Discussion:
Toscanini on Bartok
(too old to reply)
Lawrence Chalmers
2012-08-11 21:43:01 UTC
Permalink
My imprint version of Kodaly's Hary Janos suite
is by Toscanini and as I was listening again to this from the new AT set
I was wondering if there is any
material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-12 00:17:56 UTC
Permalink
My imprint version of Kodaly's Hary Janos suite is by Toscanini and as I
was listening again to this from the new AT set I was wondering if there is
any material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
I don't know, but Bartok was the one who wrote the resolution for his fellow
Hungarian composers to sign to protest the attack on Toscanini by Fascist
thugs in Bologna in 1931. And as for Kodaly, Toscanini was one of the early
champions (in pre-WWII Europe, anyway), of "Psalmus Hungaricus."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Mark S
2012-08-12 04:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
My imprint version of Kodaly's Hary Janos suite is by Toscanini and as I
was listening again to this from the new AT set I was wondering if there is
any material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
I don't know, but Bartok was the one who wrote the resolution for his fellow
Hungarian composers to sign to protest the attack on Toscanini by Fascist
thugs in Bologna in 1931.  And as for Kodaly, Toscanini was one of the early
champions (in pre-WWII Europe, anyway), of "Psalmus Hungaricus."
--
I checked the Sachs book, and that's his only mention of Bartok. He
also says AT never conducted a note of Bartok's music.

I then looked in my Robert C Marsh book on "the Cleveland Orchestra,"
where AT is pictured sitting with Rodzinski. AT has a score by Bartok
in his hands. The caption for the photo says, 'Toscanini questions
Bartok's value as a composer." Don't know if that was totally made up
or if it reflected some truth that Marsh was in on.
Bob Harper
2012-08-12 05:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
My imprint version of Kodaly's Hary Janos suite is by Toscanini and as I
was listening again to this from the new AT set I was wondering if there is
any material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
I don't know, but Bartok was the one who wrote the resolution for his fellow
Hungarian composers to sign to protest the attack on Toscanini by Fascist
thugs in Bologna in 1931. And as for Kodaly, Toscanini was one of the early
champions (in pre-WWII Europe, anyway), of "Psalmus Hungaricus."
--
I checked the Sachs book, and that's his only mention of Bartok. He
also says AT never conducted a note of Bartok's music.
I then looked in my Robert C Marsh book on "the Cleveland Orchestra,"
where AT is pictured sitting with Rodzinski. AT has a score by Bartok
in his hands. The caption for the photo says, 'Toscanini questions
Bartok's value as a composer." Don't know if that was totally made up
or if it reflected some truth that Marsh was in on.
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.

Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-12 17:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.
Toscanini did indeed perform "Fireworks" with the Philharmonic-Symphony, and
excerpts from "Petrushka" with NBC, the latter finally seeing official issue
in RCA's Toscanini Edition, and of course present in the current reissue.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Bob Harper
2012-08-12 19:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Bob Harper
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.
Toscanini did indeed perform "Fireworks" with the Philharmonic-Symphony, and
excerpts from "Petrushka" with NBC, the latter finally seeing official issue
in RCA's Toscanini Edition, and of course present in the current reissue.
Didn't know that, so I sit corrected, though I still suspect he would
not have been comfortable conducting Le Sacre. How are the excerpts from
Petrushka?

Bob Harper
D***@aol.com
2012-08-12 20:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Bob Harper
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.
Toscanini did indeed perform "Fireworks" with the Philharmonic-Symphony, and
excerpts from "Petrushka" with NBC, the latter finally seeing official issue
in RCA's Toscanini Edition, and of course present in the current reissue.
Didn't know that, so I sit corrected, though I still suspect he would
not have been comfortable conducting Le Sacre. How are the excerpts from
Petrushka?
Bob Harper
Excellent. Brilliant and exciting.

Don Tait
Mark S
2012-08-12 22:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Bob Harper
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.
Toscanini did indeed perform "Fireworks" with the Philharmonic-Symphony, and
excerpts from "Petrushka" with NBC, the latter finally seeing official issue
in RCA's Toscanini Edition, and of course present in the current reissue.
Didn't know that, so I sit corrected, though I still suspect he would
not have been comfortable conducting Le Sacre. How are the excerpts from
Petrushka?
Bob Harper
The rhythms in Le sacre are no harder to understand (and conduct) than
are those found in Petrushka, or in the works of Respighi for that
matter, which AT conducted all the time.

BTW - the great thing about the rhythms in Le sacre is that once
you've got them down, you realize it couldn't have gone any other way,
which makes it easy to conduct.

We're long past the days when orchestras and conductors struggled with
Le sacre. Truth be told, I wonder if orchestras and conductors ever
really struggled all that much with the piece. After all, Monteux
conducted the premiere, and he was no slouch. Stravinsky reported no
problems with the dress rehearsal. The riot at the premiere had
nothing to do with the orchestra's execution.

Don't assume a conductor lacks the understanding and technique to
conduct a piece just because he opts not to conduct it.
Bob Harper
2012-08-12 23:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by Bob Harper
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Post by Bob Harper
I can't imagine Toscanini being on the same wavelength as Bartok any
more than I can imagine him being on the same wavelength as, say,
Stravinsky. Not his part of the musical universe.
Toscanini did indeed perform "Fireworks" with the Philharmonic-Symphony, and
excerpts from "Petrushka" with NBC, the latter finally seeing official issue
in RCA's Toscanini Edition, and of course present in the current reissue.
Didn't know that, so I sit corrected, though I still suspect he would
not have been comfortable conducting Le Sacre. How are the excerpts from
Petrushka?
Bob Harper
The rhythms in Le sacre are no harder to understand (and conduct) than
are those found in Petrushka, or in the works of Respighi for that
matter, which AT conducted all the time.
BTW - the great thing about the rhythms in Le sacre is that once
you've got them down, you realize it couldn't have gone any other way,
which makes it easy to conduct.
We're long past the days when orchestras and conductors struggled with
Le sacre. Truth be told, I wonder if orchestras and conductors ever
really struggled all that much with the piece. After all, Monteux
conducted the premiere, and he was no slouch. Stravinsky reported no
problems with the dress rehearsal. The riot at the premiere had
nothing to do with the orchestra's execution.
Don't assume a conductor lacks the understanding and technique to
conduct a piece just because he opts not to conduct it.
Fair enough, in which case we must assume it was lack of
interest/sympathy with Bartok's style rather than any technical
difficulties which kept him away from it.

A related question: did any other famous conductors of that era avoid
Bartok as completely as Toscanini?

Bob Harper
Herman
2012-08-13 01:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
We're long past the days when orchestras and conductors struggled with
Le sacre. Truth be told, I wonder if orchestras and conductors ever
really struggled all that much with the piece. After all, Monteux
conducted the premiere, and he was no slouch. Stravinsky reported no
problems with the dress rehearsal. The riot at the premiere had
nothing to do with the orchestra's execution.
That is indeed a useful myth, handily exploited by Diaghilev.

The ruckus was about Nijinsky's choreography.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-12 17:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
following letters to be typed
My imprint version of Kodaly's Hary Janos suite is by Toscanini and as
I was listening again to this from the new AT set I was wondering if
there is any material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
I don't know, but Bartok was the one who wrote the resolution for his
fellow Hungarian composers to sign to protest the attack on Toscanini by
Fascist thugs in Bologna in 1931.  And as for Kodaly, Toscanini was one
of the early champions (in pre-WWII Europe, anyway), of "Psalmus
Hungaricus."
I checked the Sachs book, and that's his only mention of Bartok. He
also says AT never conducted a note of Bartok's music.
Yep, that was my source too.
Post by Mark S
I then looked in my Robert C Marsh book on "the Cleveland Orchestra,"
where AT is pictured sitting with Rodzinski. AT has a score by Bartok
in his hands. The caption for the photo says, 'Toscanini questions
Bartok's value as a composer." Don't know if that was totally made up
or if it reflected some truth that Marsh was in on.
There is actually something like this in Joseph Horowitz' hatefest:

"Of Bartok's tonal, traditionally structured Music for Strings, Percussion
and Celesta, he told Artur Rodzinski: 'If THAT is music, I leave it to
you, the younger generation. It says nothing to me.'" (pp. 133-4; endnote
cites New York Times, 8 November 1929, no page number given.) Horowitz
paraphrases this somewhat also on p. 227.

Marek has this remark in passing: "Toscanini loved him [Cantelli],
counseled him, went to his rehearsals even when Cantelli conducted music
the older man didn't care for (such as Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra),
and smiled approvingly on him." (p. 293)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
EM
2012-08-12 11:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Chalmers
I was wondering if there is any
material dealing with AT's thoughts on Bartok's music.
Toscanini's protege Guido Cantelli "revelled in Bartok, Hindemith and
other modern repertoire that Toscanini couldn't stomach."
From:
http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/toscaweb.html

"The crux of Toscanini's aversion to new music (...) was sheer
distaste.(...) Of Bartók's tonal traditionally structured Music for
Strings, Percussion and Celesta het told Artur Rodzinski: 'If that is
music, I leave it to you, the younger generation. It says nothing to
me'."

"As with the Philharmonic, Toscanini at NBC never programmed anything
by Bartók, Berg, Hindemith, Mahler, or Schoenberg."

"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bartók's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."

From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.

EM
Herman
2012-08-12 12:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Herman
2012-08-12 12:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
I mean the part about being unable to beat different than 4/4 or 3/4
The Historian
2012-08-12 12:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere. (BTW, Sachs was the first
to compare Horowitz to Irving, back in the 1980s.) I question the
"beating complex rhythms" slam.
Herman
2012-08-12 12:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere.
I wasn't regarding Horowitz' quote as evidence, just as a pretty damning comment.

The evidence would be in AT's non-performance of anything requiring the ability to beat complex rhythms.
D***@aol.com
2012-08-12 20:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman
Post by The Historian
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere.
I wasn't regarding Horowitz' quote as evidence, just as a pretty damning comment.
The evidence would be in AT's non-performance of anything requiring the ability to beat complex rhythms.
He conducted Stravinsky's Petrouchka -- at least portions of it --
Copland's El Salon Mexico, which also has some complex rhythms, and
other such scores including works by Debussy and Ravel that have such
meters. The recorded evidence is available.

Don Tait
Herman
2012-08-13 06:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by D***@aol.com
He conducted Stravinsky's Petrouchka -- at least portions of it --
Copland's El Salon Mexico, which also has some complex rhythms, and
other such scores including works by Debussy and Ravel that have such
meters. The recorded evidence is available.
I bow to the evidence. Debussy suffices.
largo_57
2012-08-12 13:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere. (BTW, Sachs was the first
to compare Horowitz to Irving, back in the 1980s.)  I question the
"beating complex rhythms" slam.
I've read elsewhere that Toscanini did have trouble conducting some of
the rhythms in his one-off NBC performances of 'El Salon Mexico' and
'Petrouchka.' I agree, however, that Horowitz's book is the last place
I would look for any truth on the conductor.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-12 17:12:31 UTC
Permalink
largo_57 <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:3e3afc1f-39fe-4fc6-85f9-
Post by largo_57
Post by The Historian
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bartï¿œk's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere. (BTW, Sachs was the first
to compare Horowitz to Irving, back in the 1980s.)  I question the
"beating complex rhythms" slam.
I've read elsewhere that Toscanini did have trouble conducting some of
the rhythms in his one-off NBC performances of 'El Salon Mexico' and
'Petrouchka.' I agree, however, that Horowitz's book is the last place
I would look for any truth on the conductor.
Indeed; I only cited the Rodzinski quote because it had a citation to the
New York Times.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
D***@aol.com
2012-08-12 21:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by largo_57
Post by The Historian
Post by Herman
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart�k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
From: Joseph Horowitz, Understanding Toscanini, 1987.
That's pretty damning.
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
trust nothing you can't confirm elsewhere. (BTW, Sachs was the first
to compare Horowitz to Irving, back in the 1980s.)  I question the
"beating complex rhythms" slam.
I've read elsewhere that Toscanini did have trouble conducting some of
the rhythms in his one-off NBC performances of 'El Salon Mexico' and
'Petrouchka.' I agree, however, that Horowitz's book is the last place
I would look for any truth on the conductor.
Indeed. Joseph Horowitz's book about Toscanini is a disgraceful
hatchet job.

Don Tait
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-13 06:14:51 UTC
Permalink
"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the
following letters to be typed in news:7e165052-f5e8-459a-9c9f-108a71a3d1b8
Post by D***@aol.com
Post by largo_57
I've read elsewhere that Toscanini did have trouble conducting some of
the rhythms in his one-off NBC performances of 'El Salon Mexico' and
'Petrouchka.' I agree, however, that Horowitz's book is the last place
I would look for any truth on the conductor.
Indeed. Joseph Horowitz's book about Toscanini is a disgraceful
hatchet job.
And yet it has somehow clung to in-print status, and some sort of accrued
authority, perhaps because it was published by Knopf.

I have a lamebrained theory about why it seems so personal with Horowitz to
tear into Toscanini and blame him for everything. I will not, however,
express it here, but I think it can be guessed at easily enough.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Dufus
2012-08-13 15:25:14 UTC
Permalink
  Indeed. Joseph Horowitz's book about Toscanini is a disgraceful
hatchet job.
How do you view Horowitz' controversial ( at least in Ft.Worth )
book , "The Ivory Trade" about the Van Cliburn Piano Competition of
the late 70's ? Thanks.
D***@aol.com
2012-08-19 20:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dufus
  Indeed. Joseph Horowitz's book about Toscanini is a disgraceful
hatchet job.
How do you view Horowitz' controversial ( at least in Ft.Worth )
book , "The Ivory Trade" about the Van Cliburn Piano Competition of
the late 70's ? Thanks.
A tardy reply (I've had all sorts of uproar here). I don't know that
book. Do you feel like telling more? And thank you.

Don Tait
EM
2012-08-12 14:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
Quoting Joseph Horowitz on Toscanini is like quoting David Irving;
The OP "was wondering if there is any material dealing with AT's
thoughts on Bartok's music."

Well, there is. I supplied two sources in my reply to the OP.

A third, indirect but objective, one is Toscanini's discography:

http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~toshome/main/Discographyfrm.htm

A list of his concerts would also be informative. See e.g. here:

<http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~toshome/main/maestro/ny/MT-NYfrm.html>

Perhaps there are more such surveys.

BTW, you can check the references in Horowitz's book. He gives the
source of "Of Bartók's (...) Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta
he told Artur Rodzinski: 'If that is music, I leave it to you, the
younger generation. It says nothing to me'." in the notes.

EM
M forever
2012-08-12 14:55:40 UTC
Permalink
And yet Toscanini and Bartok were born on the same day! In different years though...
William Sommerwerck
2012-08-12 15:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
And yet Toscanini and Bartok were born on
the same day! In different years, though...
Ditto for Brahms and Tchaikovsky. They hated each other. (Their music,
anyway.)
Herman
2012-08-12 16:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by M forever
And yet Toscanini and Bartok were born on
the same day! In different years, though...
Ditto for Brahms and Tchaikovsky. They hated each other. (Their music,
anyway.)
I doubt that is how they would put it themselves.
Mark S
2012-08-12 18:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by EM
"Toscanini had trouble beating complex rhythms and heard no music in
Bart k's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta."
Silliness.

There's plenty of complexity in the vast repertoire AT conducted. I
know conductors who steer clear of Brahms 3 because they don't want to
deal with the off-the-beat stresses in the first movement. I've worked
with conductors who were mainly orchestral conductors who had trouble
conducting Boheme.

The easiest, most-basic thing for a conductor to do is to be a traffic
cop and learn to beat "complex rhythms." That wasn't what AT was as a
conductor. Indeed, he often refused to use simple basic patterns and
to lapse into traffic cop mode.
Christopher Webber
2012-08-12 19:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
I've worked
with conductors who were mainly orchestral conductors who had trouble
conducting Boheme.
Perhaps that's not so surprising. It's an infamously tricky score
throughout, with constant tempo switchbacks, odd-length bars and
contrapuntal speed traps.

In Act 2, for example, the cross-rhythmic complexities surrounding the
entry of Musetta (especially given the off-beat choral interjections)
need masterly handling if the whole thing isn't to degenerate - as it
too often does - into temporary anarchy.

Just part of what makes this score so perennially fascinating. If I had
to give away all my operatic full scores bar one, this is the one I'd
save from the flames. There's always some hitherto unsuspected point of
brilliance to admire.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-13 06:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Webber
I've worked with conductors who were mainly orchestral conductors who
had trouble conducting Boheme.
Perhaps that's not so surprising. It's an infamously tricky score
throughout, with constant tempo switchbacks, odd-length bars and
contrapuntal speed traps.
In Act 2, for example, the cross-rhythmic complexities surrounding the
entry of Musetta (especially given the off-beat choral interjections)
need masterly handling if the whole thing isn't to degenerate - as it
too often does - into temporary anarchy.
Just part of what makes this score so perennially fascinating. If I had
to give away all my operatic full scores bar one, this is the one I'd
save from the flames. There's always some hitherto unsuspected point of
brilliance to admire.
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg. Remember also
that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up on it.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
J.Martin
2012-08-13 16:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg.  Remember also
that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up on it.
Exactly. I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct Bartok
(or Le Sacre) because he could not. It seems much easier to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.

While I don't think Horowitz has it right in blaming AT for virtually
everything that's wrong with classical music, I do think it's fair to
criticize Toscanini on the basis that he was not always a good judge
of contemporary composers. Though many have shared that failing, it
is particularly unfortunate, given his influence, that Toscanini
didn't like Bartok. Imagine how much easier the composer's life would
have been with AT's imprimatur. And we might dream of having a
Toscanini broadcast of, say, Nielsen 4 or DLVDE. But this is surely
one of those situations in which it is better to notice the full half
of the glass.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-13 20:14:28 UTC
Permalink
"J.Martin" <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:c096eae7-2650-406b-b0e4-627e50909b05
Post by J.Martin
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg.  Remember
also that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up
on it.
Exactly. I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct Bartok
(or Le Sacre) because he could not. It seems much easier to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.
While I don't think Horowitz has it right in blaming AT for virtually
everything that's wrong with classical music, I do think it's fair to
criticize Toscanini on the basis that he was not always a good judge of
contemporary composers. Though many have shared that failing, it is
particularly unfortunate, given his influence, that Toscanini didn't like
Bartok. Imagine how much easier the composer's life would have been with
AT's imprimatur. And we might dream of having a Toscanini broadcast of,
say, Nielsen 4 or DLVDE. But this is surely one of those situations in
which it is better to notice the full half of the glass.
Toscanini did support contemporary composers, such as Debussy, Ravel,
Sibelius, and Richard Strauss. If you mean that you wish he had done more
with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others,
rather than the crappy Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I
won't argue with you there.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Ruach
2012-08-13 20:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:c096eae7-2650-406b-b0e4-627e50909b05
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg.  Remember
also that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up
on it.
Exactly.  I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct Bartok
(or Le Sacre) because he could not.  It seems much easier to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.
While I don't think Horowitz has it right in blaming AT for virtually
everything that's wrong with classical music, I do think it's fair to
criticize Toscanini on the basis that he was not always a good judge of
contemporary composers.  Though many have shared that failing, it is
particularly unfortunate, given his influence, that Toscanini didn't like
Bartok.  Imagine how much easier the composer's life would have been with
AT's imprimatur.  And we might dream of having a Toscanini broadcast of,
say, Nielsen 4 or DLVDE. But this is surely one of those situations in
which it is better to notice the full half of the glass.
Toscanini did support contemporary composers, such as Debussy, Ravel,
Sibelius, and Richard Strauss.  If you mean that you wish he had done more
with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others,
rather than the crappy Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I
won't argue with you there.
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
A note about Toscanini and Hindemith's and Bartok's music:
Haggin wrote, in "Conversations with Toscanini" the following:

"I believe that in a letter to Toscanini at this time I included the
question about whether I might attend Cantelli's rehearsals; and when
he telephoned he said: 'Yes, come to rehearsal. You must hear this
young conductor.' I had missed the first rehearsal, but got to the
second, at which Cantelli worked with the orchestra on Hindemith's
'Mathis der Maler'. He did so under several handicaps, one of which
was the awareness of Toscanini himself listening in the sixth row
behind him. But if this contributed to Cantelli's nervousness and
tenseness, it also was a help: the demands of a high-string,
fanatically dedicated person, the fact that he was a young man facing
the orchestra of the world's most celebrated conductor, his handicap
of not knowing a word of English - all these created not only
tenseness in Cantelli but tense situations with the orchestra, which
Toscanini's presence prevented from developing into anything worse.

Toscanini's presence also provided the orchestra with amusement. At
the first rehearsal he had been given the score of 'Mathis', which he
soon knew by memory; and therafter, completely unconscious of what he
was doing, he sat conducting the piece - beating time, signaling
entrances, and all the rest. And the same thing happened a week later
at the rehearsals of Bartok's 'Concerto for Orchestra'."

There was a thread about "Toscanini's Conducting Technique" here back
in January of 2009 which might be of interest. In that discussion I
quoted Robert Craft who wrote that "Toscanini's performance of
Petrushka in Rome in 1916, noisily acclaimed by Marinetti and the
Futurists, had been a milestone in [Stravinsky's] life."

Craft also wrote that:

"Today's audience,accustomed to high jumping, bottom wiggling,
artfully
mussed hair and sprayed-on perspiration, eye mugging and the grimaces
intended to convey the conductor's feelings about the music and how
everyone should feel, can scarcely imagine the focal force of
Toscanini's Archimedean wrist. Not to have seen him, to know him
exclusively from recordings, is an inestimable handicap to a full
appreciation of the technical side of his art."

I added then that "We're very, very lucky to have these kinescope
films. When I show them
to musicians, they usually comment with amazement that Toscanini shows
almost EVERYTHING with just the baton!" - and of course the facial
expression, eyes, and all the rest.

In this regard, Milton Katims wrote, in 'The Toscanini Musicians
Knew":

"When we did 'Aida', I was in charge of the off-stage chorus and band.
It was ... televised. I asked the producer for a T.V. monitor back
where I was. 'When I'm to conduct,' I said, 'you turn the camera on
Toscanini, even though he doesn't conduct in that part. I'm positive
he'll be moving with the subtle rubato he wants from my chorus.' So
the producer did and I followed Toscanini precisely. Afterwards he was
amazed. I never told him how I'd done it."


With best regards from over here,
David Mendes
J.Martin
2012-08-13 21:29:05 UTC
Permalink
 If you mean that you wish he had done more
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others,
rather than the crappy Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I
won't argue with you there.
That is indeed what I mean. It's hard to understand why he would
adopt the Martucci piano concerto and ignore Bartok's.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-14 03:59:42 UTC
Permalink
"J.Martin" <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:24c0dfd2-f3ab-4597-97d7-9f37366b7030
Post by J.Martin
 If you mean that you wish he had done more with Stravinsky (imagine a
Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others, rather than the crappy
Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I won't argue with you
there.
That is indeed what I mean. It's hard to understand why he would
adopt the Martucci piano concerto and ignore Bartok's.
I would be the last to put it on a level with Bartok, but I rather like the
piano concerto (#2?) of Martucci's that we have from Toscanini, once with
Glacco d'Attili (who dat?), and once with Mieczyslaw Horszowski.

What Bartok did Furtwängler perform, apart from the PC #1, prepared for the
premiere by Horenstein?
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Mark S
2012-08-14 04:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
What Bartok did Furtwängler perform, apart from the PC #1, prepared for the
premiere by Horenstein?
Both Violin Concertos with Mehnuin.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-14 05:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Mark S <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:68d06677-28bb-48bb-b730-27d164052c67
Post by Mark S
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
What Bartok did Furtwängler perform, apart from the PC #1, prepared for
the premiere by Horenstein?
Both Violin Concertos with Mehnuin.
No, just the mature 1938 concerto. And duh that I forgot about that one!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
FrankB
2012-08-14 17:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:68d06677-28bb-48bb-b730-27d164052c67
Post by Mark S
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
What Bartok did Furtwängler perform, apart from the PC #1, prepared for
the premiere by Horenstein?
Both Violin Concertos with Mehnuin.
No, just the mature 1938 concerto.  And duh that I forgot about that one!
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Furtwängler also performed the Concerto for Orchestra.

Frank
J.Martin
2012-08-14 23:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by FrankB
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:68d06677-28bb-48bb-b730-27d164052c67
Post by Mark S
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
What Bartok did Furtwängler perform, apart from the PC #1, prepared for
the premiere by Horenstein?
Both Violin Concertos with Mehnuin.
No, just the mature 1938 concerto.  And duh that I forgot about that one!
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Furtwängler also performed the Concerto for Orchestra.
And before the war, some Mahler, including M3.
chez_toscanini
2012-08-23 16:28:17 UTC
Permalink
there is a photo of AT with Rodzinsky reading a Bartok partiture
(reported also on a cover of a Naxos CD) with an apparently ironic
smile of the two. Some time ago this photo was referred to the
definitive assessment of Toscanini's not positive opinion about
Bartok.
But recently I found reported a comment of Toscanini who made a step
back, by telling to Cantelli, who had listened to in a broadcasted
performance of the concerto for celesta archs and percussions (if I
remember), that he, Toscanini, was wrong about Bartok and that he had
not understood the music written by Bartok, until Cantelli's
performance.

About the difficulty to conduct polyrythmic music, it was reported by
some NBC musicians, and in some biographies it is said that NBC was so
clever to overcome this problem. Anybody can interpret this in many
ways...

Ezio

D***@aol.com
2012-08-19 20:25:13 UTC
Permalink
  If you mean that you wish he had done more
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others,
rather than the crappy Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I
won't argue with you there.
That is indeed what I mean.  It's hard to understand why he would
adopt the Martucci piano concerto and ignore Bartok's.
Personal taste, I'd think, plus what the soloists he engaged wanted
to perform if he agreed to their choice (and of course he might have
wanted them because they'd play something he wanted to do, at least in
the NBC SO years). Plus Toscanini's intense, emotional respect and
admiration for Martucci, whose reputation and music he never stopped
promoting and performing whenever he could. That was clearly a
personal cause for him. Although I also find Martucci's music an empty
waste of time.

Don Tait
Mark S
2012-08-14 18:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:c096eae7-2650-406b-b0e4-627e50909b05
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg.  Remember
also that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up
on it.
Exactly.  I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct Bartok
(or Le Sacre) because he could not.  It seems much easier to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.
While I don't think Horowitz has it right in blaming AT for virtually
everything that's wrong with classical music, I do think it's fair to
criticize Toscanini on the basis that he was not always a good judge of
contemporary composers.  Though many have shared that failing, it is
particularly unfortunate, given his influence, that Toscanini didn't like
Bartok.  Imagine how much easier the composer's life would have been with
AT's imprimatur.  And we might dream of having a Toscanini broadcast of,
say, Nielsen 4 or DLVDE. But this is surely one of those situations in
which it is better to notice the full half of the glass.
Toscanini did support contemporary composers, such as Debussy, Ravel,
Sibelius, and Richard Strauss.  If you mean that you wish he had done more
with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted "Pulcinella"!) and others,
rather than the crappy Italian ones such as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I
won't argue with you there.
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.
Gerard
2012-08-14 19:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:c096eae7-2650-406b-b0e4-627e50909b05
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini
made a brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in
Salzburg. Remember also that he conducted the Italian premiere
after Franco Faccio gave up on it.
Exactly. I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct
Bartok (or Le Sacre) because he could not. It seems much easier
to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.
While I don't think Horowitz has it right in blaming AT for
virtually everything that's wrong with classical music, I do
think it's fair to criticize Toscanini on the basis that he was
not always a good judge of contemporary composers. Though many
have shared that failing, it is particularly unfortunate, given
his influence, that Toscanini didn't like Bartok. Imagine how
much easier the composer's life would have been with AT's
imprimatur. And we might dream of having a Toscanini broadcast
of, say, Nielsen 4 or DLVDE. But this is surely one of those
situations in which it is better to notice the full half of the
glass.
Toscanini did support contemporary composers, such as Debussy,
Ravel, Sibelius, and Richard Strauss. If you mean that you wish he
had done more with Stravinsky (imagine a Toscanini-conducted
"Pulcinella"!) and others, rather than the crappy Italian ones such
as Bolzoni and Martucci, well, I won't argue with you there.
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.
How can you be so sure about that?
EM
2012-08-15 16:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.
Shocking. I am appalled. Let's set up an interdisciplinary committee
and deal with the matter.

HvK on Henze, Boulez and Stockhausen (1963):

<http://www.overgrownpath.com/2008/09/karajan-on-boulez-stockhausen-and.html>

EM
J.Martin
2012-08-15 21:43:45 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Mark S
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.- Hide quoted text -
I'd say a more apt parallel would be something like Harnoncourt
refusing to conduct Mahler, a choice that I have never heard him taken
to task for, perhaps because he openly admits he simply doesn't like
the music, and perhaps because he has nowhere near the kind of
influence that Toscanini had.
Mark S
2012-08-15 22:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.Martin
.
Post by Mark S
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.- Hide quoted text -
I'd say a more apt parallel would be something like Harnoncourt
refusing to conduct Mahler, a choice that I have never heard him taken
to task for, perhaps because he openly admits he simply doesn't like
the music, and perhaps because he has nowhere near the kind of
influence that Toscanini had.
Except that Mahler isn't a contemporary of Harnoncourt.

This particular discussion is centered on conductors who fail to take
up the music being written by their contemporaries. In that regard,
Harnoncourt appears to have no interest whatsoever in conducting any
music that's less than 100 years old.
J.Martin
2012-08-16 00:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Except that Mahler isn't a contemporary of Harnoncourt.
This particular discussion is centered on conductors who fail to take
up the music being written by their contemporaries. In that regard,
Harnoncourt appears to have no interest whatsoever in conducting any
music that's less than 100 years old.
Harnoncourt has recorded Bartok, and conducts Stravinsky. So he has
some interest.

In any case, the parallel I’m suggesting is one in which an
established superstar conductor declines to conduct music that entered
the standard repertoire over the course of his career, which we can
say was the case with Harnoncourt and Mahler.
As others have noted, AT conducted many contemporaries, even if he
rather pointedly ignored some pieces that had become recognized
masterpieces—or at least commonly programmed pieces—during his and the
composers’ lifetimes. This is why some of us find Toscanini’s choices
so curious, and why it’s not valid to compare AT/Bartok with Bernstein/
Stockhausen, music that is still not much accepted by the mainstream
and which conductors take a significant risk in programming.
Mark S
2012-08-16 03:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Except that Mahler isn't a contemporary of Harnoncourt.
This particular discussion is centered on conductors who fail to take
up the music being written by their contemporaries. In that regard,
Harnoncourt appears to have no interest whatsoever in conducting any
music that's less than 100 years old.
Harnoncourt has recorded Bartok, and conducts Stravinsky.  So he has
some interest.
In any case, the parallel I’m suggesting is one in which an
established superstar conductor declines to conduct music that entered
the standard repertoire over the course of his career, which we can
say was the case with Harnoncourt and Mahler.
As others have noted, AT conducted many contemporaries, even if he
rather pointedly ignored some pieces that had become recognized
masterpieces—or at least commonly programmed pieces—during his and the
composers’ lifetimes.  This is why some of us find Toscanini’s choices
so curious, and why it’s not valid to compare AT/Bartok with Bernstein/
Stockhausen, music that is still not much accepted by the mainstream
and which conductors take a significant risk in programming.
I didn't know that Bartok's music was widely accepted in the
mainstream while AT was still alive. AT died only 11 years after BB,
IIRC.

BB's funeral was attended by only a handful of people. I don't recall
his star rising with the public in the decade following his death. Why
single out AT for ignoring BB?
J.Martin
2012-08-16 16:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by Mark S
Except that Mahler isn't a contemporary of Harnoncourt.
This particular discussion is centered on conductors who fail to take
up the music being written by their contemporaries. In that regard,
Harnoncourt appears to have no interest whatsoever in conducting any
music that's less than 100 years old.
Harnoncourt has recorded Bartok, and conducts Stravinsky.  So he has
some interest.
In any case, the parallel I’m suggesting is one in which an
established superstar conductor declines to conduct music that entered
the standard repertoire over the course of his career, which we can
say was the case with Harnoncourt and Mahler.
As others have noted, AT conducted many contemporaries, even if he
rather pointedly ignored some pieces that had become recognized
masterpieces—or at least commonly programmed pieces—during his and the
composers’ lifetimes.  This is why some of us find Toscanini’s choices
so curious, and why it’s not valid to compare AT/Bartok with Bernstein/
Stockhausen, music that is still not much accepted by the mainstream
and which conductors take a significant risk in programming.
I didn't know that Bartok's music was widely accepted in the
mainstream while AT was still alive. AT died only 11 years after BB,
IIRC.
BB's funeral was attended by only a handful of people. I don't recall
his star rising with the public in the decade following his death. Why
single out AT for ignoring BB?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Quite honestly, I hadn't realized Bartok died so soon after the
premiere of the Concerto for Orchestra. I thought he had lived until
the end of the '40s, by which time the CfO was internationally
accepted, if we believe the program note writers.

In any case, I don't want to beat this into the ground. I am an
unabashed admirer of Toscanini. I think it's legitimate to criticize
his apparent inability or unwillingness to find any merit in some
important 20th century pieces (to say nothing of Mahler). Given his
influence, this was unfortunate. But I find it a minor blemish on an
otherwise incredible career, and not anything like the root of all
evil that Joseph Horowitz would have us believe.
M forever
2012-08-17 00:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.Martin
.
Post by Mark S
And yet no one has ever taken Bernstein or Karajan to task for
ignoring their contemporary Stockhausen.- Hide quoted text -
I'd say a more apt parallel would be something like Harnoncourt
refusing to conduct Mahler,
Not at all, as Mark already pointed out, Mahler is not a contemporary of Harnoncourt.
Post by J.Martin
a choice that I have never heard him taken
to task for,
Why should he be "taken to task" for not conducting music he feels he has no relationship with?
Post by J.Martin
perhaps because he openly admits he simply doesn't like
the music,
He does, and here he explains why, and why he doesn't like some other major composers, like Berlioz, Strauss, Rossini. He doesn't conduct much Wagner either, I believe he did the Prelude and Liebestod from T+I in concert, and that's it.
Post by J.Martin
and perhaps because he has nowhere near the kind of
influence that Toscanini had.
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most other conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not single-handedly bring about the historical performance practice movement, but he was one of the earliest and strongest contributors to it.
J.Martin
2012-08-17 16:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Christopher Webber
2012-08-17 16:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.Martin
I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Possibly - but then, several contemporary conductors are cultural
figures in a way that *he* couldn't approach.

It all depends what you mean by "major cultural figure". If you're
looking for someone life-changing, for example, as opposed to merely
life-enhancing, you only need to look to ... well, Dudamel.

Our idea of culture has changed. Anyone attempting to be a Toscanini in
this day and age wouldn't get past first base - no matter how talented
and determined he or she might be.
M forever
2012-08-19 22:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Yes, I really believe that. Toscanini may have been a "major cultural figure" in that way, and I agree there is no contemporary conductor who approaches the kind of status Toscanini, or Bernstein, or Karajan had in their time, but that's not the kind of influence I am talking about. I am talking about the influence on music making. Toscanini certainly had a lot of influence on many conductors and the way they interpreted music, but that doesn't approach the fundamental change of approach to performing that the HIP movement had, like it or not. The way that has influenced "mainstream" music making as well is much more fundamental than the influence Toscanini or really anyone else in the 20th century had.
Bob Harper
2012-08-19 23:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Yes, I really believe that. Toscanini may have been a "major cultural
figure" in that way, and I agree there is no contemporary conductor
who approaches the kind of status Toscanini, or Bernstein, or Karajan
had in their time, but that's not the kind of influence I am talking
about. I am talking about the influence on music making. Toscanini
certainly had a lot of influence on many conductors and the way they
interpreted music, but that doesn't approach the fundamental change
of approach to performing that the HIP movement had, like it or not.
The way that has influenced "mainstream" music making as well is much
more fundamental than the influence Toscanini or really anyone else
in the 20th century had.
Do you think, taken in toto, that influence has been positive or negative?

Bob Harper
M forever
2012-08-19 23:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Yes, I really believe that. Toscanini may have been a "major cultural
figure" in that way, and I agree there is no contemporary conductor
who approaches the kind of status Toscanini, or Bernstein, or Karajan
had in their time, but that's not the kind of influence I am talking
about. I am talking about the influence on music making. Toscanini
certainly had a lot of influence on many conductors and the way they
interpreted music, but that doesn't approach the fundamental change
of approach to performing that the HIP movement had, like it or not.
The way that has influenced "mainstream" music making as well is much
more fundamental than the influence Toscanini or really anyone else
in the 20th century had.
Do you think, taken in toto, that influence has been positive or negative?
Bob Harper
Completely positive and vastly enrichening. We now have a much more
complex and nuanced perception of our musical, and cultural in
general, past and a much bigger stylistic vocabulary to work with and
to listen to. Sure, there are plenty of hollow pseudo HIP guys out
there just banging and scratching away, but that has nothing to do
with the fact that the idea as such is extremely valuable. There have
always been people who just aped what others did, in any field.
Bob Harper
2012-08-20 03:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Yes, I really believe that. Toscanini may have been a "major cultural
figure" in that way, and I agree there is no contemporary conductor
who approaches the kind of status Toscanini, or Bernstein, or Karajan
had in their time, but that's not the kind of influence I am talking
about. I am talking about the influence on music making. Toscanini
certainly had a lot of influence on many conductors and the way they
interpreted music, but that doesn't approach the fundamental change
of approach to performing that the HIP movement had, like it or not.
The way that has influenced "mainstream" music making as well is much
more fundamental than the influence Toscanini or really anyone else
in the 20th century had.
Do you think, taken in toto, that influence has been positive or negative?
Bob Harper
Completely positive and vastly enrichening. We now have a much more
complex and nuanced perception of our musical, and cultural in
general, past and a much bigger stylistic vocabulary to work with and
to listen to. Sure, there are plenty of hollow pseudo HIP guys out
there just banging and scratching away, but that has nothing to do
with the fact that the idea as such is extremely valuable. There have
always been people who just aped what others did, in any field.
OK, but I wonder whether one effect of the 'fundamentalist' wing of the
HIP movement hasn't been to discourage modern instrument groups from
playing, say, Bach Orchestral Suites or early/middle Haydn symphonies on
the grounds that such performances are per se 'inauthentic'. I'm sure
you don't agree, and I hope you find Furtwängler's take on Handel's Op.
6 as fascinating as I do, but I fear the HIP police do not look kindly
on such things. That said, I find a great deal to like in Zinman's
Schumann, to name only one example of what I think you're talking about.

Bob Harper
Christopher Webber
2012-08-20 07:03:20 UTC
Permalink
I hope you find Furtwängler's take on Handel's Op. 6 as fascinating as I do
Personally I find it intolerable kitsch, and "fascinating" only in the
manner of a car crash!

Such grotesque distortions tell us much more about the musical fashions
of a conductor's time than they do about Handel. Even as far back as the
1930's there were enough fine musicians around (such as Adolf Busch) who
were performing works such as Handel's Op.6 in an appropriate style and
with properly balanced orchestral forces.

Unless one believes that (say) Beethoven's Rasumovsky quartets are just
as good played by a huge full string orchestra it simply isn't tenable
to defend these historical relics, unless of course we've somehow
"imprinted" on them. That's nothing to do with fundamentalist policing,
and everything to do with good taste.
Bob Harper
2012-08-20 13:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Webber
I hope you find Furtwängler's take on Handel's Op. 6 as fascinating as I do
Personally I find it intolerable kitsch, and "fascinating" only in the
manner of a car crash!
Such grotesque distortions tell us much more about the musical fashions
of a conductor's time than they do about Handel. Even as far back as the
1930's there were enough fine musicians around (such as Adolf Busch) who
were performing works such as Handel's Op.6 in an appropriate style and
with properly balanced orchestral forces.
Unless one believes that (say) Beethoven's Rasumovsky quartets are just
as good played by a huge full string orchestra it simply isn't tenable
to defend these historical relics, unless of course we've somehow
"imprinted" on them. That's nothing to do with fundamentalist policing,
and everything to do with good taste.
Well, in this instance I'd have to say that one man's good taste is
another's fundamentalist policing.

Bob Harper
Christopher Webber
2012-08-20 15:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Well, in this instance I'd have to say that one man's good taste is
another's fundamentalist policing.
I am not a fundamentalist in these matters, just an enthusiastic Handelian.

Take Op.6 No.10 in the Furtwangler / Berlin Philharmonic recording:

1. Overture. No double-dotting or any other stylistic sense of the
French Overture which Handel actually wrote. Tempo sluggish and full of
unmarked ritardandos. Bass line vague and out of sync, resulting in a
high romantic sense of "improvisation". Unwieldy and opaque orchestral
palette. Musical energy low, despite strenuous playing.

2. Allegro. More like a comfortable Andante. Counterpoint is muddy and
uneven. Violin trills are unstylistic and fussy, and voicing of them is
inconsistent. Again, no semblance of bass line to drive the music on.
Interventionist (and unmarked) dynamics, producing an effect like a 19th
c. Grand Orchestral Organ rather than an 18th c. chamber concerto grosso.

3. Air. Impossibly slow and lugubrious. No sense of line as the tune
lumbers along at funereal pace. Concertante passages are lovingly
indulged, and almost crawl to a halt. More reminiscent of early 2nd
Viennese School c. 1910 than London theatre c.1710.

4. Allegro. Another comfortable Andante. A little sprucer and
better-defined rhythmically than 2., but still completely lacking in any
bass "bite". More fussy and interventionist dynamics. No sense at any
point the conductor believes the music is good enough to be trusted to
its own devices.

5. Allegro Moderato. Or rather pure Lento, certainly far too slow to
register Handel's sophisticated wit, élan or variational brilliance.
Staccato violin figuration is executed so slowly it almost falls apart,
and the strange string swoopings up to the repeated note in the main
theme create the impression of Godzilla trying to dance a coy barn dance
in a trough of warm soup.

No wonder the previous generation thought Handel was dull, when this
sort of thing was all they had to go on.

So it depends whether you like Handel, or prefer an aural bath of
perfumed sludge - the choice is yours!
Gerard
2012-08-20 15:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Webber
No wonder the previous generation thought Handel was dull, when this
sort of thing was all they had to go on.
Same for Bach (and a lot of other composers).
Post by Christopher Webber
So it depends whether you like Handel, or prefer an aural bath of
perfumed sludge - the choice is yours!
M forever
2012-08-20 15:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by Bob Harper
Post by M forever
Post by J.Martin
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had
Do you really believe that? I would say that Toscanini was a major
cultural figure in a way that no contemporary conductor even begins to
approach.
Yes, I really believe that. Toscanini may have been a "major cultural
figure" in that way, and I agree there is no contemporary conductor
who approaches the kind of status Toscanini, or Bernstein, or Karajan
had in their time, but that's not the kind of influence I am talking
about. I am talking about the influence on music making. Toscanini
certainly had a lot of influence on many conductors and the way they
interpreted music, but that doesn't approach the fundamental change
of approach to performing that the HIP movement had, like it or not.
The way that has influenced "mainstream" music making as well is much
more fundamental than the influence Toscanini or really anyone else
in the 20th century had.
Do you think, taken in toto, that influence has been positive or negative?
Bob Harper
Completely positive and vastly enrichening. We now have a much more
complex and nuanced perception of our musical, and cultural in
general, past and a much bigger stylistic vocabulary to work with and
to listen to. Sure, there are plenty of hollow pseudo HIP guys out
there just banging and scratching away, but that has nothing to do
with the fact that the idea as such is extremely valuable. There have
always been people who just aped what others did, in any field.
OK, but I wonder whether one effect of the 'fundamentalist' wing of the
HIP movement hasn't been to discourage modern instrument groups from
playing, say, Bach Orchestral Suites or early/middle Haydn symphonies on
the grounds that such performances are per se 'inauthentic'. I'm sure
you don't agree, and I hope you find Furtwängler's take on Handel's Op.
6 as fascinating as I do, but I fear the HIP police do not look kindly
on such things. That said, I find a great deal to like in Zinman's
Schumann, to name only one example of what I think you're talking about.
I don't know that Furtwängler recording. Maybe I should check that out
some time.

I am afraid I don't understand what you are talking about. Who are the
"HIP fundamentalists"? Where are they? How do they "police" other
musicians?
Mark S
2012-08-17 17:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most other conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not single-handedly bring about the historical performance practice movement, but he was one of the earliest and strongest contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to the
score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply the
logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you think about
it, the whole HIP movement owes its very existence to AT.
Gerard
2012-08-17 17:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most other
conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not single-handedly
bring about the historical performance practice movement, but he
was one of the earliest and strongest contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to the
score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply the
logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you think about
it, the whole HIP movement owes its very existence to AT.
I doubt it very much. I think there would have been as much "HIP" without
Toscanini.
Mark S
2012-08-17 18:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gerard
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on
the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most other
conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not single-handedly
bring about the historical performance practice movement, but he
was one of the earliest and strongest contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to the
score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply the
logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you think about
it, the whole HIP movement owes its very existence to AT.
I doubt it very much. I think there would have been as much "HIP" without
Toscanini.
History is what it is. You can speculate all you want. It doesn't mean
anything.
William Sommerwerck
2012-08-17 19:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity
to the score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is
simply the logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos.
I don't see where HIP owes much, if anything, to fidelity to the score. It
is about fidelity to //performance practice//.
Mark S
2012-08-17 19:44:36 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 17, 12:10 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mark S
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity
to the score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is
simply the logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos.
I don't see where HIP owes much, if anything, to fidelity to the score. It
is about fidelity to //performance practice//.
Isn't the rationale behind using "original" instruments that it better
reflects what the composer intended?
M forever
2012-08-19 21:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
On Aug 17, 12:10 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mark S
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity
to the score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is
simply the logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos.
I don't see where HIP owes much, if anything, to fidelity to the score. It
is about fidelity to //performance practice//.
Isn't the rationale behind using "original" instruments that it better
reflects what the composer intended?
No, not necessarily. Period instruments are part of the process but not necessarily the goal.
M forever
2012-08-19 21:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Sommerwerck
Post by Mark S
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity
to the score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is
simply the logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos.
I don't see where HIP owes much, if anything, to fidelity to the score. It
is about fidelity to //performance practice//.
How would *you* know? You can't even read scores.
Gerard
2012-08-17 19:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by Gerard
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical
circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence
on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most
other conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not
single-handedly bring about the historical performance practice
movement, but he was one of the earliest and strongest
contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to
the score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply
the logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you
think about it, the whole HIP movement owes its very existence to
AT.
I doubt it very much. I think there would have been as much "HIP"
without Toscanini.
History is what it is. You can speculate all you want. It doesn't mean
anything.
The speculation is all yours.
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-17 19:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles,
but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear
and play music than Toscanini had, or most other conductors in the 20th
century. Sure, he did not single-handedly bring about the historical
performance practice movement, but he was one of the earliest and
strongest contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to the
score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply the logical
extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you think about it, the
whole HIP movement owes its very existence to AT.
IIRC Toscanini performed Bach (what few works he did, apart from the
orchestrations by Respighi and Wood) with small string sections.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Sir Thomas Beecham performed Handel with large
orchestras and sometimes silly orchestrations. Stay Calm and Sing Loud.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Angelotti
2012-08-17 20:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
Not in the sense of being politically influential in musical circles, but as a musician, Harnoncourt had far more influence on the way we hear and play music than Toscanini had, or most other conductors in the 20th century. Sure, he did not single-handedly bring about the historical performance practice movement, but he was one of the earliest and strongest contributors to it.
I would say that without Toscanini and his mantra of fidelity to the
score, there would be no Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt is simply the
logical extension of Toscanini's musical ethos. When you think about
it, the whole HIP movement owes its very existence to AT.
I think the young Karajan also had a great influence on Harnoncourt. Harnoncourt played cello in the Wiener Symphoniker when performing Mass in B minor BWV 232 and Matthäus-Passion BWV 244 with Karajan, less romantic in style than usual those days (Mengelberg!)
Of course Karajan was a great admirer of Toscanini!
M forever
2012-08-19 22:25:58 UTC
Permalink
No, I don't think one can say that at all. Toscanini's approach to interpretation could maybe be described as "objectivist", for lack of a better term. The equivalent of that in the field of baroque and early classical music were people like Karl Richter. I doubt though that Richter was much "influenced" by Toscanini. That approach to e.g. Bach performance was very much "in the air" in his time. There were many conductors who took a more classicist, sober, slimmed down approach to interpreting baroque and classical music, and later parts of the repertoire as well, probably beginning in the 20s as part of a general trend towards what was then perceived as a progressive, modernist approach to the arts in general, when it came to Bach in particular in Protestant circles.

Interestingly, Harnoncourt described himself as being more at odds with Richter's approach than the more "romantic" approach of some conductors, e.g. Karajan.

http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/05/Karajan-Harnoncourt-Interview/seite-2

HIP does not seek to be "objective", it seeks to be subjective, flexible and inventive just like the romantic school, except that this approach is based on a different understanding of emotionality, rhetoric and expression than the "romantic" mindset. And that is really miles away from Toscanini.
The Historian
2012-08-14 07:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew B. Tepper
It may not be so complicated with cross-rhythms, but Toscanini made a
brilliant job of Act II of "Die Meistersinger" in Salzburg.  Remember also
that he conducted the Italian premiere after Franco Faccio gave up on it.
Exactly.  I have a hard time believing that AT did not conduct Bartok
(or Le Sacre) because he could not.  It seems much easier to believe
that he just didn't care for the music.
A little off-topic, but allegedly Eugene Ormandy couldn't conduct Le
Sacre without having the score 're-barred'. In light of Ormandy's
success with Bartok, I find the claim about Le Sacre hard to believe.
Mark S
2012-08-14 08:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Historian
A little off-topic, but allegedly Eugene Ormandy couldn't conduct Le
Sacre without having the score 're-barred'. In light of Ormandy's
success with Bartok, I find the claim about Le Sacre hard to believe.
"Allegedly?" What's your source for that claim about Ormandy?

And how - exactly - would one re-bar Le sacre without changing the
rhythmic stresses? Perhaps what you mean is that Ormandy grouped
measures into larger beat patterns. That's done all the time (prime
example: the Scherzo of Beethoven's 9th).
wanwan
2012-08-14 08:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by The Historian
A little off-topic, but allegedly Eugene Ormandy couldn't conduct Le
Sacre without having the score 're-barred'. In light of Ormandy's
success with Bartok, I find the claim about Le Sacre hard to believe.
"Allegedly?" What's your source for that claim about Ormandy?
And how - exactly - would one re-bar Le sacre without changing the
rhythmic stresses? Perhaps what you mean is that Ormandy grouped
measures into larger beat patterns. That's done all the time (prime
example: the Scherzo of Beethoven's 9th).
I think it was the Previn book with orchestral musician interviews
that said the LSO used a set of rebarred Sacre parts by Monteux of all
people. I think it was Tuckwell who said it drived them nuts reading
the parts & following Monteux that they'd resort to the original
parts.

------------
Eric
The Historian
2012-08-14 09:16:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
Post by The Historian
A little off-topic, but allegedly Eugene Ormandy couldn't conduct Le
Sacre without having the score 're-barred'. In light of Ormandy's
success with Bartok, I find the claim about Le Sacre hard to believe.
"Allegedly?" What's your source for that claim about Ormandy?
I recall reading a comment either here or elsewhere by the "Locked In
The Vaults" owner, an oboe player.

Then there's this...

http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=24945

"Ormandy was by all accounts a very practical musician. If he found
something that he felt did not work in performance he did not hesitate
to try to fix it. A rather extreme example of this approach is evident
in his reworking of the time signatures in Stravinsky's "Danse
sacrale" from Le sacre du printemps. (21) Ormandy rewrote the time
signatures, incorporating measures into larger metric units to reduce
the number of changes in time signature (fig. 2). The documentation of
Ormandy's changes extends to the parts he had written out in the new
meters. (22)
"While this rewriting reduced the number of time signature changes, it
also obscured the placement of accents essential to the nature of the
passage. Michael Bookspan, percussionist with the orchestra from 1953
to 2002, bluntly stated of the performance with the rewritten meters,
"It didn't work. It was not a good performance." (23)

******************

(21.) Igor Stravinsky, Le sacre du printemps: Danse sacrale, rev.
version 1943 (New York: Associated Music Pub., 1945), Ormandy
Collection of Scores, box 294. This 1943 revision of the "Danse
sacrale" was issued separately.

(22.) Leopold Stokowski (who conducted the U.S. premiere of the work
on 3 March 1922) also marked his score (1921 edition) of this passage
with metrical indications. The score is in the University of
Pennsylvania's Leopold Stokowski Collection of Scores, Ms. Coll. 350,
box 197, and the passage in question is visible online at
http://www.library.upenn.edu/special/ga ... c/7-1.html (accessed 20
February 2003). Unlike Ormandy, who attempted to simplify the score's
metrical changes by incorporating them into larger metrical units,
Stokowski's markings never violate the barlines as written by
Stravinsky. In fact, the subdivisions marked by Stokowski are in
alliance with the changes Stravinsky made to the meters in the 1929
miniature score. It is quite likely that Stokowski's markings were
made sometime after 1929, and that he simply transferred the meters
from the newer edition to the 1921 edition already in Isis possession.
(23.) Michael Bookspan, oral history conducted by Sharon Eisenhour, 10
July 1992, Ormandy Oral History collection, transcript, 31.
Post by Mark S
And how - exactly - would one re-bar Le sacre without changing the
rhythmic stresses? Perhaps what you mean is that Ormandy grouped
measures into larger beat patterns. That's done all the time (prime
example: the Scherzo of Beethoven's 9th).
MiNe 109
2012-08-14 12:07:17 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Mark S
Post by The Historian
A little off-topic, but allegedly Eugene Ormandy couldn't conduct Le
Sacre without having the score 're-barred'. In light of Ormandy's
success with Bartok, I find the claim about Le Sacre hard to believe.
"Allegedly?" What's your source for that claim about Ormandy?
And how - exactly - would one re-bar Le sacre without changing the
rhythmic stresses? Perhaps what you mean is that Ormandy grouped
measures into larger beat patterns. That's done all the time (prime
example: the Scherzo of Beethoven's 9th).
There's this, from a NY Times Letter to the Editor:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/09/arts/l-difficult-rhythms-grateful-condu
ctors-516678.html

According to the memoirs of Nicolas Slonimsky, the great Russian emigre
musicologist, Serge Koussevitzky was utterly incapable of negotiating
the complex rhythmic changes in the score and relied on Slonimsky's
mathematical skills to aid him. Slonimsky was able, for instance, to
combine a succession of bars of 3/16, 2/8, 1/16, 4/8 into a single bar
of 4/4 (with irregular downbeats, of course). After Slonimsky rebarred
Stravinsky's entire work in blue pencil, a grateful but mystified
Koussevitzky used the score for the rest of his life.

In fact, Bernstein himself found Slonimsky's markings invaluable, as he
wrote in a 1984 letter: ''Every time I conduct 'Le Sacre,' as I did most
recently two weeks ago (and always from Koussy's own score, with your
rebarring), I admire and revere and honor you as I did the very first
time. Bless you, and more power to you. Lenny B.''
Mark S
2012-08-14 17:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MiNe 109
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/09/arts/l-difficult-rhythms-grateful-condu
ctors-516678.html
According to the memoirs of Nicolas Slonimsky, the great Russian emigre
musicologist, Serge Koussevitzky was utterly incapable of negotiating
the complex rhythmic changes in the score and relied on Slonimsky's
mathematical skills to aid him. Slonimsky was able, for instance, to
combine a succession of bars of 3/16, 2/8, 1/16, 4/8 into a single bar
of 4/4 (with irregular downbeats, of course). After Slonimsky rebarred
Stravinsky's entire work in blue pencil, a grateful but mystified
Koussevitzky used the score for the rest of his life.
In fact, Bernstein himself found Slonimsky's markings invaluable, as he
wrote in a 1984 letter: ''Every time I conduct 'Le Sacre,' as I did most
recently two weeks ago (and always from Koussy's own score, with your
rebarring), I admire and revere and honor you as I did the very first
time. Bless you, and more power to you. Lenny B.''
Thanks for that...and also thanks to Historian for his citation.

As I said, rebarring smaller measures into larger beat patterns is a
pretty common practice. It certainly makes it physically easier for
the conductor and visually easier for the orchestra. I did my own
rebarring of the Le sacre score as a conducting student at university
in my junior year.

As far as the rebarring disrupting the stresses, there's an easy
solution for that - the conductor tells the orchestra, "don't forget
to play all of the stresses as indicated."

The rebarring is most-apt near the end of the piece, where the meter
changes with each bar, such as rehearsal 186 (B&H) where the bar-by-
bar meters are 5/16-2/8-1/8-2/8-5/16-2/8-5/16 etc. One can conduct
such passages with a new downbeat on ever bar, but the visual result
is one of a flailing condcutor. For instance, how do you clearly
indicate the differences in the 5 beats in a 5/16 bar when the next
bar is a 2/8 (which is equal to 4/16) with a downbeat for each bar?
It's much easier to group the bars into large 2, 3 and 4 patterns
where the beats have unequal length, because as your baton travels to
the next point in the beat pattern you can make clear physical
adjustments that play visually to the orchestra. Plus, if you elect to
give a downbeat on every bar, you have to deal with the motion of
making an upbeat and coming down in the same spot for each downbeat.
Much easier to have the arm traveling in a 3- or 4-beat pattern. Try
it yourself at home.
M forever
2012-08-15 01:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark S
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/09/arts/l-difficult-rhythms-grateful-c...
ctors-516678.html
According to the memoirs of Nicolas Slonimsky, the great Russian emigre
musicologist, Serge Koussevitzky was utterly incapable of negotiating
the complex rhythmic changes in the score and relied on Slonimsky's
mathematical skills to aid him. Slonimsky was able, for instance, to
combine a succession of bars of 3/16, 2/8, 1/16, 4/8 into a single bar
of 4/4 (with irregular downbeats, of course). After Slonimsky rebarred
Stravinsky's entire work in blue pencil, a grateful but mystified
Koussevitzky used the score for the rest of his life.
In fact, Bernstein himself found Slonimsky's markings invaluable, as he
wrote in a 1984 letter: ''Every time I conduct 'Le Sacre,' as I did most
recently two weeks ago (and always from Koussy's own score, with your
rebarring), I admire and revere and honor you as I did the very first
time. Bless you, and more power to you. Lenny B.''
Thanks for that...and also thanks to Historian for his citation.
As I said, rebarring smaller measures into larger beat patterns is a
pretty common practice. It certainly makes it physically easier for
the conductor and visually easier for the orchestra. I did my own
rebarring of the Le sacre score as a conducting student at university
in my junior year.
As far as the rebarring disrupting the stresses, there's an easy
solution for that - the conductor tells the orchestra, "don't forget
to play all of the stresses as indicated."
The rebarring is most-apt near the end of the piece, where the meter
changes with each bar, such as rehearsal 186 (B&H) where the bar-by-
bar meters are 5/16-2/8-1/8-2/8-5/16-2/8-5/16 etc. One can conduct
such passages with a new downbeat on ever bar, but the visual result
is one of a flailing condcutor. For instance, how do you clearly
indicate the differences in the 5 beats in a 5/16 bar when the next
bar is a 2/8 (which is equal to 4/16) with a downbeat for each bar?
It's much easier to group the bars into large 2, 3 and 4 patterns
where the beats have unequal length, because as your baton travels to
the next point in the beat pattern you can make clear physical
adjustments that play visually to the orchestra. Plus, if you elect to
give a downbeat on every bar, you have to deal with the motion of
making an upbeat and coming down in the same spot for each downbeat.
Much easier to have the arm traveling in a 3- or 4-beat pattern. Try
it yourself at home.
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?

LOL
Mark S
2012-08-15 02:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?
No. :)
Doug McDonald
2012-08-15 16:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by M forever
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?
They don't actually turn their gaze towards the conductor.
But those in the right position can and do see the baton's
motion in the side of their eyes, keep in sync with it, and
the rest follow along aurally. They don't have to see every
beat, just "signal average" to tempo.

Remember that Stravinsky said "tempo, tempo" about
such passages. This is as opposed to "rubato, rubato".

Doug McDonald
Mark S
2012-08-15 19:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by M forever
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?
They don't actually turn their gaze towards the conductor.
But those in the right position can and do see the baton's
motion in the side of their eyes, keep in sync with it, and
the rest follow along aurally. They don't have to see every
beat, just "signal average" to tempo.
What's more important is that the conductor not do anything weird in
performance that he didn't do in rehearsal. That can trip up the
players. Simon Rattle incorporates doing these kind of things as part
of his technique to keep players on their toes, or so he's said.

As far as beat patterns and grouping bars together in Le sacre, the
conductor needs to feel comfortable about what he's doing. He needs to
feel he's being accurate in leading the piece, whether the players are
looking at him or not. What will throw players off is if a conductor
doesn't look comfortable with what he's doing in pieces where the time
signature is changing rapidly. If it all looks like a mad scramble
from the podium, the players are left to their own devices, which can
only work for so long. Eventually things pull apart, and players start
dropping out.

If the conductor is being accurate and does what he did in rehearsal,
players will be able to grab a quick visual cue when and if they need
it.

BTW - I once sang in a Beethoven 9th at Carnegie Hall where the
conductor (Peter Tiboris) could not conduct the trio of the Scherzo
correctly. His beats were reversed - the downbeat was on the upbeat,
and vice versa. At the dress rehearsal, he screwed up once again. When
the movement ended, he asked the 1st chair Horn (who was also the
orchestral contractor) if he had "got it right" that time. "No," came
the answer, "but don't worry. We know the piece. As long as you
continue to do it wrong, we know what you mean, and we'll play it
correctly for you. Just don't decide to get it right halfway through
the performance."

Everyone had a good laugh (even those of us in the chorus who were
pissed that they made us sit on stage for the whole damn piece during
a dress rehearsal).
Matthew B. Tepper
2012-08-15 20:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Mark S <***@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:94d1f388-3773-4482-a704-b4f9461ef885
Post by Mark S
Post by M forever
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?
They don't actually turn their gaze towards the conductor. But those in
the right position can and do see the baton's motion in the side of
their eyes, keep in sync with it, and the rest follow along aurally.
They don't have to see every beat, just "signal average" to tempo.
What's more important is that the conductor not do anything weird in
performance that he didn't do in rehearsal. That can trip up the
players. Simon Rattle incorporates doing these kind of things as part
of his technique to keep players on their toes, or so he's said.
I was just the other day flipping through a book of Beecham stories
(titled, of all things, Beecham Stories), and there was a quote from Sir
Thomas claiming that his rehearsals were just run-throughs, and that he
would always do something different during the performance to keep the
orchestra on its collective toes. I rather think he was kidding.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
M forever
2012-08-17 00:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by M forever
So you actually think that orchestral musicians look at the conductor
in such passages and read the meter from his gestures?
They don't actually turn their gaze towards the conductor.
But those in the right position can and do see the baton's
motion in the side of their eyes, keep in sync with it, and
the rest follow along aurally. They don't have to see every
beat, just "signal average" to tempo.
Very true! BTW, have you ever played Le Sacre in an orchestra?
Post by Doug McDonald
Remember that Stravinsky said "tempo, tempo" about
such passages. This is as opposed to "rubato, rubato".
Doug McDonald
Loading...