ground.

Mike

This one, Mike. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLD6MDvwocM&fmt=18

It's the resurrection played by CBSO on August 30, 1998 in Symphony Hall, Birmingham. I think this performance really surpasses his earlier, 1987 recording with the same orchestra on EMI, in pacing, control of dynamics, observation of details, and the overall shaping of the piece. It's white-hot intense, totally fitting the mood of the music, and the sound the CBSO produced was astonishing, one could almost forget that they weren't usually regarded as the top-tier bands in the world, especially 10 years ago. The sonics seem to be full and warm too (as all we have is 128kbps YouTube), which may be ideal for this piece; it really is a shame that this was never released as a separate recording. Oh, let me remind you that you definitely want to type "&fmt=18" at the end of the YouTube link for this performance (I've already done it for you for this part of the concert), as it upconverts the bit rate used by the Macromedia Flash decoder to 128kbps (as opposed to 64, without the extension at the end of the link), and also the sampling rate is upgraded to 44khz. This works for all other videos on YouTube, and it does add extra-depth to the sound and give you a clearer picture of the images. Enjoy 

[knight66]

Imperfection, Thanks for that link, I will definately listen to it when I come home from work...just about to disappear there.

I recall doing it with him several times and I thought it was the best conducting I saw from him. Live he really highlighted the drama.

Mike

[Kuhlau]

Rattle is always keen to ensure that detail is exposed, possibly highlighted, but I don't feel the structure of the piece is thereby damaged. It is often the emotional temperature of the piece I don't respond to in his work.

Based on what I've heard of Rattle's work, I'd go along with this to some extent. His Debussy disc on EMI is a good example. You get the impression (pardon the awful pun) that you're hearing everything, but you're not necessarily feeling enough.

FK

[Superhorn]

    I have heard some REALLY fussy conducting by the likes of Stokowski and Mengelberg which go way beyond anything contemporary conductors do.
For example, extreme rubato which really calls attention to itself; constantly pulling tempo like taffy, etc on their recordings, though not in every case.
   
  The ironic thing is that many critics today PRAISE these conductors for doing things like this, and claim that it's the"authentic traditional " way of conducting, and sneering at contemporary conductors for being too pedantically literal.  Isn't this a double standard?  And if conductors(and other musicians) are so pedantically literal and unimaginative, why are there so many reviews where musicians such as Rattle,Maazel,Pletnev,Pogorelich,Lang Lang and others are so mercilessly lambasted for all the liberties they take with the music?  Now there's a paradox for you.

[chrisch]

Even before I opened this thread to read it, I knew Rattle would be cited as an example of a 'fussy' conductor. Maybe I've not heard enough Rattle recordings, but I can't hear anything in his conducting that strikes me as particularly 'fussy'.
FK

Mind you - I don't think Rattle is fussy, I've just heard him described as such and thought there may be some examples.

    I have heard some REALLY fussy conducting by the likes of Stokowski and Mengelberg which go way beyond anything contemporary conductors do.

I have Mengelberg's Mahler 4 - where the first movement has all sorts of fluctuations.  Dudamel has a few broadcasts of Mahler 1 where he starts the second movement very slow and then rapidly speeds up - would this be considered "fussy"?

[Kuhlau]

I don't think Rattle is fussy, I've just heard him described as such and thought there may be some examples.

Not a problem, my friend.

I fully understood from your initial post the point you intended to make. I just felt smug that I knew what was coming.

FK

[mn dave]

You should ask the reviewers what they mean by "fussy."

[Kuhlau]

His Debussy disc on EMI ...

I failed to make clear earlier that by the above, I meant his 2005 recording with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra.

I'll be listening to this CD again this evening to see (or should that be 'hear') if I still feel the same way about it as I did when it was first released.

FK

[chrisch]

You should ask the reviewers what they mean by "fussy."

Thank you for being so helpful.  I appreciate it.

[mn dave]

Thank you for being so helpful.  I appreciate it.

Any time.

[imperfection]

    I have heard some REALLY fussy conducting by the likes of Stokowski and Mengelberg which go way beyond anything contemporary conductors do.
For example, extreme rubato which really calls attention to itself; constantly pulling tempo like taffy, etc on their recordings, though not in every case.
   
  The ironic thing is that many critics today PRAISE these conductors for doing things like this, and claim that it's the"authentic traditional " way of conducting, and sneering at contemporary conductors for being too pedantically literal.  Isn't this a double standard?  And if conductors(and other musicians) are so pedantically literal and unimaginative, why are there so many reviews where musicians such as Rattle,Maazel,Pletnev,Pogorelich,Lang Lang and others are so mercilessly lambasted for all the liberties they take with the music?  Now there's a paradox for you.

It's because it has got to do with taste. Granted, many performers, conductors or not, contemporary or 50 years ago, don't aim to be "pedantically literal", as they like to put a lot of their own imagination and feelings into the piece. Sometimes this comes out very well, sometimes it destroys the whole piece. Furtwangler is a very good example of the former, have you heard how he turns a joyful piece like Beethoven 9 into a total dystopian, almost apocalyptic struggle? But why don't we put him down for having a vision so unique from others? It's because his "liberties" are taken with taste.  Although he makes the orchestra play like they are possessed by demons, and sometimes on fire, he always took the music seriously. He always took Beethoven's intentions, and tried to bring out what he thought Beethoven had in his mindset was when he wrote the piece. So, there you have the 1st movement being extraordinarily intense, dramatic, powerful, destructive, almost like a Die Iraes. That signifies the composer's battle with his fate, and at the 4th movement you have this jubilant explosion of joy, perhaps slowed to a crawl at climaxes by Furtwangler, but this is considered "magic" of the conductor, instead of excessive highlighting, because in the context of the music and its background, it totally works and only add to the emotional weight of the symphony. At the very end, right after the last words from the chorus and soloists, Furtwangler takes charge and furiously drives the whole orchestra into a speed that is almost beyond Presto, only to do what? To create a thrilling end to such a thrilling piece. Many other conductors might not have done the same, but that doesn't mean they are too "literal", necessarily, because Furtwangler is just Furtwangler, having a unique vision and his own way to make things many times more exciting than others do.

On the other hand, you have bad taste "non-literal" performers like Lang Lang. He might be like Furtwangler in some way, adding his own ideas and highlighting here and there. But it DOES NOT WORK most of the time, because he not only fails to understand the backgrounds of the music he plays, and what he should not do to it. How could you pedal through 90% of an Allegro movement from Mozart's C major sonata? How could you play fff in the bass lines in Beethoven's PC#1 just to bring out the "vulgarity" in Beethoven's personality? But that's just a minor thing compared to the biggest problem with that pianist in my opinion. The worst interpretive aspect of LL, in my opinion, is that he places himself before anything else. In order to show the public how fast his fingers can move across 2 octaves in La Campenella, how harsh a tone he could produce on a normally sweet Hamburg Steinway, he heavily distorts the composer's writing and makes it so that it satisfies his eagerness to display his talent (or lack thereof), and his own fantasies. So, he might be just as exciting as Furtwangler, being extremely non-literal, but in the end, does he have good taste? Not to me. Not to many, in fact. My piano teacher used to tell me, "When you're hearing Kempf play Beethoven, you are hearing Kempf's talent and Beethoven's genius at the same time. When you're hearing Lang Lang play Beethoven, you are only hearing Lang Lang's immaturity as a performer."

Of course, the above are just very, very small examples, and not all of it might be 100% accurate. It is just to give you an idea why people think some performers can be regarded like immortal gods while others are dismissed as mere circus clowns, when all of them try to add extra spice to the music.