Post by Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:emo2c.10894$k4.230243
Post by Lionel Tacchini Post by Matthew B. Tepper Post by maddawg Post by Eric Grunin Post by RX-01 Post by REG
Please retitle thread...Bruckner tempi vrs. Celibidache.
I don't think I should -- it won't make any difference on the number
of responses I'll get. The current title is on-topic anyway.
He was making a joke...
...although the joke should be "Celibidache vs. Bruckner tempi". The
tempi aren't fighting Celi; if anything, they're losing the battle.
Having seen him conduct a 77-minute 4th in 1989, I would concur.
He took it up to 86 mn a few years later.
Ai ai ai!
...and herein lies a real problem: Celibidache makes Bruckner sound just as
pompous and boring as some people believe all of his music is. Yes, I know
the argument about the score never containing all that there is to know
about a work; otherwise, there would be no such thing as "interpretation".
However, most scores have at least general guidelines about how the music
should be played -- otherwise, why bother with all those funny little
Italian or German messages placed all of the score, not to mention all the
p's and f's, supplanted occasionally by the letter m? Couple the markings
with a knowledge of the composer's biographical details and one can pretty
much come up with a relatively narrow range of what the composer might have
Now I'm not saying that *all* deviant interpretations are bad. I (as well
as many others) happen to be fascinated by Klemperer's Mahler 7th, although
I could never recommend it to anyone as the only recording to have.
Similarly, I find some of Celibidache's slow interpretations quite
interesting, especially because of some of the detail which one can hear.
However, it strikes me that more often than not, Celibidache is hijacking
the music and making it his and his alone. Sorry, Sergiu, but the music is
by Bruckner, and you're supposed to be at *his* service!
Aaron Z Snyder, a.k.a. maddawg